100% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

reply to post by tpg65


I could probably buy and sell you, but what does that have to do with logic?

You need to get a reality check, really bad. There are so many real problems in this world, and holding on to a shred of any 'evidence' that this was not a bonifide terrorist attack on this good old USA is really a fools errand.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Immortalgemini527

 

I don't mean to offend here and I might be wrong, but you and SkepticandBeliever legitimately sound like you're the same person, almost as if you have two accounts and you're pretending to be two people because you feel that will give your arguments more punch. You two guys both believe the OS, which on this website is a small fraction, and coincidentally seem to post at the same time on the same thread. On top of that you both seem to attack people's credibility by emphasizing how outrageous the idea of such a conspiracy theory is without really providing any evidence to back up your claims, other than your opinion, and more attacks.

The idea of you logging onto two different accounts is ironic since you're making "mental health" jokes about truthers as if they're delusional and insane for believing in a theory with a good amount of evidence to back up, while you're switching between accounts to back up your YouTube animation video.

edit on 21-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

Took me a while to find your post, seen in a reply from 'Walter Mitty' Anyway, the cartoon depicts the same flight track as given in the official cartoon from flight data. Trouble is some eyewitness is from police and their perceived direction of travel is left of the petrol station and from others, overflying the Naval Annex which corresponds with the policemens view. That is a problem not as yet satisfactorily explained. The Doubletree video in context is useful in that it shows that there is lttle divergence in the path of whatever hit the pentagon. There is evidence of 16 surveillance, possibly high quality cameras procured by the FBI from the pentagon. I would presume that they would be equally mounted around the five faces of the Pentagon, a similar hq camera has been pictured on the helipad tower would make up the last. That means at least three cameras on the impact facade seeing something incoming, that is what they were there for. So where is the footage? it makes no sense to not release any pictures. Of course if there were no pictures captured, (aka not working, or compromised) it would be a huge embarrassment for security, but it could be explained by a more complete downing of intranet throughout the military intranet systems on the day. Who you gonna call?

reply to post by charlyv


Not a mechanic, but grew up with an Air Force Father and have been in many many hangers and air shows both military and commercial(I loved planes as a kid). You bring up some good points as to the shredding, I admit and concede to those points however, the hole is still not of proper dimensions, neither are the destruction level and debris amounts. My point with the engines was to show there should have been at the very least scratch marks on the walls from their impact. As you can see in the original photo of the impact prior to the collapse there is not scratch damage nor mortar damage to the walls around the hole. So, unless the plane was empty of all its interior(thus no passengers, seats, luggage, etc.) and the wings suddenly swept back and dissolved along with the tail and stabilizers, then the plane shrank to a 12.25 foot diameter and the fuel was inside the fuselage instead of the wings then this was not a 757. My guess is that the plane parts were inside the Pentagon and were thrown out in or after the explosion. Its too bad that some eclectic millionaire doesn't recreate the events to prove it for the ney sayers.

So lets take a closer look at that hole again shall we?

See no damage to the bricks and mortar. Also whats with the spray paint on the outside right saying "Punch Out"? and WAIT um no debris on the inside visible? and Wait again whats with the little scorch mark above the hole. Sorry you must be right it has to be a 757. (Sarcasm intended)

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
1. If it wasn’t an airplane then what was it?

I have no idea. I subscribe to no theory at all on this issue. I just have questions.

2. If it wasn’t an airplane where are all the passengers?

I have no idea. Again I do not subscribe to any theory on the issue of the Pentagon on 9/11.

3. If it was missiles how could one missile knock down streetlights and stay on course?

I would assume it can not, but that does not mean that whatever hit the Pentagon actually hit the light poles. This is one very specific area based on what eyewitnesses have stated in comparison to the damage path that I have questions about.

4. Why do you not believe your government?

My Government has lied to me before. They actually make a habit of it. Just off the top of my head I can think of a few examples. "Read my lips no new taxes", "I did not have sexual relations with that women Monica Lewinski", "We never could have imagined planes being used as weapons and crashed into buildings", The Tuskegee Experiment. Now I realize those are not on the same line as 9/11 but I will add more when we get to question 6.

