Another Pentagon theory...

[quickesst]

I have recently had a conversation with someone who, because of their position, only related this theory to me on the condition they remain unnamed. Being in the know concerning military operations, this individual believes there may have been a cover up at the pentagon. He is adamant that the propaganda and cover up machine is fierce. Consider, you are stationed at the pentagon's defense post, when you get word that two jet liners have just crashed into the WTC. The pentagon is on high alert for the possibility of more targets, including the pentagon. This individual tracks the aircraft reported near the pentagon.(not flight 77) You know there is a no-fly order currently in affect, and this plane is sending no ID signal. On pins and needles already, the serviceman initiates a ground to air missile to take out the percieved threat. Immediately after firing the missile, a friendly signal is recieved from said target. "Oh,crap, what now? Where to ditch the missile. On a snap decision, the pentagon redirects the missile into the only place built to withstand a missile attack. The newly reinforced wall. Now the propaganda machine in all it's ferocity, lays out the flight 77, the terrorists did it scenario. Benefit from a collossal screw-up.
Now, if this is picked apart by anyone, keep in mind, it's not my theory, but it sounds as plausible as some presented here. Just thought I'd lay it out on request from my acquaintance. Thanks for the comments.
quickesst

[LARED]

1. True

but it sounds as plausible as some presented here.

[quickesst]

2. Since..

we do not have a definitive account of what really happened, this could be a possibility. The OCT, in distancing itself from reality, is the only theory that is not as plausible as this one. Thanks for the attempt at a little levity. Didn't work, but I was already in a good mood this morning. It's the thought that counts. Thanks.:toast:
quickesst

[LARED]

9. We?

don't have a definitive account. Who is "we"?

People saw a commercial airliner fly into the Pentagon. There are parts of commercial airliners in the debris. The people on flight 77 were identified and returned to loved ones.

Jeez talk about being distant from reality.

[BuddyYoung]

11. ALL of those claims have been thoroughly discredited. You must have

been away for the past five years.

* "People saw a commercial airliner fly into the Pentagon."

PEOPLE ALSO SAW the Statue of Liberty disappear.

* "There are parts of commercial airliners in the debris."
The FEW "parts" have not been traced to a commercial airliner. That COULD be easily done, by simply tracing the serial numbers which are stamped on the parts, and the fact that the Gov't has chosen to not to trace the origin of the parts makes the entire Pentagon story even more of a Fairy Tale.

* "The people on flight 77 were identified and returned to loved ones."
There is no credible proof that any remains were found AT THE PENTAGON of anyone other than people that worked at the Pentagon.


CASE DISMISSED.
Maybe your group's "lawyer" can give you some tips on how to make logical arguments.

[LARED]

17. Sorry, but I can't help you if you believe

those claims have been discredited.

It's a free country and you a free to believe whatever nonsense you like.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. The part I don't buy

is that it was a colossal screw-up.

Maybe it's going to come out soon that their were missiles involved in the attacks and they are trying to float a little balloon?

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Maybe you could show your friend this picture

?adfgee

I think at least one missile was fired from that 'generator' on the right. The generator that burnt out of control after the 'plane' crashed.

[quickesst]

6. I will...

show him the pic. Honestly, this is not a theory that I embrace, but I did tell him I would present it here for opinion. I used the plausibility comparisons because there is speculation something was used to make the hole in the pentagon, from a cruise missile, Global Hawk, to an A-3 Sky Warrior. Of course the hardest one to buy is that a passenger jet crashed there. The acquaintance is not really on board with the rest of the CT, but could see an intense cover-up for a blunder this huge. Thanks.
quickesst

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. I can understand why he would need to rational this has a 'blunder'

It is devastating to realize that you're own people would do this to you. However, it was not a blunder.

[hack89]

13. What kind of missile?

Nomenclature, model, etc? IR or radar directed? What C2 system? What associated fire control radar? Can you actually link this theory to some sort of reality?

With nothing but vague generalities about "missiles" why should this theory be taken seriously?

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. Thermobaric

n/t

[hack89]

16. Thanks for proving my point ..

you know absolutely nothing about missiles do you?

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Then would you care to enlighten me?

I have admitted before that I wasted my youth playing with Barbie dolls.

