What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[Nono]

Quote by: Vicchio ZNFYRH this was done in the middle of a clear day... if any one, with any brains wanted to fake this, they would do i at night, preferably on a cloudy, overcast new moon night. The RISK of someone taking clear video of a cruise missile hitting the pentagon and getting it out would be far too great a risk. Only a fool would try a stunt like you are proposing in the middle of the morning, on so clear a morning.

Well? C'mon conspirary theorists. Why do it on such a peachy day when you have the choice.
I think Vicchio has stated the problem rather well.

Quote by: Z Many simulations, i.e. Purdue, show the wings being a part of what took down steel support columns inside the Pentagon.

I don't see why. The wings, like the fuselage, are relatively unsubstantial. But the two engines attached to those (757) wings pack a huge punch.

[ruksak]

Quote by: ZNFYRH ruksak Two problems: 1. The photos show plane parts on a lawn. There is no contextual frame of reference that shows that they are on the Pentagon lawn. The ones I have seen are just pictures of parts.

I posted this earlier. You must have "missed" them.
9-11 Research: Hull Piece

This shows a close-up of an engine rotor, then a pan back where you can see the same unit in context, in the background.
9-11 Research: Engine Rotor

FBI agent carrying a large piece of the aluminum hull;
9-11 Research: Pentagon Debris Fields
I want to hear you account for these pictures. Why and how? These aren't photos of a bread truck. They're airplane parts.

Quote by: ZNFYRH In the middle of Washington DC, there isn't a single piece of video?

When a man shot up the white house several years ago with an AK-47, there was only 1 video of this. A tourist just happened to be standing there at the time. The absence of video at the Pentagon proves nothing.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Yet the one thing that would suppress every single alternative theory about the Pentagon isn't available?

Every single thing that could prove 9/11 was an inside job, isn't available. From the Pentagon site, to the crash site in Pennsylvania, all the way to the events that millions watched live, in real time, in NYC. From there to the middle East where Al Qaeda resides.

I would say one could trace a reasonably strong evidence trail to support my wacky "Terrorist Theory".

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary If they are capable of killing thousands of their countrymen, don't you think a few men of integrity would be easy to write off in car accidents or something? Don't you think a few people who found out about their plot would be dead?

Who says this didn't happen?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: ruksak When a man shot up the white house several years ago with an AK-47, there was only 1 video of this. A tourist just happened to be standing there at the time. The absence of video at the Pentagon proves nothing.

You sure about that?

I work in government and I know for a fact that there were at least half a dozen recordings taken from within the White House, on the grounds, and from recording stations around the White House.

Just because they didn't broadcast them on CNN doesn't mean they don't exist.

The "why do it during the day" isn't the point I'm driving at.

I have said, time and again, as has PatrickHenry, that we don't think it was a 757.

Stop dismissing my argument by roping me in with people who think it was a cruise missile.

A cruise missile also could not pierce through 4 layers of 3-foot thick reinforced concrete.

The point is that the damage done to the Pentagon does not agree with a 757 as the cause.

[ruksak]

You still haven't addressed those pics of aircraft parts posted above. Account for those photos and we can move on.

Quote by: ZNFYRH The point is that the damage done to the Pentagon does not agree with a 757 as the cause.

What does the evidence point toward than?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I have said, time and again, as has PatrickHenry, that we don't think it was a 757.

No, I said I don't know and have my suspicions. I would like to see the confiscated videos.

Quote by: Nono Well? C'mon conspirary theorists. Why do it on such a peachy day when you have the choice. I think Vicchio has stated the problem rather well.

No, Vicchio is full of hot air.
As to why it was done on the morning of September 11th?

Well, NORAD had to schedule the war games sometime...
Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney

My problem is how the "hijackers" had the information that NORAD was gonna be indisposed to intercept their commandeered airliners...

And you have to admit that daylight hours made for some excellent video that was shown thousands of times to ramp up the War on Terror.

Heh. But to me the video is a faithful exhibition of explosive demolition. I would venture to say the killers used a bit TOO much explosive.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ZNF I work in government and I know for a fact that there were at least half a dozen recordings taken from within the White House, on the grounds, and from recording stations around the White House.

