Did a missile hit the pentagon on 911?

Its a simple solution really - America in particular the conspiracy theorists just cannot accept that an arab nation can perpetrate an act on American soil - they did get over it. Then address the problem - this sort of discussion is endemic of the disease - the right of America not to ever be attacked by lesser nations - I thought Pearl Harbour might have rung a few bells - but here we are 2 years after the tragic events of 9/11 still rehashing the old theories. If you persist in the ostrich theories that it was the NWO/CABAL etc you may long suffer such atrocities - if you pull your heads out of the sand and listen to what the world is telling you then we can work together to solve these issues.

Originally posted by John Nada
I find it very strange THENEO that you have posted this, in fact it has lead me to suspect that you are in fact a government spook spreading mis-information.

JN

Your reaction is natural, but Neo said some time back he would post this, and I quizzed him on why he would post something that is obviously wrong information, and he said in fact that he believed it.

If he genuinely doesn't believe it then yes, it is disinformation, and against the terms of use.

So you have to give a member the benefit of the doubt, at least once. And the thread (while the topic has been covered off at least eight times in six months) has obviously presented fresh info to some people... in which case, it has had some value.

I don't think there are spooks posting disinfo here. There are people with worse motives than Neo around.

Reading Neo's analysis elsewhere, he does not endorse the motives of Islamists and he doesn't like people who are Arabs. But at the same time, he believes Israel's Mossad were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. These things can co-exist in one headspace, but they do point in some respects to a white right-wing racist supremacist until he shows otherwise.

Well as you say you can't blame me for being suspicious, I just find it very unusual considering past thread discussions we had. I guess I haven't got his number just yet.

I was told that the plane hit the section of the pentagon where the Navy Intelligence is. Anyone know anything about this?

I don't understand what some of you were expecting.

Did you think that planes would crash into the WTC towers and the Pentagon, and emerge entirely intact from the other side of the buildings? There's quite a bit of "stuff" in between one side of a building and another. I witnessed the second plane crashing into the WTC but from the opposite side of where the plane came. This would mean i saw the creation of what you are calling the "exit hole". Well guess what, no plane exited the other side. A huge fireball did, and a lot of unidentifiable crap did. Does that mean something other than a plane hit it? Did the "exit hole" size match the size of a plane? I doubt it. I'm no forensics expert but have you ever seen the exit wound of a bullet? Quite a different size from the bullet itself isn't it? Many things must be taken into account when attempting to discuss entrance and exit wounds. The mass of the affected object, the mass and velocity of the impacting object, and the materials both are made of are among the factors. To try and simplify that in order to further some "theory" is to ignore the basic rules of physics.

No offense to anyone here but I still stick to my story. This object that struck the pentagon was no 757, it looked like one but it was not. My source is good and I stand by it. But I can understand why no-one believes me for one good reason and that is what happened to the flight itself that did head in that direction?

Once that can be explained or accepted than the idea of the pentagon strike being a drone is not so hard to accept.

The only question that I have for myself on this story is who put this contraption together? I already know that MOSSAD ran the 911 op with tacit CIA and FBI need to know support but people on the ground had to be working this project for some time.

What caused the plane and its contents to totally disintegrate? Thats a lot of disinegration.

The construction of the pentagon. It was build solid. The heat and force generated by the lightweight aluminium plane impacting would turn the thing to damn near dust.

In case you dont remember, airplanes are made of aluminum, which is lightweight, low melting point, disintigrates rather easily.

Silk, it is not a matter of whether a rag tag bunch of Arabs could pull this off. It is a question of the glaring ignoring, disregard, and absolute abscence of normal and often used security proceedures, an odd movement of govornment officials, an even odder reaction and behavior of govornment officals, the movement of money before the attacks, odd stockmartet spikes in put options in two airlines, ect that point our govornment was at the very least, complicit. Given all the evidence, its the only logical conclusiont hat they were involved. Of course Arabs could get in the country, and probably pull this off, at least part of it. But the entire airforce, FAA, NORAD< ect all alseep at the same time doing nothing? When the same emergency proceedures and interceptions have been performed 67 TIMES in 2001 before 9/11.

While I do believe the govornment had a hand in this, I dont believe a missile hit, it has to be the most ridiculous theory Ive heard yet. A real plane with real human flesh riding it hit the pentagon. Williams brother saqw it. Friends of mine in DC who still worked in DC saw it. Thousands of witnesses on the ground, on the beltway, looked up and lo and behold, they saw a plane acting very odd. Several airforce people, and several civilian experts, who can differentiate between a plane and a missile, who know both for thier livelyhood, saw a PLANE.

