Pentagon plane crash

The plane that never was

Impact center

Hi,

Sorry, I am still not seeing any plane, from any frame from any video!

There was a small hole provoked by something also small (not the size of a 757!), and the bulling after 45 minutes collapsed, see the video here and here, and Jamie McIntyre, CNN reporter, in the place talking near the Pentagon when everything appended.

Jamie McIntyre, CNN reporter at the Pentagon (or What Plane?)

He goes “…From my close up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon…"(sic).

Is that clear now? And btw these are all public and available videos for some time (years in the case of the CNN video), have you seen the videos Caustic Logic? (you asked for them)

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Brotherthebig:
What plane? The one on the red path, that would be on any videos from any of those cameras pointed the right way. Think I’m wrong? Show me the videos and prove it. Oh they’re not released? Well then it’s a matter of opinion - and the other evidence.

I don’t find any evidence of plane (a nice amount of tones), fuel (another amount of tones) or the corps of the victims, where they are? The CNN video shows “military” people arriving by bus not ambulances for the victims, ok there was a “medical” helicopter there! One helicopter not many ambulances for all the victims?

Why is a plane missing? Because there is no plane! See the video frames with time stamps, here, that big 757 could be off at all frames? Or from all videos we have to today?

But they found some kilos!

A detail view of the video (two objects not one?)

CNN on the video and animation

About the 757 tail,

plane in the animation (24 seconds?)

smoke/vapour trail at 24 seconds

before the plane arrived, the tail was already there!

at 23 seconds

The two images from the video, where previous found in this post www.abovetopsecret.com... .

Another video with the explosion from CCTV Doubletree Hotel in Arlington (yes, without any plane!)

This video his not so nice like the simulation/animation, but was enough clarifying, CaptainLazy?

Missile/plane

CNN and missile again

Not that plane 757

Other videos with more details:
. www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...
. 911inplanesite.com...
. 911inplanesite.com...

Maybe we are missing some information, but Caustic Logic started another thread www.abovetopsecret.com... and another www.abovetopsecret.com... and had an earlier thread on the Flight 77 www.abovetopsecret.com... .

More references:
. www.the7thfire.com...
. 911research.wtc7.net...
. www.prisonplanet.com...

brotherthebig.

New video and CNN Video disappears


Hi,

The CNN Video from the previous post disappears, so now we have the same again at

Jamie McIntyre, CNN reporter at the Pentagon (or What Plane?)

Another very good video on all the 9/11 is in this thread The Secret History of 9/11 CBC Documentary, but with small details on the Pentagon part.

ATS staff his always welcome, to the scrutiny or debate.

brotherthebig.

And have you bothered to read his quote later on about that statement? He was talking about how he was used to seeing big parts of plane left laying all over the ground, and how he didn't see that at the Pentagon. It's another quote that's taken out of context.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And have you bothered to read his quote later on about that statement? He was talking about how he was used to seeing big parts of plane left laying all over the ground, and how he didn't see that at the Pentagon. It's another quote that's taken out of context.

And still no reports to match the parts found to flight 77. No reports or photos of where the parts found were taken.

Thanks Zaphod. Exactly. Oooh, one guy didn't see much from where he was standing, OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, so there must not've been any plane in there.

Brother: thanks for providing the links to my threads, and for the massive post of up-front video fraud. If I didn't know better I'd say you were trying to help me out.

I guess no one has seen the witness statement from the military man who was close to the Pentagon (and received medals that day for his rescues) that states that the main body of the plane was outside the building when it was destroyed by fire from a fireball that came from inside the building.

One more thread and two more videos

757 before “hit” the Pentagon (higher resolution)


Hi,

Here in ATS we have a thread by earth2, that shows a video (1) on the Pentagon soon after the explosion, and at second 28 we could see above the helicopter a fast unidentified small aircraft. Could someone identify that aircraft? In that thread Zaphod58 gives is opinion that could be a bird.

The CNN video disappear again, so now we could fin it here:

Jamie McIntyre, live CNN reporter at the Pentagon (or What Plane?, take 3, longer version around 5 minutes)

This longer version is better because we have more details of the live (at that time) coverage, McIntyre’s said that the biggest part of the plane he found was a 3 feet part, from a big 757 we only could see a 3 feet part from a closed-up inspection?