You work for a government you believe is responsible for attacking it's own people?

How's that working out for you?

[omniadeo]

My friends, the entire Flight 77-Pentagon "controversy" is a blatant attempt by disinformationalists to distract us from the many very disturbing questions about things clearly on the record concerning 911. This silly "controversy," amplified and spread over the Internet by the naive is a strawman.

Ignore it, but go to Complete 911 Timeline. Read a bare bone summary of major media reports arranged as a timeline in one of the great feats of the age of the internet. You will not find a single "theory" anywhere. Just read the record. See if you can tell me with straight face afterwards that 911 is adequately presented in the major media.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: omniadeo My friends, the entire Flight 77-Pentagon "controversy" is a blatant attempt by disinformationalists to distract us from the many very disturbing questions about things clearly on the record concerning 911. This silly "controversy," amplified and spread over the Internet by the naive is a strawman. .

Agreed. "Pentagon missile" hoax distracts from best evidence

Pentagon missile hoax: the "no Boeing" claims are not "9/11 truth" they discredit and distract from proven evidence of complicity * the fake debate between no plane and no complicity gets the Bush regime off the hook * there is zero evidence for any of the "no plane" claims - hundreds of people saw Flight 77, none saw a cruise missile, Global Hawk robot plane, smaller plane or flying saucer piloted by giant lizards * the physical evidence shows that a large twin engine jet hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon, the "Black Boxes" were found, cleanup crews found remains of the passengers, the "hole was too small" claim was a hoax * making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway, both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)

[jose]

On September 10th, 2001 Rumsfield announced that 2.3 trillion was missing from the pentagon budget, what was Rabbi Zakheim doing in charge of the Pentagon’s money supply? and why is Chertoff, another person with dual nationality doing in charge of Homeland Security?

Chertoff's dual-nationality doesn't seem to have concerned a single U.S. senator

In a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" published by The American Enterprise's "Project for a New American Century"(1), System Planning Corporation (SPC) International executive, Dov Zakheim, called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" being necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East that would politically and culturally reshape the region. A respected and established voice in the intelligence community, his views were eagerly accepted, and Dov went from his position at Systems Planning Corporation to become the Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001. (2) Perhaps not so coincidentally, it was an SPC subsidiary, TRIDATA CORPORATION, that oversaw the investigation after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. SPC, according to their official website, specializes in many areas of defense technology production and manufacture, including a system developed by their Radar Physics Group called the Flight Termination System, or FTS.(3) This is a system used to destroy target drones (craft that would be fired on by test aircraft or weaponry) in the event of malfunction or "misses". This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control of several 'drones' from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles. This technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets. According to the SPC website (4), a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida-MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement.(5) As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.

The Truth Seeker - Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy
heres more

Dov Zackheim, Pentagon Comptroller, Has Misplaced A Trillion $ : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

Rumsfeld Sept 10, 2001: The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 TRILLION | America Needs 435 Real Americans to run for Congress

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Who says this didn't happen?

then, wouldn't they have planted a wmd?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: ruksak You still haven't addressed those pics of aircraft parts posted above. Account for those photos and we can move on.

Crap like your quote is what degenerates threads. You skip over my rebuttal so I can talk about pictures, and thus respond to my comments instead of addressing the rebuttal.

Your pictures don't prove anything. Other than the fact that the pictures of alleged aluminum siding have no burns or scorching on them, they can be Photoshop'd. What else would you like to see on the Pentagon lawn? I'll put it there by noon.

The picture of the turbine is also questionable.

In all three variations of a 757, the engines are tucked in close to the core of the aircraft. If the wings sheared off on contact with the Pentagon, they would not have sheared closer than the engines. The engines represent a stable point between the wing and fuselage. That means that the wings would have sheared off past the engines and the engines would have been part of the plane that penetrated the building.

Second, are you aware of how big PW2000 series engines are?

Of the four types of engines used for 757's (1 Rolls Royce and 3 P&W), they all have a turbine diameter of at least 74 inches.

Explain to me how a 36 inch rotor piece is part of a fan with moving parts no smaller than 60 inches in diameter?