I do know how to read though. And so far everything I've read about thermobarics seems to fit the bill, at least for WTC 1 & 2. WTC 7 & the Pentagon may have been something else, but whatever it was at the Pentagon was not a passenger jet. In that case, if it was not a passenger jet, then WTF was it?

[hack89]

20. Why do they fit the bill?

They are blast weapons that kill through over pressurization. To cut steel you would used linear shaped charges so I don't understand why you would use them to bring down steel framed buildings.

You would not use thermobarics to blow holes in reinforced concrete - you would use either a hardened penetrator with a delayed fuse or a shaped charged. In either case, there would only be a small hole in the wall with all the damage contained inside (hence the delayed fuse.)

If thermobaric were used in the WTC you would see a series of horizontal concentric shock waves as each weapon blew out the windows - no such shock wave is visible.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. Only one small hole

with all the damage on the inside. Sort of sounds like the Pentagon? Certainly what ever made the hole wasn't big enough to fit a Boeing 757?

[hack89]

26. The hole was 90 feet wide ...

exactly the distance between the engines on a 757. The damage to the facade (including the hole) was approx 120 feet.

Think a second - how wide is the fuselage of a 757? About 13 feet.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf


When I meant a small hole, I meant small - on the order of 24 inches (for a hardened penetrator) to 6 inches for a shaped charge.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. Show me a 90 foot hole

that doesn't include the columns for the outer wall still attached and in the way? Not to mention the cable spools between columns 15 -18 that didn't even get knocked over.

[hack89]

28. Lets take it from a different perspective

Read the link - look at the entire litany of damage and show me how an explosive warhead caused that damage. Tell what damage is indicative of a high explosive war head going off.

And the hole is still too big for a missile - how do you explain that? You do understand the details of how wide a penetrator is or (in the case of a shaped charge) the ratio of penetrating jet to war head width, don't you? How do these inconvenient facts gibe with the physical evidence?

You are the one making the claim - lets see the depth of your knowledge.

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. The damage certainly is not indicitive of a passenger jet

There is no way to know with out video how big the original hole was that was created by the object going in, compared to the hole that was created after the object exploded inside. However, jet planes can not remain intact and break through numerous rings of concrete walls and all the columns in between.

Again a bunker buster type weapon can create this type of damage, which starts with a small hole, explodes inside and then blows out the rest. That's how they are taking down buildings in Iraq. Supposedly the troops have gotten very good at figuring just where to hit one of the outer walls, allowing the missile through, which then explodes, blows out the walls, causing the ceiling to drop, killing everyone inside in the process.

[hack89]

31. Bunker buster big enough to cause so much damage ..

are gravity bombs - where is the hole in the ceiling?

The warhead you are referring to is a thermobaric warhead - they are blast weapons. In Iraq the troops either shoot through a window or shoot an armor piercing missile first and then shoot a thermobaric missile through the resulting hole. In any case, the resulting damage is small compared to the damage at the Pentagon.

The NE round is supposed to be capable of going through a brick wall, but in practice gunners had to fire through a window or make a hole with an anti-tank rocket. Again, from the Marine Corps Gazette:

"Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. Who knows

No one took any pictures of the ceiling/roof before the collapse. Maybe that helicopter or that C130 that flew over dropped it and the damage to the facade was created to cause a distraction? Kind of like those old magic tricks. Look over here while my other hand is doing all the work.

[hack89]

33. Well, I hope you don't mind if I wait ,,,

until you actually have some proof.

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. I'm still holding my breath waiting

for proof that Flight 77 even end up in the same time zone has the Pentagon, no less inside of it.

BTW: How come only one engine was ever recovered at the Pentagon. Don't 757's normally have two?

[Carefulplease]

37. Those are not columns...

Even this fellow conspiracist agrees:

http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/columns.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. The NIST report

identifies them has columns 15 through 18.

The site you linked to speculates that they are pieces of the floor above hanging down. That seems a bit of a stretch, when even the NIST report acknowledges that they are columns.

[Carefulplease]

42. You are right...

One shouldn't rely on conspiracy sites. I shall
not do it again. Thanks for pointing out to me
the far greater accuracy and relyability of
the NIST report.

So, there we have three columns severely distorted
and possibly disconnected and several more columns
missing. The whole facade was punched in across that
huge area and the heavy generator that was hit was
rotated towards the Pentagon facade. What sort of
missile did that?

