Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

I know this is not what you want to hear, but as I've posted before, a jetliner did crash into the pentagon on September 11th. My friend's sister sat in her office across the highway and watched the plane crash right into it. Just because the government shouldn't always be believed, doesn't mean it is always lying. I respect your suspicion, but you're barking up the wrong tree and should focus your energies in places where there really are things to discover.

reply to post by exlibertateveritas

Just as a matter of curiosity would you be able to give us the address of her office or failing that a photo of the area, indicating her vantage point. I myself find it very unusual that while most people were looking at their TV sets that morning, even in offices around the US, your sister was looking out the window at the Pentagon.

reply to post by ipsedixit

One of the problems from the public's point of view and a golden opportunity from a propagandist's point of view is that Hollywood movies have conditioned Americans, and indeed people everywhere, to accept impossible scenarios as plausible.

Excellent point. And very true.

I am having trouble coming up with an appropriate missile for that. Such things as a Global Hawk are more surveillance tools. A Tomahawk LAM might be appropriate but those and GH are all turbojets. Another aircraft firing a Hellfire missile is solid fuel and air-launched but that doesn't take out the light standards with a large wing profile, just has fins, etc., etc.

His idea of the smell get me thinking but not answering the questions. Without video it is hard to tell what, witness reports vary. The people that saw a commuter could be talking about a cruise missile. HARM missiles can be launced from large planes that could launch then escape by cover of the explosion. HARMs are anti-radiation for taking out radar sites and such. The smell could just be a confusion of the burning debris.

I'm chasing a dead-end for any definite possibilities. Always radio-control possibilities. Airliner is possible as they say but it seems there was maneuverability question.

reply to post by exlibertateveritas


I respect what your family member said she saw. But within that same context as I have said before, on the morning of 9/11 many people were going to work and just getting their day started. All of sudden an airborne object comes speeding by at 500+ mph (OS statement) painted up with AA color scheme. How fast is that for someone to properly recognize as an actual airliner or, a good sized fast moving object. Everyone pretty much is familiar with AA colors. So the time of day plays an important part into this. No one would be expecting this to happen. Commuters are talking on their cell phones, driving in traffic on the beltway, trying to get where they are going. Then all of a sudden there comes a speeding object overhead, they stop their vehicle and by that point when they look at where it was or where they think it should be, its just a colored speeding object. The mind tells them it was an AA airplane. When it might not have been such.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
I am having trouble coming up with an appropriate missile for that. Such things as a Global Hawk are more surveillance tools. A Tomahawk LAM might be appropriate but those and GH are all turbojets. Another aircraft firing a Hellfire missile is solid fuel and air-launched but that doesn't take out the light standards with a large wing profile, just has fins, etc., etc.

The CIT guys go into a lot of detail about the light standards. They believe that they were all taken down in advance, in preparation for the explosive main event. Other threads and their video presentations explain in detail their reasons for believing this.

Originally posted by roboe

Your Welcome.

Boy, my eyes got all big and I was really anticipating being able to view all that footage!

Nice to see you doing work for the other team for the first time on these boards!

It's ridiculous to even think a plane could get near the White House. Do you think the #1 super power in the world would let anything that large, let alone moving that slowly, hit the pentagon?

It's a no brainer. The question isn't WHAT hit the pentagon, it's WHY is our government hiding the fact that they assisted in the explosion themselves?

I'll be posting an eye opening video in a few minutes that explains WHY our government did this and WHY we are in the middle east.

It's a question of our position as #1 super power in the world (which we WILL not be unless we make a HUGE military move by 2015). The US dollar will no longer be the oil currency, and our gas prices will rise to well above $5/gallon. Our economy will collapse and inflation will ensue. It's going to be a hell of a ride...

The engine seen below at the Pentagon closely resembles the one installed in the Global Hawk (seen in the photo) The size of an engine in the supposed AA airliner stands around 6ft tall lying in the same position as the one seen in the pic below where the rescue worker is standing.


FEMA

Below the engine of a Global Hawk from official Air Force photo. About the same size as in the photo above.


Air Force

Below is a 757's engine. See any size difference?


Farm3

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by mikelee

 

He fully believes it was Al Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden that attacked us that day. His problem was the massive CYA done by various individuals to hide their ineptitude.

Al-Qaeda?

