Question for Planers Re:No Large Plane at Pentagon

[dave52]

No arguments please... :rolleyes:

Why is it that there are some people that are adamant that no large Passenger Plane hit the Pentagon, dispite the eyewitnesses and debris. Yet, at the same time dismiss the possibilty of this at the WTC because of the eyewitnesses and debris...

[thematrix]

No arguments please... :rolleyes:

Why is it that there are some people that are adamant that no large Passenger Plane hit the Pentagon, dispite the eyewitnesses and debris. Yet, at the same time dismiss the possibilty of this at the WTC because of the eyewitnesses and debris...

beats me.

There is wreckage at the Pentagon consistant with a big plane - there are pieces of American Airlines inscribed stuff, I've seen photos of people burnt to a crisp still strapped to seats at the Pentagon. There's the data from the FDR from 77. When you research there is a ton of evidence that suggests that 77 really did hit the Pentagon and it was well within the limited capabilities of Hani Hanjour the suposed pilot.

When I first started to research 911 I was 99% convinced that Flight 77 definitely did NOT hit there. Someone sent me a Flash animation about the Pentagon hit and that started the ball rolling for me. These days I am 99% convinced the other way, that what hit the Pentagon was flight 77. I'm still not convinced that Hani Hanjour was at the controls - but I don't think that question can ever be resolved.

By the same token there is tonnes of evidence that suggests that Flight 11 hit the North Tower and that UA175 hit the South Tower

At the end of the day the HOW things were done doesn't matter so much - it's the WHO and the WHY. Thats why I firmly believe that there ought to be a real proper investigation. I am still firmly of the opinion that 911 was an inside job and the official story is a pack of lies (mostly lies of ommission)

[mynameis]

I think the radar data suggests an impossible flight path if the black box data is trustworthy.

[mercuryrapids]

Doesn't the FDR put the plane about 180 feet above the Pentagon at the time of impact?

Is it possible that the commercial pilot licence that Hani Hanjour obtained was fake? All that is known is that in 1999, he got one (after years of trying), but the FAA won't say how or where.

[thematrix]

Doesn't the FDR put the plane about 180 feet above the Pentagon at the time of impact?

Is it possible that the commercial pilot licence that Hani Hanjour obtained was fake? All that is known is that in 1999, he got one (after years of trying), but the FAA won't say how or where.

It's certainly possible Hanis licence was fake - The instructor who passed him was an Arab guy and was questioned apparently over why he passed Hani, who by all accounts was apoor pilot - though the main reason he had so much trouble getting a licence despite all his training was his very poor english.

The FDR data (the data and not the CSV animation first released by the NTSB) cuts out. When it cuts out IIRC the plane is too high - it's a huge bone of contention as to how far away the plane was from impact. If you believe Pilotsfor911truth it cuts out at the *very most* 2 seconds from impact - which makes it not match RADAR and causes all kinds of issues to the official story. I have read other professionals who say it's much more likely that the FDR cut out at 4 seconds from impact - and if that is the case then the RADAR matches up and it looks more credible.

I don't know what to believe over the FDR stuff. It hangs on how long it takes for sensor data that is read by the aircrafts sensors to get written to the solid state memory chip in the black box. Like so much else it hasn't been proven one way or another.

Certainly Pf911T had a huge amount of trouble actually getting the FDR data decoded , which I think is a little suspicious.

Also noone seems to ask - if the FDR flight path is accurate AA77 took off and gets hijacked 30 mins later it turns 180degrees and then flies directly back to the Pentagon without making any substntial manouveres until close to impact when it starts the spiraling left turning descent. The hijackers we are told planned this for 3 years. The standard operating procedure for the FAA in event of a hijack was posted on the internet before 911. You would think that the hijackers would have flown some twisty turny route maybe back to the Pentagon to try to avoid getting shot down! - after all this is all hapening AFTER the towers have been hit. There's a freaking Air Force base with supposedly fighter jets on standby right behind the Pentagon, and there are allegedly air defense missiles there (there certainly are at the white house which is right next door in ground to air missile flight terms) but the plane just flies back direct - and then scores a direct hit!!!

Did the hijackers not care about getting shot down in mid air? Did they know that wouldn't happen because all of the military drill combined with the two tower hits would have created chaos so they could sneak on in? How the hell did they know about secret military exercises that on that day of all days would coincide so neatly with their plans?

