Jump to content
Forums upgraded! Read more... ×
cn-nadc.net | North Atlantic Defense Coalition
Dark Wizard

What really happened at the Pentagon?

Recommended Posts

Do you believe a plane hit it? Or was it staged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, Darky you are the end. Simply marvelous :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think happened taking into account the other events of that day DW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the facts, look at the photos, look at the accounts, the plane came in and was horizantal to the ground but the hole that was made in the building did not match what a plane of its size would have created. The wings would have extended outward and made a clear ripping pattern like in the World Trade Center. Also, there was glass that withstood a plane running into it, there is such things as bullet resistant glass but not plane resistant glass. Lastly, the trajectory of the damage suggests that the explosion came from the inside of the building. If the plane were to have hit the building most objects would have fallen in, while most objects fell toward the impact. Also the "video" released by the government showed no plane at all, simply a flash and an explosion. Now obviously there is the question if it was not a plane what was it, where did AA Fight 77 (?) go, and so forth.

 

Also the government said it had come across the ground but there were no clear markings indicating that a plane engine had hit the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, DW, did we land on the moon? Or was that staged in a parking lot in Nevada?

 

Anyway on topic: umm.... Yes, I do believe that a plane hit the Pentagon. And, please take into account those who SAW the plane hit the pentagon.

But lets say that for the sake of argument that there was no plane, that is based on the presumption that 1) the govenrment knew about 9/11 beforehand, 2) they managed to plan and execute a coverup (?) at the same time, 3) managed to let 3,000 innocent Americans, and people of 93 other nationalities die. I reject all of those statements. You can claim that politicians used 9/11 to their advantage, but to claim that they are letting Americans die, is tantamount to accusations of treason. So please prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did this or stop throwing accusations of treason around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screw the Pentagon, what about our water supply!?!?!?!?!!!!?

 

 

That video shows the same baseless theory-crafting and fear-mongering that most conspiracy theories are based on. With the sheer number of people involved with having to plan and execute something of that scale, you would think that there would be at least one person with a guilty conscience that would come out and say something. There have been plenty of times where people have come out for far less.

 

Also, http://www.debunking911.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all Impact, I was simply trying to start a conversation, I am not blaming the government of treason, i simply wanted to see everybodys views.

 

As to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt I can certainly prove that the government mislead the American people. Please watch the first 10 minutes of the video and you will see scientific prove of the evidence i shared above, and more.

 

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have multiple issues with that video, that I can discuss in detail, but this isn't about the video. You are accusing the government of treason:

1. The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

2. The action of betraying someone or something.

 

By this definition we can see that what you are proposing that the US government did definitively falls under the heading of treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to bother watching that video; it's probably the same stuff that's been going around for years. I'll just reiterate was I said in my last post: for all the people that would have to be involved in covering up any conspiracy such as victims, personnel, police, fire crew, cleanup crew, those who planned it, those who executed it, witnesses, et al, you would think just one of them would come forward with the supposed "covered up truth." Even if money was involved in "silencing" those people, any one who would come forward with the "truth" would get far more money and fame than they would have ever gotten as payoffs. Not to mention getting rid of a guilty conscience.

 

Honestly, the Sprinkler-Rainbow Conspiracy has as much truth and evidence to it as any of the 9/11 conspiracies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to bother watching that video; it's probably the same stuff that's been going around for years. I'll just reiterate was I said in my last post: for all the people that would have to be involved in covering up any conspiracy such as victims, personnel, police, fire crew, cleanup crew, those who planned it, those who executed it, witnesses, et al, you would think just one of them would come forward with the supposed "covered up truth." Even if money was involved in "silencing" those people, any one who would come forward with the "truth" would get far more money and fame than they would have ever gotten as payoffs. Not to mention getting rid of a guilty conscience.

 

Honestly, the Sprinkler-Rainbow Conspiracy has as much truth and evidence to it as any of the 9/11 conspiracies.

 

See, I agree with your point, but I still think you should watch the video. It's useful to know the opposing side, and some of their claims are probably partly true. But still it's not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impact I never said that the government was responsible i just simply want to point out the scientific facts that it appears a plane did not hit the building. I am not sure what did and i am not sure what the reason was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the best description I have found of events.

 

Ref the video: To be honest cctv is sugar around 9/11. No one in the industry has really adopted hdd to store video and most systems were analogue vhs tapes recording timelapse. Often 2fps which means you loose a huge amount of video. That combined with petty administrative budgets forcing the reuse of tapes. That recording from the wide angle lens was probably a tape that had been used continuously for a month. In my experience, tapes were only replaced when taken for evidencial purposes. Sure it makes investigation difficult but always pleased the guy who hated to sign off or justifying payment for 30 vhs tapes every month. You really need to understand what people are like in public administration... They can waste millions on big projects, but skimp on the day to day petty stuff.

 

Are people really saying the Pentagon shipped in aircraft debris, bent and cut down lamp posts in public areas, set explosions off and sprinkled body parts of civilians around the crash site? Why do they assume the plane hit the building at a perpendicular angle?

 

As I said before, an empty mind makes an office for the devil. I've never understood why people are so easily led by armchair gossips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the only possible angle it could have come in at without leaving other traces. If it would have at a partial angle there would be marks where the wing scraped the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is that a no for the other stuff then? plane debris, passenger bodies, eye witnesses, lamp posts sheared.