Some data on the big 100 ton Boeing 757,

757’s measures

and here we have 757’s photos with other objects for comparison:

757 and van for size comparison

757/767’s cockpit, engine and men

this engine do not belongs to the 757, according to Rolls Royce

The “757/767” above photo is important to show the men, cockpit and engine size relations, because we have a photo of the hole and a fireman

hole at the Pentagon and a fireman


hole detail (a 757 has wings but no lateral damages on the building!)




do not forget the tail!

aerial view (with cameras point of view - , copy the link to view image)

911 flight paths


almost a golf green no scratch in the land!

so from were came the smoke/vapor trail we could see at second 24 (CCTV camera)?

the collapse

typical visible debris after an accident, some are big! but not at the Pentagon

More info on the Pentagon, 757 and the strike:


From a pervious post with the e-book “The Big Lie”, I recommend Chapter 6 that also quotes John Lear about the Fight 77’s pilot.

757 in the frame


where is the wings?

the nose

the nose (zoom from CCTV video frame)

don’t appears to be from a 757, and has different colors!

and an educated guess? (or a van?)

Here we could see photos of big planes flying very low, and they are trying to prove with that, that a plane crashed in the Pentagon, but all the planes in these photos are too much above the ground compared to Pentagon case, and here we could see what appends to a van passing near a plane on the ground and the plane is blocked, you just could imagine if the plane was really flying very low with all that turbulence, no?

Plane engine against passing van

is that clarifying enough?

Additionally this video (2) [46 Mb] gives more details and the time line of some less known events on 911, the Pentagon hit starts around 12:15.

This thread is not yet in the 911 Index.

More resources:
. 911research.wtc7.net...
. 911review.org...
. www.nikandjok.dk...
. www.geocities.com...
. 911research.wtc7.net...
. home.planet.nl...
. www.911lies.org...

brothethebig.

Replies:

Hi,

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And have you bothered to read his quote later on about that statement? He was talking about how he was used to seeing big parts of plane left laying all over the ground, and how he didn't see that at the Pentagon. It's another quote that's taken out of context.

Yes, and the video his here:

9-11-2001 (live) - "There's no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon..." (sic)

2006 (staged?) - "For anyone with any common sense and given all the other evidence we have, there's really no doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon..." (sic)

The 2nd video was after 5 years, he appears to be looking for something or someone every minute (someone is controlling him? maybe looking for a script?), appearts to be staged and is a contradiction from the firsts video. The first video was live (in real time was happening in that time and is “as is”), he was spontaneous, and so for me the first one has more credibility. He has change his opinion, but you see his body language in the 2nd video is in a minimum strange, no?

I see nothing out of context in the first video, do you see anything out of context?

After a question from CNN “central office”, McIntyre “very closed” (sic) replied, the transcript is as follows (part):

"From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

"The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough
that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

"Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed."

Also he talks about the multibillion dollar renew of the Pentagon, with that so much many certainly they have put some CCTV cameras and air strike security system in the largest building of the world, no?

He also talks about a silver, blue and green paint wreckage part, and I think green don’t belongs to the colors of flight 77.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And still no reports to match the parts found to flight 77. No reports or photos of where the parts found were taken.

You are right ULTIMA1, a 757 simply does not evaporate!

About your last post, could you give a link for the source of that information on the military testimony?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Brother: thanks for providing the links to my threads, and for the massive post of up-front video fraud. If I didn't know better I'd say you were trying to help me out.

Caustic Logic you are welcome, and all the ATS members that discuss in a civilized manner, I respect people with different ideas from mine, and in the end I think we are trying the same, to find what appended and what is real, and I could be wrong, but for the moment I cant see a 757 in any frame from any video, but something small is there, could be a car, a van, a missile, a small airplane, etc…, sure something hit the Pentagon but smaller than a 757 and traveling near the ground.

About the threads is something that I do normally when I found other threads about the same subject I post their link.

On the help, I try to add some value, giving my opinion and some resources I used, and explain my reasoning to achieve my conclusion, but I an way that could be easily checked and verifiable by other ATS Members, so if I made any mistake someone could tell me (by posting). I remember to post a photo from Aurora that a Friend later tell me that was a hoax, I was not ware of that, I said thanks, I apology to the thread posters and also sent a e-mail to the site that originated the faked photo, but unexplained they maintain that faked photo and another from a “faked” UFO.

In your FDR thread I read you telling that you had committed some errors and needed to change something. I don’t see the same approach from some ATS members, and for me (I am in the other side, I don’t believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon and I think you believe on that) what you have done is great, you tried your best and now you are improving, so that deserves my respect and any member that proceeds in the same way, and maybe soon (or later) we could accomplish a good conclusion (far away from hoaxes or frauds) and understand what really append at the Pentagon. I also do mistakes. More on my way of thinking and behave here.