[lordzoma]

No arguments please... :rolleyes:

Why is it that there are some people that are adamant that no large Passenger Plane hit the Pentagon, dispite the eyewitnesses and debris. Yet, at the same time dismiss the possibilty of this at the WTC because of the eyewitnesses and debris...

BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE.

If you're going to raise questions, watch the research of the responses.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qbYAV5fCGiM&fmt=6

911 AMATEUR part2 - YouTube

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vI3ZpLuz3ts&fmt=6

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

[mercuryrapids]

Did the hijackers not care about getting shot down in mid air? Did they know that wouldn't happen because all of the military drill combined with the two tower hits would have created chaos so they could sneak on in? How the hell did they know about secret military exercises that on that day of all days would coincide so neatly with their plans?

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[redman]

beats me.

There is wreckage at the Pentagon consistant with a big plane - there are pieces of American Airlines inscribed stuff, I've seen photos of people burnt to a crisp still strapped to seats at the Pentagon. There's the data from the FDR from 77. When you research there is a ton of evidence that suggests that 77 really did hit the Pentagon and it was well within the limited capabilities of Hani Hanjour the suposed pilot.

When I first started to research 911 I was 99% convinced that Flight 77 definitely did NOT hit there. Someone sent me a Flash animation about the Pentagon hit and that started the ball rolling for me. These days I am 99% convinced the other way, that what hit the Pentagon was flight 77. I'm still not convinced that Hani Hanjour was at the controls - but I don't think that question can ever be resolved.

By the same token there is tonnes of evidence that suggests that Flight 11 hit the North Tower and that UA175 hit the South Tower

At the end of the day the HOW things were done doesn't matter so much - it's the WHO and the WHY. Thats why I firmly believe that there ought to be a real proper investigation. I am still firmly of the opinion that 911 was an inside job and the official story is a pack of lies (mostly lies of ommission)



Where can I see those pics ?

[lordzoma]

Where can I see those pics ?

In your imagination, because a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon.

[dave52]

I think the radar data suggests an impossible flight path if the black box data is trustworthy.

You didn't answer the question. Why are some witnesses wrong and some right...? And why is some debris acceptable and some not...?


If you're going to raise questions, watch the research of the responses.

I am a no-planer, I'm note sure what you mean. I think we're in agreement here.


Where can I see those pics ?

I second that request. I've not seen these images... I've seen burnt bodies at the Pentagon, but none in plane seats.

[graflok]

No arguments please... :rolleyes:

Why is it that there are some people that are adamant that no large Passenger Plane hit the Pentagon, dispite the eyewitnesses and debris. Yet, at the same time dismiss the possibilty of this at the WTC because of the eyewitnesses and debris...

Good question.

My guess: because certain tech fakery was used at the WTC which was not
used at the other 9/11 sites and this technology must remain secret for
future psyops and false flag operations. So, all manner of debunking efforts
are used in an attempt to discredit any suggestion that such a technology
might exist.

Keeping the lid on this technology is apparently of extreme importance to
the spooks. So much so that they even employ trolls who admit that 9/11
was an inside job on public forums -- just so they can refute anything that
hints of its existence.

How are they going to succeed in faking an alien invasion or WWIII or "the
second coming" and all the other future psyops if the public knows that the
PTBs have such a technology? Their whole agenda is at risk if the public
becomes aware of this technology.

[bendoon]

No arguments please... :rolleyes:

Why is it that there are some people that are adamant that no large Passenger Plane hit the Pentagon, dispite the eyewitnesses and debris. Yet, at the same time dismiss the possibilty of this at the WTC because of the eyewitnesses and debris...

There are plenty of pics right after the crash at the Pentagon and no debris, the eywitness thing is a pissball, you just plant a few "witnesses". So your question is based on a false premise and can't be answered.

You didn't answer the question. Why are some witnesses wrong and some right...?

See above, they always have lie witnesses at staged events.

I am a no-planer, I'm note sure what you mean. I think we're in agreement here.

Oops, it was a trick question for the planers, silly me.

[mynameis]

You didn't answer the question. Why are some witnesses wrong and some right...? And why is some debris acceptable and some not...?

Perhaps I misunderstand the question? Witnesses that say they saw a plane at the pentagon should match what the FDR and Radar data have recorded. Debris has always been a dubious area as far as the pentagon.