5. What does ‘OS’ MEAN?

It means Official Story as in the Government account of events.

6. DO you honestly and really think our beloved government would kill all those people, and if yes…why?

Yes I do and I believe it because they have done it before. If we look at The Gulf on Tonkin incident which brought the US into the Vietnam War and killed several 10's of thousands of US Soldiers, we now know it was all a lie. The sinking of the USS Maine which brought us into the Spanish American War is also highly questionable. Of course let us not forget Iraq and the bogus intelligence claiming Weapons of Mass destruction. These are all lies which resulted in the death of Americans, so I do not think it is too far out of the question that my Government would use an event on the scale of 9/11 as a pretext take the country into war.

7. What happened to the passengers if the twin towers and the pentagon was all cgi or some holographic big time Steven Spielberg Illusion?

I personally do not subscribe to these types of silly theories nor do I think it is fair to lump everyone who does question 9/11 into one big group to suggest that we all believe such nonsense.

8. What knocked the streetlights down?

This is a question I have. As I said there are many eyewitnesses who claim the plane approached the Pentagon from the North side of the Citgo Building, which if that is indeed true, there is no possible way that the plane could have knocked down the light post. IN order for that to happen the plane would have had to make an approach from the South side of the Citgo Building.

9. Hundreds of eyewitnesses say it was an airplane…not a missile or anything looking or pertaining to a missile.

I agree. There is no shortage of witnesses who saw the airplane though there seems to be plenty of debate about the approach. I even watched some testimony from one witness who claims to have seen 2 planes and once I get home from work I am hoping to hear more of his account of the events.

10. Do you really think that the president or any other form of US government would have the galls to play with the pentagon and its families like that?

I think history speaks for itself and if it was viewed as being for the "greater good" then absolutely yes, but I tend to believe it would be a faction within the Government not the Government as a whole.

11. What’s to gain if the government was involved?

The War on Terror. War is profitable. As a direct result of 9/11 we now have a never ending war with no clear enemy. We have invaded and now occupy 2 countries while we bomb 3 more. We have established permanent military bases in places we could have only dreamed of prior to 9/11. Have you ever read the document from PNAC? It is very tough to deny that what we saw in that document has indeed come to pass all because of 9/11.

To me, the only conspiracy I see in all of the 911 events that happened was,‘ building 7’ and the last air plane that was shot down by our government, other then those 2,the rest are 100% conclusive that it did happen…PERIOD!

I agree building 7 is a conspiracy. I do not know if flight 11 was shot down or not, though I do have questions. I disagree however that everything else is 100% conclusive. I still have questions.

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
I am so glad we can finally put this conspiracy to rest. This video shows 100% conclusive Evidence that an airplane hit the pentagon.

When was this video made? It looks familiar to me. There was something like this released a couple of years ago, I believe, and I think I remember it being debunked at the time.

Your post makes it sound like this is something new. Do you believe it is a new video and that out in the real world there are still organizations investigating and theorizing about 9/11? Or are we just pretending to be relevant now, to confuse people who are new to this topic?

A lot of the hardcore 9/11 mavens have moved on to other things in life. This seems to have encouraged a return of the "insincere" to this forum, sort of like a return of the dandelions to the lawn.

Ah yes, I remember this animation. It even has the phoney looking smoke trailing from the airplane, just like in the fake five frames of security cam footage released by the defense department.

Isn't that an incredible coincidence!?!?!? Well, that changes everything! I apologize for doubting. George W. Bush wasn't a crook and a liar and a war criminal after all.

I'm so relieved. I was beginning to think that there was something strange happening in America, like maybe that the crooks had finally taken over, but thanks OP. Now I know I was wrong. Boy, I'm relieved. A star and a flag for you.

reply to post by IPILYA


Ok, then let's step back a bit and get off the angry part of this.