Working under Rumsfeld, you should know about this. Perhaps you prefer the smell of compost?

Wow, double post!

reply to post by OuttaTime

The nosecone would have hit the 2nd floor, while the tail section would have been up near the 3rd floor (the tail section tip is about 45' from the ground). For the tail section to go through the 2nd floor, the plane would have to be on its belly (meaning the engines were gone and there would be tandem impact trenches in the yard for atleast 200' before the impact).

Sorry. Wrong on all accounts (well not quite all... second floor hole was the flight deck and the structural part of the tail, not just the tail ). See the scale drawing in the bottom right cell in the image below.

Are you seeing the 90+ foot hole now, by the way?



(Don't forget to use the scroll bar to see the right side of the image)

i've seen pictures of plane crashes, and you could definitely tell a plane crashed. just the fire from the jet fuel buring would leave an massive unmistakable billow of black smoke. you would also see the tail section, that piece alone is almost always intact. the lawn should be black from the thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning uncontrollably. yet in the videos, the lawn doesn't even have a skidmark. it doesn't even look like a car hit the building, let alone a twin engine passenger jet, loaded with aviation fuel.

a plane that big just doesn't completely disintegrate into a few inch long pieces scattered on a lawn.

compare the damage that the planes did to the twin towers, then compare it to the damage done to the pentagon. it's not even close. it's almost laughable.

Originally posted by Human_Alien


But what say you to Flight 77 (Pentagon)? Where do you suppose that plane disappeared to?
It clearly.... without a doubt....did not hit the Pentagon so, where did it go? Was it even a real flight that day?

Video Removed?

This video was used to answer that very question. I have it in other locations, give me some time to locate it for you? This site is hard to navigate, but it has alot of pertinent info.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

The nosecone would have hit the 2nd floor, while the tail section would have been up near the 3rd floor (the tail section tip is about 45' from the ground). For the tail section to go through the 2nd floor, the plane would have to be on its belly (meaning the engines were gone and there would be tandem impact trenches in the yard for atleast 200' before the impact).

Sorry. Wrong on all accounts (well not quite all... second floor hole was the flight deck and the structural part of the tail, not just the tail ). See the scale drawing in the bottom right cell in the image below.

Are you seeing the 90+ foot hole now, by the way?



(Don't forget to use the scroll bar to see the right side of the image)

edit on 27/12/2010 by rnaa because: added mea culpa about the tail section causing the 2nd floor hole

the picture of the burnig car sums it up, a 757 twin engine passenger plane loaded with jet fuel collides with such force into a building that it completely disintegrates, yet that same force barely damages a white car a few feet away from the impact site. at the very least, the car should be tipped over. unless the car is made with the same supernatural materials used to construct the pentagon 60+ years ago.

reply to post by rnaa


While your diagram is impressive, it fails in one key aspect.
The plane did not fly in perpendicular with the building. (According to the OS)

Furthermore, if the plane was in tact when the rear wings (tail) hit, as your diagram suggests, and they didnt break the barrier of the building to enter inside, there should be some form of wreckage left on the exterior for all to see.

reply to post by mikelee

Below is a 757's engine. See any size difference?

Yes. The piece from the crash sight is WAAAY too big to be from the Global Hawk. Notice that the crash site object doesn't have the fins anymore, they've been ripped off in the crash.

The entire fan assembly with the fins on the GH is about the size of the baseball strike zone, shoulder to knees, but the central core, without the fans, is only a bit bigger than the guys head.

The entire fan assembly with the fins on the 757 is about the size of a man, but the central core, without the fans, is just a bit smaller than the strike zone, maybe shoulder to crotch.

The central core pictured from the crash sight exactly matches the one with the guys sitting in the cowling.

So, remind me, what is your point again?

reply to post by mikelee


With the discovered engine and its small size I agree but don't think the global Hawk is the right platform. I would be more willing to guess a Tomahawk or a SLAM-ER.

reply to post by rnaa


That 90 ft hole you reference was only visible after the building collasped. A point used by believer in the OS to promote this fairy tale. The impact point as cited by FEMA during their photographic sessions is below. And it is not no where near "90 feet".

FEMA archives

reply to post by randomname


Not to mention the rolls of wire or tubing or whatever it is.
The right engine, according to pictures, should have hit it.