[steevo]

No arguments please... :rolleyes:

Why is it that there are some people that are adamant that no large Passenger Plane hit the Pentagon, dispite the eyewitnesses and debris. Yet, at the same time dismiss the possibilty of this at the WTC because of the eyewitnesses and debris...

And another question Dave52. WHY do you (and some others ) keep going on about this no planes stuff ? You never stop. It's obvious why, you are trying to cause division is the truth movement so that it fails. Also, the no-planer is a non-starter with newbies to the subject of 911 being an inside job.

I have said before and I will say again, planes or no planes, both are possible. I think that there WERE planes but not at the pentagon. But I may be wrong and also YOU MAY BE WRONG DAVE. Either way, the truth about 911 being an inside job HAS TO take priority before "planes or no planes". But you Dave52 keep going on and on and on about it cos you WANT us to argue with you.

You are easy to see through Dave52.

[krakhead]

And another question Dave52. WHY do you (and some others ) keep going on about this no planes stuff ? You never stop. It's obvious why, you are trying to cause division is the truth movement so that it fails. Also, the no-planer is a non-starter with newbies to the subject of 911 being an inside job.

I have said before and I will say again, planes or no planes, both are possible. I think that there WERE planes but not at the pentagon. But I may be wrong and also YOU MAY BE WRONG DAVE. Either way, the truth about 911 being an inside job HAS TO take priority before "planes or no planes". But you Dave52 keep going on and on and on about it cos you WANT us to argue with you.

You are easy to see through Dave52.

Spot on!

The divisiveness of the sci-fi-like NPT causes me some serious concerns. I really do feel it has been put 'put there' to discredit the 'truther' movement.

Shame in some ways, in others I think it shows what levels 'they' have to go to to try and stop the notion that something was wrong with official story getting across to the wider population -because once that happens, surely the whole house of cards should fall?

Or am I being too optimistic?

[lordzoma]

I follow the evidence, and that points to no planes.

[graflok]

The divisiveness of the sci-fi-like NPT causes me some serious concerns. I really do feel it has been put 'put there' to discredit the 'truther' movement.


But, using an avatar such as the one you are currently using and an on-screen
name such as yours -- these things make truthers look like totally sane people,
right? :D

[krakhead]

But, using an avatar such as the one you are currently using and an on-screen
name such as yours -- these things make truthers look like totally sane people,
right? :D

If I though that anyone was in the slightest bit concerned with what I thought I'd have chosen something more 'acceptable'! Lol! ;)

[krakhead]

I follow the evidence, and that points to no planes.

No. YOUR interpretation of the evidence points to no planes.

That and the pay cheque signed by G. W. Bush! Lol! :D

[graflok]

If I though that anyone was in the slightest bit concerned with what I thought I'd have chosen something more 'acceptable'! Lol! ;)

I am the slightest bit concerned.

What are you going to change it to?

[krakhead]

I am the slightest bit concerned.

What are you going to change it to?

LMAO! Why thank you! ;)

Maybe I should start a poll? Let the forum going masses decide my new online alter-ego? :p

[thematrix]

Where can I see those pics ?

I don't remember :(

drop me a PM about it and when I get back home to my desktop with all my 911 research on it I'll post a link.

There is plenty of debris at the Pentagon - it doesn't look much like plane debris - but the plane or whatever it was that hit - hit a reinforced wall at high speed - when planes do that they turn into confetti like small pieces.

There is engine debris inside and also bits of landing gear that are definitely from a 757 aircraft - there was a plaque with American Airlines logo on it photographed on the lawn - there's damage to the front of the building that is consistant with it being struck by the tail fin. the trail of damage to light poles and the generator and the small wall just in front of the Pentagon is completely consistant with a 757 - or at the very least some plane with the same wingspan that came in low flat and fast.

I follow the evidence - and as far as I can see it points to planes :)

If there is convincing credible evidence for no planes I would love to see it -I have been looking a while and not seen any yet.

[bendoon]

There is engine debris inside and also bits of landing gear that are definitely from a 757 aircraft - there was a plaque with American Airlines logo on it photographed on the lawn - .


None of that was there straight after the impact.

[dave52]

Debris has always been a dubious area as far as the pentagon.

But not the WTC...? That was kinda what I was getting at with the thread.