Just for the record I don’t belong to any group or movement on the 911! I have expressed my and only my opinion. In the end I could be wrong, but a plane of that size simply doesn’t disappear from all the frames from the 3 videos we have with the explosion (2 from the Pentagon’s CCTV cameras and another from the Doubletree Hotel), right?

I just cant see any part of the Boeing 757 in any frame from the videos, so for me and until someone proves the contrary, was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon but something smaller!

brothethebig.

edit: video link

[edit on 2007/6/11 by brotherthebig]

Brtherthebig: SOrry for the short lame response again - just deleted my last one arrgh.
I've just had to cover this stuff so many times, as I'm sure you've seen - Anyway, my advide is step beyond Jon Carlson/Killtown/Chris Bollyn/etc. when you're ready and look at debunkers and other truthrs who can indeed see a 757. Me: frustratingfraud.blogspot.com..., Jim Hoffman, Russell Pickering, etc...

Just keep your wits about you and keep digging. Peace.

Originally posted by brotherthebig
About your last post, could you give a link for the source of that information on the military testimony?

Subject: Hispanic Hero Recalls Experiences
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:18:03 -0400
From: Press Service [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

By Rudi Williams
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30, 2003 - Many courageous military and
civilian men and women have been honored for their
actions after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on
New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

But only one member of the Air Force received the
Airman's Medal, the nation's highest award for heroism
not involving combat with an enemy. He also received the
Purple Heart for his injuries.

Sepulveda said the wings disintegrated, and then
disappeared. "For a brief second, you could see the
fuselage sticking out of the side of the Pentagon,"
Sepulveda recalls. "Then, all of a sudden, this ball of
fire comes out from inside. It looked like it was just
coming from inside the building, engulfing the fuselage.
And then the fuselage was all gone."

Sepulveda said the sweltering heat felt like it was
engulfing his body. "Then, suddenly, it felt like
somebody grabbed me, put their hands on his chest, picked
me up and threw me back against the light pole I was
standing by," he said.

So brings up a few questions. Why are thier no burn marks or marks on the lawn where the fuselage would have been ?

If the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane it would have also destroyed bodies and DNA evidence.

This also says that the plane did not go all the way into the building as the official story states.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Clarification on Jamie McIntyre and Mike Walter


Hi,

Sorry, my comments on Jamie McIntyre are not all correct because I was also think on the video about Mike Walter, so for clarification I will put here Mike Walter’s videos and the right comments (my opinion).

About the first video

Jamie McIntyre, live CNN reporter at the Pentagon (or What Plane?, take 3, longer version around 5 minutes)

I maintain everything, on my comments on the second

“Yes, and the video his here:”

the part “he appears to be looking for something or someone every minute (someone is controlling him? maybe looking for a script?), appears to be staged” I was thinking in the following Mike Walter “missile” video (with also Jamie McIntyre), so my comment on this 2nd Jamie McIntyre video “is a contradiction from the firsts video”, and I give more credibility to the first video doe to live (real time) broadcast and I don’t see anything out of context in the first video.

The other two videos that also I was thinking, the “missile” from Jamie McIntyre are, the first one

Mike Walter “like a missile” with Jamie McIntyre

is clear that Mike Walter said “... was like a cruise missile with wings ...”, so he said that something smaller (missile) with wings hit the Pentagon and is clear that is was not saying that “was a missile”.

The second video of the clarification is in a minimum a staged video; my comments on the control and body language was for that one, just look

Mike Walter “controlled” clarification

about his mentioning “the right information” and his body language, that really appears to be some “external control”, and the official information has too many contradictions.

He was talking about something like that?

The images from the share server are off, so I will repeat that from another share server:

plane in the animation (24 seconds?)

smoke/vapour trail at 24 seconds

at 23 seconds


in that book, check also Chapter 2 for a general introduction to US Government atrocities


Caustic Logic, nice blog! My way of analyzing is very simple, I go first to opposite “evidences”, there normally I found what I need and I post links to that resources, as you could see from my previous posts, but more names are always welcome.

ULTIMA1, thank you for the information, based on that I found this article, and like you said some questions remain!

More references:
. Jamie McIntyre - www.cnn.com...
. Mike Walter - www.wusa9.com...

brothethebig.