[LARED]

22. C'mom Hack get with the program

Thermobaric sounds real cool, so it must the answer, so why bother actually finding out what it is.

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. It's hard to have a discussion

with someone who is so intellectually superior that they have to resort to put downs. Why don't you try to present some facts instead if you disagree with my suggestion?

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. See Lared

Hack and I have been able to have a very nice conversation here. Even though it is apparent that we disagree, we can still discuss things without resorting to put downs and insults. You might want to try it sometime.

[Generarth]

5. I think it's a good sign

If they're stupid enough to believe we'll fall for this one, then they're going to slip up somewhere.

:P

[hack89]

8. You don't ditch SAMs

you command detonate them in mid air with a data link. If it is an older type missile you turn off the illumination radar beam it tracks to the target.

It is not believable that a SAM was launched in DC and was not seen - not only are they large and loud, but they leave a huge smoke trail.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Lot's of people claim to have seen something

that was either a plane, helicopter and/or missile. Maybe there was more then one object flying around and different people saw different things that were all part of the same event?

[quickesst]

12. As I've said...

Not a theory I embrace. Hack is probably right. I would think they had remote destruct. If the rest of the pentagon tapes actually show a passenger jet slamming into the building, I can only surmise it is being withheld for the purpose of delivering a critical blow to the 9/11 truth movement. That blow coming when they feel they may be losing control of the situation. I'll be surprised, simply because the results do not corellate with events as related to the public. When I look at the pictures and video, and trying to let my imagination go completely ape-shit, the hardest thing for me to imagine is that the destruction at the pentagon was the result of a jet liner slamming into it. I can imagine a flying pig, loaded with explosives before I can a plane. At least the hole is the right size. Even if every fiber of my being wanted to believe the OCT, something deep down would be telling me, "This is wrong". Maybe we'll find out the truth, maybe we won't. But, I'll always wonder. Thanks.
quickesst

[Mist]

14. quickesst - I have to disagree that a tape of a commercial airliner

is being held back--I have to think that if such existed, it would have been all over the news the same day as the tapes of the planes hitting the WTC. It is the "coyness" of the-powers-that-be in providing any proof of a commercial jet hitting the pentagon that makes me thoroughly doubt the OCT. And what about the tapes from the gas station and the roof of the hotel? Will we be seeing those? If they had tapes that proved their story, they'd be showing them. Just my opinion.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Yes, we have a winner

if Rummie had tapes that clearly showed Flight 77, you'd be able to buy 24" X 36" framed prints at the mall.

[jberryhill]

39. Why would the government release...

...detailed movies of a successful attack on one of our most sensitive military installations?

So that someone can do it better the next time?

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. They sure didn't mind playing the videos of the WTC attack

Over and over and over.

[jberryhill]

41. I didn't know those were military installations

Wow, the things you learn...

[arikara]

24. I don't doubt massive coverup for a minute

But this story seemss odd. Who or what would be in the other plane that was important enough to ditch the missile in the pentagon? This bunch doesn't care about anyone.

[quickesst]

25. Please....

Let's get grounded here. This is not, I repeat, not a theory that has been put to the public. It was a private conversation between two individuals, and his "theory" was just a question I agreed to put to the board. I don't buy it myself(about the third or fourth time I've said this), so please don't start looking for links and sources etc. trying to get the skinny on the latest hoo-hoo. I would think this thread will fade soon, as it seems the majority, albeit for different reasons, do not see a great amount of merit to it. There are plenty of things to get excited about, but I'm pretty sure this isn't one of them. Thanks.
quickesst

[arikara]

29. Sorry...

I didn't realize that I was all excited. I only thought it was open for discussion after being posted.

[quickesst]

34. That's why ...

I posted it. I wasn't addressing you in particular, so no apology necessary. I just didn't want anyone to expect any "sources" for the theory. It is still a remote possibility, except for Hack89's good comment on the remote destruct. Unless, of course, it wasn't a mistake. Thanks.
quickesst

[ediedidcare]

43. I don't get the part about redirecting the SAM after firing-

Is this possible. Also the evidence at the blast site indicates a shaped charge device- heavy penetration
capabilities. Do SAMs have shaped charge capabilities?

[savemefromdumbya]

44. thought it was 3 bombs within walls not missile?