I was a military aircrewman and a forensic crash detective. I have seen some of the worst of the worst when it comes to plane crash debris.I want to help you get through this conspiracy thing but the logic is up to you. Your hole is an "EXIT" hole on the other side of the building , made by one of the engines. Also, the extreme ends of wings are of such low mass, they usually dislocate in a high-speed impact and fold back into the meat of the wing, as with the top of the tail and vertical stabilizers. You cannot get an impact map from these objects as the collateral damage caused by the main bulk of the inner wings and fuselage have fragmented the entry area to such a degree, it is like a bomb went off.

You do not have to believe me, but I wish you would. Put this puppy to rest in the catagory it deserves. There was no conspiracy as to what hit it. I have no information as to any conspiracy that would have caused it, and none of us will ever know that part of it, if it indeed is of such an unthinkable nature.

Originally posted by charlyv
I was a military aircrewman and a forensic crash detective.

You mean investigator don't you, detective? I don't believe a word of what you are saying. No aircraft engine battering through a wall is going to leave a cookie cutter style hole in it. It's going to knock the whole wall down, or at least leave anything but a round hole in a brick wall.

I'm not a dummy and you aren't a crash investigator. Unfortunately the T&C doesn't permit me to specify just what you are, but I imagine most people can figure it out for themselves.

Thanks for the vid OP. Im so tired of hearing 9/11 "truth" nonsense. The animation clearly shows how an airplane could have caused all the damage, the pics provided clearly show airplane debris including the remains of jet engines and the security camera footage frozen a split second before impact clearly shows the tail of an airplane. Yet the evidence is denied.

Theyll believe that an airplane, weighing several tons, flying 200 mph or so couldnt penetrate a reinforced concrete structure, yet a vastly smaller missile could not only penetrate, but get inside before exploding. And the "backwards column" which, theoretically, could have only been blown out by a missle? They think an airplane exploding couldnt create the same effect?

There is also a video about 136 eyewitnesses. I guess they were all suffering from one mass delusion. And the families who lost loved ones on that flight also must be suffering mass delusion 10 years later, as clearly, since it was a missle, those same loved ones arrived at their destinations that day and didnt, in fact, perish in the crash. Nonsense.

The 9/11 Truth movement needs to be laid to rest. If for nothing more than for respect for the people who died that day due to PLANE CRASHES!

Heres the vid I mentioned:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by CarlitosAmsel
Some people like to play with the subject like Kids play with toys "lets turn this block around that way"...
There was no plane at the Pentagon. We dont need to split hairs or get scientific about it. All we need is a healthy pair of eyes and a functioning brain.

Claiming that it didn't happen simply because there are no photographs of the precise moment it hit the Pentagon is being uninformed and ignorant. There is just too large a preponderance of eyewitness accounts available that make the absense of photographs or video completely moot.

edit on 21-6-2011 by GoodOlDave because: Corrected my spelling to placate the grammar Nazis

I'm not asking for a picture, I'm asking for the surviellance video from the Sheraton Hotel that had a perfect view of where the attack happened...The FBI confiscated it and 10 years later we still havent seen it...If so many people saw a plane fly into the Pentagon, why are they so scared to release the surviellance video that would show the attack as it happened....NO, I do not want to take the governments word for it...As a CITIZEN I want to see PROOF with my own eyes that a plane flew into the Pentagon, if they do release that video one day and it SHOWS that flight entering the building, I promise I will stop with the accusations, but until then, I aint going anywhere....

reply to post by charlyv


I wish to share a U2U that was sent to me by weedwhacker.

...in THIS post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The first picture is NOT the "entry hole". It is the punch-out in the E-ring, deep inside the building, where debris travelled as part of the Boeing 757 carried through.

The LAST picture is NOT a B-757 engine, either. Search at TinEye.com....look for the link to old fashioned pictures, of airline crews. That was from the 1970s, maybe the 1960s....look at the uniform style...the B-757 wasn't designed until the late 1980s. In any case, you are only seeing the N1 fan, there....NOT the core of the engine, nor all the internal parts.