Quote by: ruksak What does the evidence point toward than?

You have "evidence" confused with "facts."

The facts are that significant holes were ripped through four, 3-foot thick, reinforced concrete walls. The explosion on the side of the Pentagon does not have a smoke or incendiary pattern characteristic of wind patterns generated by a 60 ton aircraft (when empty) flying into it at speeds in excess of 200 MPH.

Based on math and numbers readily available on the Internet I shown that it isn't possible for a 757 to fly through those four walls.

The only way you can conclusively prove that a 757 hit the Pentagon is if they release video showing it happening. Yet the one thing that would prove it is not available.

Quote by: Chaos You work for a government you believe is responsible for attacking it's own people? How's that working out for you?

At the time I worked for the Federal government. I don't any more. Witnessing Iraq first-hand was enough for me. Now I work for state government.

[Gods_Mercenary]

No offense, but if I believed the government did this, I'd have nothing to do with the country period.

[ZNFYRH]

The problem with 9/11 is that I really believe the majority of it was terrorists.

But I think the government allowed it to happen.

[Gods_Mercenary]

They allowed a cruise missile or superman or whatever you think hit the pentagon to be fired either from another country's arsenal but more likely our own? What happens when the terrorists decide they'd rather kill bush and the missile lands in his living room?

I could understand the allowed it to happen stance if you had PH's views, but with the missile it makes it silly, since that requires a government or military official to sign off on the fire order.

Knowingly allowing thousands of your countrymen to be murdered when you've taken an oath to protect them is about as bad as doing it, don't you think?

[ZNFYRH]

I do.

But I don't think it was a cruise missile.

Again, a cruise missile couldn't have done that type of damage.

Also, other than Flight 77, how many people were killed that were in the Pentagon?

[Gods_Mercenary]

A cruise missile can do a hell of a lot of damage it's a high explosive projectile, and there's plenty of types of missiles, the question is would the damage done be of the type seen at the pentagon, and the answer to me is no, but I'm no missile expert. The damage looks, to me, like a plane, not a weapon designed to penetrate and explode inside something, but perhaps I would have assumed it was a missile if you showed me the pictures on 9-10.

I'm not sure how many, I'll do a little research, but I recall it wasn't that much compared to the WTC, obviously, but the flight is more than enough to make them heinous criminals.

[ZNFYRH]

Also agreed.

From my understanding, if a cruise missile could punch through the concrete and explode in the first ring, it wouldn't have made circular holes in the inner rings. The damage would have reflected a blast, not penetration.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary No offense, but if I believed the government did this, I'd have nothing to do with the country period.

Not the government...rogue elements...led from the top.

Listen. If you think airliners could be hijacked with boxcutters why don't you think governments can be hijacked with subterfuge?

And as I said...WMD create trails. If you find the stash with no trail, you're busted for planting it.

[ruksak]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Based on math and numbers readily available on the Internet I shown that it isn't possible for a 757 to fly through those four walls.

Well then.....I guess my "pictures" and "eyewitnesses" are no match for your "mathematics".

Quote by: ZNFYRH The only way you can conclusively prove that a 757 hit the Pentagon is if they release video showing it happening. Yet the one thing that would prove it is not available

Honestly, would it make a difference if there was video? Theres plenty of video documenting the WTC towers being hit and falling. Yet people look at it that video and imagine a controlled demolition, nefarious characters sneaking around, explosions that aren't there.

Theres video that shows two American Airliner passenger jets flying into the WTC towers, as part of the same attack as with the Pentagon. An American Airliner passenger (Flight 93) jet crashed in Pennsylvania, as part of the same attack as with the Pentagon.

So why, may I ask, is it so inconceivable that an American Airliner passenger jet was as well, involved with the Pentagon? Because the hole in the building looks funny to you? It looked funny to me too the first few times I peeped it. Then I educated myself about why it looked that way.

Ya know, somewhere right now one of the many people that saw a 757 hit the Pentagon that day, is just sipping his coffee and laughing himself blue while reading stuff like this. Like that black FBI agent carrying the big 'ol piece of aircraft aluminum off the Pentagons front lawn, in the pictures I provided.