And another question Dave52. WHY do you (and some others ) keep going on about this no planes stuff ? You never stop.

Actually, I think there's a pretty even split between the planers and no-planers talking about the subject and starting threads on the subject.


It's obvious why, you are trying to cause division is the truth movement so that it fails. Also, the no-planer is a non-starter with newbies to the subject of 911 being an inside job.

I really am not trying to cause division, I'm trying to decide what is truth and what is not. I think NPT and DEW are perfectly valid areas of study (and, to be fair, all other avenues - be that Planes, Drones, Missiles, Holograms, Christopher's Concreat Core - all valid and acceptable).

Newbies have trouble with "inside job" period. That's tough luck, we shouldn't stick to "acceptable" theories because we might scare people off. What if the "acceptable" theories are wrong, and the "movement" linches the wrong people - is that right?


I have said before and I will say again, planes or no planes, both are possible. I think that there WERE planes but not at the pentagon. But I may be wrong and also YOU MAY BE WRONG DAVE.

Agreed, I might be wrong, we all might be wrong, that's why we're here to discuss things. You are exactly the sort of person this thread was aimed at. You can accept no (large) planes at the Pentagon, but the WTC is a non-starter for you. I was hoping this thread would get people thinking...


Either way, the truth about 911 being an inside job HAS TO take priority before "planes or no planes".

You must see that that statement is an oxymoron. Planes or no-planes is at the heart of the truth of 9/11.


You are easy to see through Dave52.

Perhaps I'm a hologram...? :)


By the way - I want to see the pictures of the people in the pentagon still strapped in chairs...

[neutron flux]

Why is it that there are some people that are adamant that no large Passenger Plane hit the Pentagon, dispite the eyewitnesses and debris. Yet, at the same time dismiss the possibilty of this at the WTC because of the eyewitnesses and debris...

Actually some eye-witness accounts reported seeing a small commuter plane and there many people raising concerns of the lack of plane debris at the Pentagon. Why no videos of the Pentagon crash from all those security cameras to clear it all up?

There is wreckage at the Pentagon consistant with a big plane

There is?

And yet just a few posts on you say:

it doesn't look much like plane debris......when planes do that they turn into confetti like small pieces.

So from small confetti pieces you can confirm it was from a 757?

there are pieces of American Airlines inscribed stuff,

Could it have been a small military plane dressed up to look like an AA plane with a nice missile on it?

I've seen photos of people burnt to a crisp still strapped to seats at the Pentagon.

You have? it must be a world exclusive.

When you research there is a ton of evidence that suggests that 77 really did hit the Pentagon

No there isn't! Something, more like a small military craft hit the Pentagon.

Ever heard of COINTELPRO?

[thematrix]

Actually some eye-witness accounts reported seeing a small commuter plane and there many people raising concerns of the lack of plane debris at the Pentagon. Why no videos of the Pentagon crash from all those security cameras to clear it all up?

because most of the security cameras at the Pentagon are NOT videod - this was 2001 and most cams were taped to vhs if they were taped at all.




So from small confetti pieces you can confirm it was from a 757?


nope - from the wreckage consistant with a rolls royce engine (diffuser casing) - and from landing gear wreckage that also matches a 757. BOth found inside the building. Whether or not that wreckage is from a 757 that hit is open to debate, but it's sure as hell from a 757.


Could it have been a small military plane dressed up to look like an AA plane with a nice missile on it?


not unless the lightpoles - exterior generator - trees - a telegraph pole - and small wall directly in front of the Pentagon were rigged with some kind of pyrotechnics - there is a damage trail that matches the outline of a 757 *exactly* - if it was some other plane then that plane had to have had the dimensions of a 757 to have caused that damage - or that damage was caused after the fact. It's many orders of magnitude easier to fly a real 757 along that flight path than it is to quickly rig all of this external damage (before the plane struck the Pentagon wall)


You have? it must be a world exclusive.


no - IIRC the pics were released after someone filed an FOIA request following the conclusion of the Massoui trial - remind me in a week or so (I get home to my main PC around Sept 9th ish) and I'll try to find the link.


No there isn't! Something, more like a small military craft hit the Pentagon.

If it was a small military craft how do you explain the damage path before the plane impacted the Pentagon??