Really, it would help a lot if you repair the disinfo you are spreading in that post.....unless, of course, you want to spread those lies??

This is a diagram of an actual RB-211-535 engine, as was installed on AAL 77, a Boeing 757 that impacted the Pentagon on September 11, 2001:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a9d34a84af70.jpg[/atsimg]

Please try to correct yourself, the bad information you posted is not accurate.

Both with this U2U and your post in reply to mine show that my information is incorrect and incomplete.
I wish to thank both of you for bringing these issues to my attention. I am not interested in spreading lies. It was my understanding that the information I had was correct and now know this to be in the very least incomplete and out of perspective. I will do further research and base a new opinion on the new information. Again thank you both.

reply to post by ipsedixit

You mean investigator don't you, detective? I don't believe a word of what you are saying. No aircraft engine battering through a wall is going to leave a cookie cutter style hole in it. It's going to knock the whole wall down, or at least leave anything but a round hole in a brick wall.

I'm not a dummy and you aren't a crash investigator. Unfortunately the T&C doesn't permit me to specify just what you are, but I imagine most people can figure it out for themselves.

No, detective is the word when you are charged with investigating an aircraft accident while in the military. I have a few thousand hours in certain types of jet aircraft, and in the service, you are assigned forensic duties when you have a demonstrated familiarity with the aircraft you flew in, and the ordinance it carried , if any.

I really do not care what you think, but you too need a reality check on your logic. Exit wounds show raping or 'pulling' of material off an exit surface. In this case, it is really easy, as the exit wall has a brick surface face. You can see the pulling of the bricks around the edges of the hole. This could NEVER look this way if an object was going into this surface. If so, there would be fracture inward and jagged inward edges. This shows a punch from the other side, pure and simple. This is such a prime example, you will see it along with others in a text book.

I am really sorry you feel that way about me. I wonder how much time you spent defending your country.
I did 2 tours, 1969 to 1977. Tell me what you were doing in those years?

reply to post by Immortalgemini527


Thank you for your post. I believe that the Pentagon was hit by a plane. As soon as I saw that it happened on the news I always pictured it like something I saw on a tv show before it happend. I found it on youtube.




The Pentagon may not have had walls but it did have reinforced concrete and it is the Pentagon. If I remember correctly the report said the plane hit going around 500 mph. So I'm not suprised the biggest pieces of depris you could pick up with their hand.

PDF file with many eyewitness accounts of folks that saw a plane near the Pentagon.
littlegreenfootballs.com...

Greta van Susteren, CNN legal analyst and anchor of "The Point," was on the roof of a parking structure at National Airport, with her husband.: "We saw a plane near the Pentagon and then heard this 'boom' "

Susan Carroll "I was standing on the platform high above the airport awaiting a Metro subway train to my office in the heart of the district, on Constitution Avenue, admiring the lovely blue skies when I saw the plane hit and the fireball and explosion at the Pentagon. At first, I didn't believe what I saw. At about the same time, the train approached the platform, and I remember turning to a fellow passenger and asking, 'What should we do?' "

reply to post by Immortalgemini527
Its over and done with! Like the Kennedy assination, we will never know the truth or except it if told. Get over it and move on.

reply to post by Alxandro

Greta van Susteren, CNN legal analyst and anchor of "The Point," was on the roof of a parking structure at National Airport, with her husband.: "We saw a plane near the Pentagon and then heard this 'boom' "

Yet the reporting from CNN was this:

Also, just my opinion, the folks with the bags getting out of the bus at :22 into the video, actually are carrying the debris in those bags.