And by the way, being a former soldier in a missile unit, and having seen missile destruction, as well as missile firing, can tell you:

1. If it was a missile, it would have gone so fast no one would have seen anything but a streak of light. That is... a missile that was powerful and large enough to do this to the pentagon. The pentagon was built to withstand soviet monster missiles, so it would have had to have been a very large missile traveling entirely too fast. Little guided bunker busters, surface to surace, little smart bombs, do not have the punch needed to take down the most fortified building in the us. You need monster supersonic soviet fortress busters to do the job.
2. The size of the hole is small in comparison and in relation to the building, but the angles are misleading. since the building is half collapsed, you cant even make out stories and floors, let alone disninitgrated airplane parts.

Can we focus on the important thing, the odd behavior of flight 77 before impact, coupled with the fact that fighters, from andrews, who were in north carolina that day, flying training missions,werre not called back to DC after 2 planes already hit the WTC? Had they been called back home, they would have had plenty of time to catch flight 77 and take it down before it hit.....

You need not look for non existant missiles and all that to see that 9/11 was VERY suspicious.

Silk, it is not a matter of whether a rag tag bunch of Arabs could pull this off. It is a question of the glaring ignoring, disregard, and absolute abscence of normal and often used security proceedures, an odd movement of govornment officials, an even odder reaction and behavior of govornment officals, the movement of money before the attacks, odd stockmartet spikes in put options in two airlines, ect that point our govornment was at the very least, complicit.

I totally agree. All this stuff about missiles is getting in the way of looking at whats really important here: government actions. If you look carefully at all the evidence, the failure of NORAD for example, you can clearly see how the government has decieved so many people.

This link I just came across and it is very good analysis of this incident and supports my argument.

let us know what you think.

physics911.org...

I do find it intreguing that so little plane rubble was found, publically. Although I can understand a plane disintegrating at 400+ mph on impact, the shuttle that blew up over dallas area, had much higher distruction speed, and produced vast quantities of debris.

I have viewed all within that site, and many valid points are brought up for consideration.

Keeps me thinkin'.

Thats very intresting. But if it was a missile it would have been seen wouldent it have? It was more or less a plane that crashed into the PENTAGON.

-Dagger

The space shuttle did not ram into a solid concrete building. It broke apart in mid air, thus, big pieces can be found.

There was airplane wreckage found at the pentagon. Looking at those pictures shows nothing, because there is a whole bunch of # obscuring a full view. The airplane pieces, those that werent incinerated beyond recognition, were in the buildging, or scattered around. I dont get it why people think that from a few photos, that they are supposed to see rewcogonizable plane chunks everywhere. I have seen photos pf plane crashes before, and I could barely make out anything, and thse were whole pieces of plane. For all you know, you COULD be looking at plane wreckage in those pictures, but they are so mangled, battered, and incinerated, that you wouldnt know what youre looking for.

The angles, the distance, everything in those pictures is VERY misleading. I can tell from distance and the lack of clarity, that perception is distorted.

So, again, those photos pretty much show nothing, and the dude who still believes that a missile hit the pentagon is on drugs. There are plenty of regular people, investigators, ect that saw pieces and bodies and stuff laying around.

Originally posted by THENEO
No offense to anyone here but I still stick to my story.

Your story is flawed, especially since several people (as I mentioned, my brother included) saw the 757 from the highway next to the Pentagon.

ok,,i've looked at the articles and the pictures....there is no way in heck that the pentagon was hit by the 757!! unless it was of those new ones with the fold away wings made for use on an aircraft carrier. no way!! yeah....i know a bunch of people say they saw a low flying plane and the 'video evidence'... and if it was a missle or internal explosion....where the heck is flight 77?? did 'they' fabricate a flight?? has anyone heard of interviews/comments from any of the family members from the flight that 'crashed' into the pentagon.....i can recall comments from family members from the other 3 flights but not the forth (when i try to think about the 4th flight, it's like i can't concentrate on the subject...weird)....also, now that i have thought about it more...'they' really didn't give the pentagon 'crash' anywhere near the same coverage as the other 3 flights...go ahead,.... think about it
now if this stuff was in a 'court of supposed law' (oh there's another subject) the physical evidence is overwhelmingly against a plane crashing into the pentagon. all one has to do is look at pictures (or lack there of) but.......where is the forth flight???? did people actualy see a plane heading to the pentagon? could it have been a highjacked cruise missle? maybe a smaller, faster plane that 'they' don't want to admit that it was stolen? a realy fast dumptruck? can the forth flight really be accounted for??? what do u web sleuths think......"do you think that's air your breathing?...hmmm"