How does "like a cruise missile with wings" equal it being a smaller plane? It's an analogy, and cruise missile is the thing that came to mind to compare it to. This is one quote that has been altered more than just about any others to fit the conspiracy at the Pentagon.

Like a cruise missile with wings

AGM-86B

AGM-109 -

AGM-109H and AGM-109L


Hi,

A cruise missile depending on the model is around 6 meters long, around 3 meters wingspan and with around 60 centimetre of diameter, for me that is “like a small plane” compared to a 757.

Tomahawk cruise missile escorted by F-14


The F-14 appears to be only a little bigger than the Tomahawk, but is really around 3 times bigger and the F-14 is around 2.6 times smaller than the 757.

An example from 26 years ago (1981):


The pentagon explosion

almost a copy of the Pentagon explosion, flames go up!

and a typical mission, nice for the Pentagon, no?

(TLAM-C -> Tomahawk Land Attack Missile - Conventional)

To understand the difficulty of hitting a target with big planes see Operation Aphrodite, one of the most unsuccessful and expensive secret projects of the US.

For more detailed information see The Evolution of the Cruise Missile (17.6 MB pdf).

Tomahawk Cruise missile (see the Pentagon’s identical explosion)


A sophisticated but cheaper cruise missile could be home build by around $5.000 with market available parts.

DIY Cruise missile (part 1/2)

Inventions of War - Cruise Missile (part 1 of 5)
[yvid]tA4mNO6gGSk[yvid]

Other parts in YoutTube.

The inside hole, better general view

A cruise missile with American's colors


More references:
. stinet.dtic.mil...
. en.wikipedia.org...
. en.wikipedia.org...
. www.astronautix.com...
. en.wikipedia.org...
. www.raytheon.com...
. en.wikipedia.org...
. www.designation-systems.net...
. en.wikipedia.org...
. www.ausairpower.net...
. www.ausairpower.net...
. www.fas.org...
. www.howstuffworks.com...
. en.wikipedia.org...
. en.wikipedia.org...
. www.popularmechanics.com...
. www.interestingprojects.com...
. aardvark.co.nz...
. www.freedomfiles.org...

brotherthebig.

Yes, all cruise missiles have wings, and the reason the F-14 looks similar size to the Tomahawk is because the Tomahawk is much closer than the Tomcat. The Tomahawk is actually a rather small missile. It can be carried on a B-52, or launched from ships. There's no way a Cruiser could launch a missile almost the same size as an F-14.

But the original question remains. How does COMPARING it to a cruise missile with wings, automatically mean that it couldn't be a 757 and that it had to be a cruise missile? All he said is that it was LIKE a cruise missile. He didn't say it WAS a cruise missile.

reply to post by brotherthebig


That would be good evidence instead of proof no plane that
big hit the pentagon.

The History Channel, the Intel mass media, had a show on the re enforcing
of one side of the pentagon.
So I naturally figured that where terrorists would strike.

But then... why would I think that.. that was sort of inside jobish.

OK, here is some suppressed data not even the science suppression
doesn't know about, like all the universities and government labs in
the world, except for perhaps one spot in new mexico, lets call it TA-33,
where von Braun was shown how Tesla's gaseous ether was controlled.
From then on, or even before, the ether no longer existed for us.


Now we have non existent planes on 911 that exist, thanks a heap.

The pentagon was his by a air burst penetration missile.

The evidence is actually IN the footage they released of the incident.

The only video clip I have seen (on TV) revealed the moment of explosion and subsequent fireball. The footage was slowed so as to show any incoming aircraft, but unfortunately no such object was discernable. Presumably this was due to the relatively high speed of the incoming aircraft, and the frame rate of video capture not being sufficiently high. As always I am keeping an open mind on this mystery.

heres something simple everyone who is truly looking for the truth can do. In another thread i asked: "If you could go back in time pre 911 and show yourself the pictures of the aftermath of the pentagon crash, would you actually believe a jetliner did that?"

Rephrased:
"If you could go back in time pre 911 and show yourself the video in question here, would you actually believe it was a jetliner?".

I know a lot of people believe that there was no conspiracy, however i doubt that most would agree that it was a jet in that vid pre 911.

reply to post by Retikx


That does look like a similar blast.

I'll be dog gone.

And no one in the Pentagon can recognize that.

Was that an outward blast as I always thought.

We do have government ips browsing these pages.

No cursing at them please.

reply to post by brotherthebig


Yeah, they goofed on that one.

Engine, hole in the wall....

Guess that all we are allowed to see.

We seen enough to put down the Airliner crash.