And as far as other witnesses:



And a little slip-up from 9/11 Commissioner:

reply to post by billiam


I don't even know where to begin, there are so many flaws in your post that I want to vomit. First of all, even beginning to suggest the idea that an animation is 100% evidence that the official story is true and that we are all wrong because of it is sheer ignorance. The security cam footage is a joke, the 757 is not visible for a second like you claim, and your claim that a sliver of a tail is undeniable proof that the official story is true is beyond unbelievable. Do you think that is enough to put this to rest? A sliver of a tail that I don't see, and a YouTube animation makes up for the dozens, if not hundreds of flaws in the official story? All of the engineers, pilots, and physicists who have come forward and joined the truther movement are crazy for using their extensive knowledge of a certain subject to prove how the official story is flawed?

Pulling the "Oh goodness think of the families!" card is just offensive and that seriously makes me nauseous, that's something that a fool like Bill O'Reilly would pull. I could stay up all night typing up evidence that proves without a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag operation perpetrated by our government to get us in the Middle East. Do you think my use of factual information, recently de-classified government documents, and testimonies from engineers, pilots, ex-politicians, and physicists, all providing heaps of undeniable evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, would offend them? If anything you are the one who is being offensive towards the families, the evidence proves that the official story is filled with more holes than swiss cheese, and you think denying those families even the opportunity to consider an alternative theory as to how their loved ones were killed is offensive? That is a pathetic argument, and pulling that card just shows how desperate you really are, clinging to your government, unwilling to accept the world and society that we are living in. Legitimate Facts vs. weak spineless attempts at evoking pathos, your side of the coin really isn't looking too good, you patriot.

idk what hit the pentagon i wasnt there im guessing most everyone here wasnt either. what i do know is that rumsfeld reported the military didnt know what happened to 3 trillion dollars right before 9/11. and right after 9/11 they claimed the only two places that had the records of the 3 trillion were building 7 and the one wing of the pentagon that got hit. anyway boy thoses terorist really taught our mititary a lesson there. how do you hit a military target without the element of suprise using a slow moving attack(by military standards) and no one gets fired? you have to get really really lucky and hope your attacker gives your boss 3 trillion dollars that congress(or anyonelse) cant oversight. they didnt even toss us a scapegoat its THE pentagon you shouldnt be able to attack it without setting off an alarm/ground to air missle/something?? everyones arguing about what hit it.its like everyone saying they know who killed kenedy agreeing he was killed but no one cared it was too easy to kill a president??

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by czlong07

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527

Originally posted by czlong07
reply to post by Immortalgemini527

 

How do you know it was a plane? Were you standing next to the building when it went into the building? Were you on the flight? Were you, in some way, involved?

Its called common sense and using your brain,its not hard to do that.

I have both, and use both. However, you still have not been able to prove that it was a plane, or that it was not a missle. Your word is about as usefull as a bag of dung in a kitchen. Until you can prove these two things, then you have nothing but a baseless claim. I, however, do not know what it was. That is why I'm reading this. If you could, go ahead and prove that it was 100% a Commercial Jetliner that smashed a 60 foot hole in the side of a building.

Sorry to interrupt , but I think you'll find that the "documented " hole , left by the inpact of the missile , was 20 feet in diameter ....
Carry on

Where's your proof of that?

Can we change the title of the thread now.

15% conclusive evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon.

I think it clear at this point,
Most of the OS believer are pretty much over repling anything they can find here and there.
I mean if only they were focusing on the remaining 15% hard to debunk.
But dont expect me to give any hint of those remaining 15%.
I'm having way too much fun watching on how weak the debunkers has become.
On the other hand, its sad for the level of discussion,
Having to watch all those posts with like 5 reply in the same post for a 1 liner. /sigh.

Originally posted by Elieser
reply to post by userid1

 

They were not just government related people, read the information on your link, these were people involved in top secret stuff, look at the companies they worked for.
A quote from your link:
"The odds against this being a random group of 53 American Airlines passengers are simply astronomical! There are more top secret security clearances here than in most medium-sized cities in America."

And..... with a passenger list of that magnitude you would think that at an air marshal or some other type of security would have been on the plane. This might have even been a typically high profile government passenger list for that flight route and that would make you wonder why no security? And as mentioned the hijackers names would have also made the list.