There were marks on the ground. The aircon units were impacted, lamp posts were knocked down.. a tree was knocked over too. Those indicate the plance came in close to but not on the deck at zero feet until the end.

 

Entirely possible, probably more so than bribing god knows how many passengers, passenger families, passers by, military staff, firemen, cops... and so on. Better still it would have been cheaper and easier to actually crash a real plane into the pentagon rather than construct a ridiculous plot that might have hundreds of mouths to keep sealed. Why would anyone authorise that?

 

edit: And no with angles you simply don't have the vertical in the equation. The evidence suggests it was the lateral angle of arrival that accounts for the seemingly reduced impact aperture. Even the crap cctv shows the arrival was close but not at zero feet and horizontal to the ground. A good old last second stomp on the rudder by the bad guy could account for the smaller aperture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I agree with your point, but I still think you should watch the video. It's useful to know the opposing side, and some of their claims are probably partly true. But still it's not true.

 

Except for the fact I've seen dozens of videos and read multiple articles detailing every aspect (unless something new has come about in the last year or so) of "both sides" of the "issue." I've probably even seen that video. I didn't mean it to sound like I'm not even going to consider the "other side," I just am on dial-up right now, so I don't want to waste hours downloading something I've already seen or repeating the same things I've already heard.

 

I know what the conspiracy theorists say, and frankly, I find it hilarious and sad that they can make people believe things that have no base to stand upon. The even sadder truth is most of the people who make up this stuff make a profit off of people's unfounded fears. "Buy my t-shirt!" "Buy my video/book that the government doesn't want you to watch/read!" "Buy this parachute for your office, so if you find yourself stuck on the top floor of your office building, you can just jump out with safety and style!" You know, the same stuff that caused people to buy bomb shelters in the cold-war era that couldn't protect them from an actual bomb, let alone the fallout afterward. Not that the customers knew that, nor would they care or be able to sue when they're dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still stuck on the dimensions of the plane. There is no way that it could have made the hole it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you mean this image?

Posted Image

 

Consider this one instead from popular mechanicz

 

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

 

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

 

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

 

 

Great article to bring people back down to earth http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there would have been some damage from the wings and the wing would have been visible, do you see any wings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there would have been some damage from the wings and the wing would have been visible, do you see any wings?

 

In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen

 

Wings are thin aluminum, not going to stand up very well against the stone and steel reinforcing beams. There is some damage to the outer area with a large amount of the masonry missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to bother watching that video; it's probably the same stuff that's been going around for years. I'll just reiterate was I said in my last post: for all the people that would have to be involved in covering up any conspiracy such as victims, personnel, police, fire crew, cleanup crew, those who planned it, those who executed it, witnesses, et al, you would think just one of them would come forward with the supposed "covered up truth." Even if money was involved in "silencing" those people, any one who would come forward with the "truth" would get far more money and fame than they would have ever gotten as payoffs. Not to mention getting rid of a guilty conscience.

 

Honestly, the Sprinkler-Rainbow Conspiracy has as much truth and evidence to it as any of the 9/11 conspiracies.

 

not meaning to piss you off but what they did to Wikileaks is deterrent enough to whistle blowers.

Even though Wikileaks was operating under the whistle blower act they still got prosecuted and shut down.

Now blowing the whistle on a classified military operation can at the least get you life in prison, at the worst case you vanish.

(btw I don't believe in what DW said, just sayin what happens to stool pigeons that snitch off the government).

People would keep quiet cause they know better than to talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still stuck on the dimensions of the plane. There is no way that it could have made the hole it did.

 

It isn't a building DW, the wings and tail are gone at impact, the fuselage get's shredded.

remember the WTC towers were Aluminum skinned, their outer skin was their load bearing support,

the Pentagon is masonry over 3 feet of reinforced and hardened Concrete, that plane aint making it past the outer 2 rings.

it couldn't have been a missile strike, considering that building was built to withstand a direct hit by Nuclear weapons, anything less than a daisycutter wouldn't have done that much damage, a daisycutter is a very distinct looking weapon.

and loud as all hell it would've broken windows 3 miles away. the plane became a Kinetic energy weapon, a giant armor piercing bullit. only the fuselage wouldve made a hole at that speed and in that kind of building. a plane hit, who was operating it? who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok let's say a missile was used, the best for that application is a Tomahawk Cruise missile.

one problem though...

 

Posted Image

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

How on God's green earth can dozens of people, including news media with cameras mistake that beast for an Airliner, you'd have to be on acid to mistake that for an Airliner..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me reinforce this again.

 

757-200

Posted Image

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

NOT a 757-200

Posted Image

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

now unless 12+ people were trippin on Acid what they seen was in fact an Airliner :P

 

Just for the sake of Argument here's a pic of a 757-200 VIP transport.

virtually identical to the commercial version, our gov owns some of these.

 

Posted Image

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

plus commercial planes can't withstand that much stress. At the speed i was going, it was probably falling apart before it actually hit the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Image

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

How on God's green earth can dozens of people, including news media with cameras mistake that beast for an Airliner, you'd have to be on acid to mistake that for an Airliner..

 

Oh man, that'll have the nuts saying it was a British plot! .... Royal Navy Tomahawk lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×