Originally posted by clearmind
ok,,i've looked at the articles and the pictures....there is no way in heck that the pentagon was hit by the 757!! unless it was of those new ones with the fold away wings made for use on an aircraft carrier. no way!! yeah....i know a bunch of people say they saw a low flying plane and the 'video evidence'... and if it was a missle or internal explosion....where the heck is flight 77?? did 'they' fabricate a flight?? has anyone heard of interviews/comments from any of the family members from the flight that 'crashed' into the pentagon.....i can recall comments from family members from the other 3 flights but not the forth (when i try to think about the 4th flight, it's like i can't concentrate on the subject...weird)....also, now that i have thought about it more...'they' really didn't give the pentagon 'crash' anywhere near the same coverage as the other 3 flights...go ahead,.... think about it

now if this stuff was in a 'court of supposed law' (oh there's another subject) the physical evidence is overwhelmingly against a plane crashing into the pentagon. all one has to do is look at pictures (or lack there of) but.......where is the forth flight???? did people actualy see a plane heading to the pentagon? could it have been a highjacked cruise missle? maybe a smaller, faster plane that 'they' don't want to admit that it was stolen? a realy fast dumptruck? can the forth flight really be accounted for??? what do u web sleuths think......"do you think that's air your breathing?...hmmm"

....Did you even read this thread? A really fast dumptruck??!?

For the last freaking time, people....
The Pentagon is constructed of walls that are 24 inches thick - 6 inches of limestone, 8 inches of brick, and 10 inches of concrete.
The shell of a Boeing is 4.5 inches thick - that's ultra lightweight aluminum.
The plane disintigrated.
If any one of you insensitive sods actually saw firsthand what the Pentagon looked like before & after, you'd know damn well it was a plane.

-B.

The only thing I would add to this discussion is for those who dont know that much about crash sciens, please research.

Take the time to look at pictures, videos of other crash's. You will notice that there are large amounts of debrie in the area. This is blatently obvious. But at the pentigon, there is very little.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Take the time to look at pictures, videos of other crash's. You will notice that there are large amounts of debrie in the area. This is blatently obvious. But at the pentigon, there is very little.

1. When large planes "normally" crash, they crash into the ground. This results in a widespread debris field. The debris field, however, doesn't always look like plane parts.
See the ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades in 1996.
www.airdisaster.com...

2. When crashing into a building, especially one with walls 2 feet thick, the debris field cannot be deposited as though the plane had crashed into the ground.
There is still debris, it's just different than what one is used to seeing.
www.geoffmetcalf.com...
www.geoffmetcalf.com...
www.geoffmetcalf.com...
And in this picture, if you look to the left of the collapsed section and to the third floor...a few windows over .... that used to be my office.
www.geoffmetcalf.com...

I say again,
it was a plane.

-B.

Originally posted by Britman
I seem to remember a theory that said it was a bomb that caused the Pentagon damage and if you look at the picture it does look more like a internal explosion then a plane crashing into it.

I would have considered the same, but for the lack of external debris. An explosion of that magnitutde within the building would have thrown masonry out onto the lawn area.

People saw a plane, but could it not have been a smaller remote controlled aircraft?

If a missile were involved, could it not have been fired from the plane?

If the Government knew what was going to happen on 9/11 and let it happen, would it REALLY be beyond the bounds of possibility that they orchestrated the Pentagon 'hit', and a combination of small aircraft/and/or/missile and internal explosion used?

If they're willing to let a few thousand of their own (and other countries) people be publically slaughtered, a little bit of Hollywood pyrotechnics could hardly be considered an unrealistic option!

Why has no footage emerged of this 'aircraft' smacking into the Pentagon when the area is surrounded by CCTV cameras? It can't be for security reasons, as photos and film footage of the building/area after the strike are commonplace.

It's all very strange, and whichever way you choose to look at it, something just doesn't fit.

After looking at the one large piece of wreckage over and over, the piece that always seems to be in photos, it looks to new and shiny to have been in wreck..almost like it dont belong there?

....Did you even read this thread? A really fast dumptruck??!?

For the last freaking time, people....
The Pentagon is constructed of walls that are 24 inches thick - 6 inches of limestone, 8 inches of brick, and 10 inches of concrete.
The shell of a Boeing is 4.5 inches thick - that's ultra lightweight aluminum.
The plane disintigrated.


It's highly unlikely that the aircraft would be completely vapourised (as is the case if we accept a plane DID hit the Pentagon). Even if it were to totally disintigrated upon contact, the ENGINES would remain. As for the aluminium, this is aircraft aluminium we're talking about -superlight, and developed to be superstrong and withstand superstress. It ain't tinfoil.

I've never yet seen a crash site where there is virtually NO evidence whatsoever. The only time you'll find THAT happening is if a fighter plane hits the ground nose down and literally 'buries' itself. When passenger jets crash, the debris spreads all over the place, be it aircraft debris, or debris from the passengers baggage...unless of course that aircraft hits the Pentagon.....