(I will post pics/links etc detaling this damage once I get home if you are interested)

Thats not meant as a rhetorical qestion- as I mentioned earlier I started investigating 911 after a friend sent me info about the Pentagon and for a long time I was totally convinced that no 757 crashed there.

On approach to the Pentagon whatever hit struck lightpoles, trees, a telegraph pole knocking off one of the "rungs" engineers use to climb them, an outside generator, a small piece of one wing tip got sheared off and is kept in a shoebox by someone, then finally the left engine struck a small wall thats a meter or so in front of the building wall proper - before it hit the Pentagon and was decimated.

Yes the 757 wreckage inside the building could have been planted there and the building itself rigged with explosives, No there is absolutely no cast iron proof (apart from passenger DNA records which could be considered suspect as they are from "official" sources) that what hit the Pentagon was AA77 - but why go to to all the trouble of creating this "damage path" when you can simply claim the plane dived into the building and hit very little on it's way into the Pentagon - it makes no sense.

I think something the size and shape of a 757 definitely flew into the building and caused this damage path, I cannot come up with a plausible explanation to explain otherwise - and I've tried.

[neutron flux]

because most of the security cameras at the Pentagon are NOT videod - this was 2001 and most cams were taped to vhs if they were taped at all.

It was really in reference to other cameras in the vicinity, such as the hotel and highway etc. But yet they still got that footage of the explosion (which looks to me more like a missile than a plane)

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/pentanimorig-1.gif

If it was a small military craft how do you explain the damage path before the plane impacted the Pentagon??

Well,there is this:

http://thepentacon.com/

I think it's the one that talks about staged light poles etc (and there's others about poles and missiles) - but the bottom line is this: It doesn't matter at the end of the day, I think I'm done with 9/11 as the most important part is that Osama and his merry men didn't do any of it.

[redman]

because most of the security cameras at the Pentagon are NOT videod - this was 2001 and most cams were taped to vhs if they were taped at all.








In the commission report they said they have 86 different camera's that caught the footage, and then after 3 years of asking to see the footage they give us those clips that shows fuck all.

[krakhead]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/pentanimorig-1.gif



I've just observed - I think - the tail of a plane visible on the right hand side of the explosion in frames #3 and #4. But if it is, then it appears to have hit the Pentagon, then stopped - I guess I'm not seeing it correctly. :confused:

Is it just me or can others see it?

[mercuryrapids]

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9343/pentagonboomframe21hy3.jpg

[lightgiver]

why on the video it says sept 12th :confused:

[lightgiver]

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9343/pentagonboomframe21hy3.jpg

hello sept 12th,ha ha :confused::D

[steevo]

No arguments please... :rolleyes:

Why is it that there are some people that are adamant that no large Passenger Plane hit the Pentagon, dispite the eyewitnesses and debris. Yet, at the same time dismiss the possibilty of this at the WTC because of the eyewitnesses and debris...

Just face it Dave52, none of us (including you) know FOR SURE what really happened on 911 in detail but there is evidence saying all sorts of things. What we can agree on is that it was an inside job.

Divide and conquer "Planers v No Planers" :rolleyes:

[lightgiver]

Can anyone tell me why it says sep 12th on video:confused:;)

[dave52]

Just face it Dave52, none of us (including you) know FOR SURE what really happened on 911 in detail but there is evidence saying all sorts of things. What we can agree on is that it was an inside job.

Divide and conquer "Planers v No Planers" :rolleyes:

Agreed. I view 9/11 in the same way as the JFK Murder. We'll probably never get to the bottom of it, and unless masses of people wake up - the rogues in power will continue their grip on us. In the meantime, I don't see a problem with looking at all the angles and all the possibilities...

I'm sure we stand united, and when the time comes - we'll be on the same side of the barricade.

[lightgiver]

hello,dave 52 steevo,do you have an explanation or anyone why it says 12th sep on video,just curious :D:D

[mercuryrapids]

Can anyone tell me why it says sep 12th on video:confused:;)

Cos they're feckin' idiots... :)

[lightgiver]

Cos they're feckin' idiots... :)

:DI am glad someone else noticed it as well:D:D

[lightgiver]

thats that then,:D:D;)

12th sept ha ha ha ha.:D:D

yeah a great big plane hit the pentagram,what a laugh,yeah right,all them plane hit the pentagon people have soon gone quiet,whats up do the dates not match,ya cant get out of that one can you.:p