"The building shook"

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

This building. Yesterday I watched MSNBC and on September 11, 2001 Robert Hager speaking from the site of the Pentagon said he was on the opposite side, E ring, when the plane hit. "The building shook".

From a plane? I do believe AA77 was barreling towards the Pentagon but I do not believe impact could have made this building shake. It must have been the Missile that blew up AA77 that made this building shake.




:redbox: :tv:

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Yes, that's what it was.

The missile that blew up AA 77. Not the fuel tanks in AA 77 simply blowing up when crashing into the Pentagon. No, we've got to have a missile in there as well.

:eyes:

[Neily]

8. No one can really say...

Since we do not have any conclusive video of what hit the pentagon, I don't think we can really criticize anyone for their opinions of what actually struck it. As for a plane hitting it, I have concerns about air speed at that altitude since most research I have read indicates that the plane would have been too unstable to control and/or would have broken up due to air density at such low altitude and such speeds.

Considering there were 80+ video cameras in the vicinity, I find it hard to believe that there isn't a video that would put this debate to rest. In addition, I find it odd that they wouldn't release it just to silence the skeptics, if it were a plane.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. The people who cleaned up the site can.

The people that watched the plane fly into the building can.

I find it quite easy to criticize people who dismiss the simple fact of Flight 77 and Flight 77 alone hitting the Pentagon. The amount of evidence they reject just because they can't see a video, because their personal incredulity isn't met, is overwhelming.

[Neily]

14. WTC and pentagon were different in the sense that...

A plane could have easily been made to look like it crashed into the pentagon, but did a low fly over; whereas, in NYC it would not have been possible given cameras, etc.

The only theory that seems plausible based upon the combination of the eyewitnesses, video stills, flight data recorder (FDR) from "flight 77," and photos of damage to light poles is that a military jet (disguised as a commercial airliner) did a low fly-over, dumped its "cargo" as it approached and then flew right over/through the plume of smoke.

Two additional reasons I believe this:

1) the still photos show an object in one of the last frames that appears to be a plane immediately left of the explosion. check it out for yourself.

2) eyewitnesses on camera saying they saw a plane flying away from the pentagon immediately after the explosion. Those witnesses were located on the side furthest from the impact. I will try to track down that footage.

This is the only scenario that allows the light pole damage photos, still pentagon photos, eye witness testimony and FDR to actually coincide. Everything else creates a contradiction in at least one of the other pieces of data.

[Realityhack]

18. Well if you hand wave away the evidence...

and buy into a bunch of truther BS then sure, that could explain the evidence.

Of course here in the real world we look at all the evidence and it wouldn't even come close.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. What kind of missile do you think it was?

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. In the Pentagon video that "doesn't" show a plane, did you notice the HUGE

orange fireball and black smoke secondary to the impact?

Have you ever seen high explosives detonate? I have. Many times. There is NO huge orange fireball with black smoke. Those are created when petroleum based fuels ignite.

So now tell me that before the Pentagon was attacked, someone placed huge amounts of petroleum based fuel in the vicinity of where the "missile" was supposed to strike the outer ring of the Pentagon, while no one was watching.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

5. Reading comprehension a little dull?

Missile that blew up AA77 that made this building shake.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. So the fact that there is no visual evidence for this missile

leads you to conclude that the explosion of AA77 masked the explosion of the missile?

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. So are you saying that AA77 and a missile hit the building at the same instant?

And I have what may be some shocking news for you: Air to Air missles have relatively small warheads, and Surface to Air missiles aren't much bigger.

So, something weighing in excess of 100 tons, travelling 530 mph at impact won't shake the Pentagon, but adding a Surface to Air missile to the mix would?

[SidDithers]

15. Yes, I believe that's exactly what he's saying...

:crazy:

But, you see, in trutherland, conjecture like that makes sense.

Sid

[Realityhack]

17. Boggles the mind. n/t

[jakeXT]

4. You certainly could simulate it

The Associated Press has revealed that no real plane was going to be used in the exercise, and the crash was to be the result of mechanical failure, not terrorism. But the consequences of the simulated crash would be similar to those of the actual 9/11 attacks, albeit on a smaller scale. The newly released document describes the scene: “Various parts of the aircraft struck the outside portions of the building, spraying jet fuel. The final portions of the wreckage were scattered around the entryway between tower 1 and 2. Jet fuel was burning uncontrollably in the vicinity of the flagpoles. There are a number of injured and dead NRO employees.” Some stairwells and exits at the NRO headquarters were going to be closed off in order to simulate the damage from the crash, thereby forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate their building.

Exercise ‘Inputs’

The document reveals that the exercise was set to include numerous “inputs,” which appear to have been communications and other actions intended to make it appear more realistic to its participants.

Planned inputs included, at 9:30 a.m. a smoke generator was going to be started, to simulate the fire resulting from the crash. At 9:32, numerous phone calls would begin flooding in, from people reporting fires in various locations in the building. At 9:34, after someone reported that a small civilian jet had crashed, NRO personnel were to be instructed to evacuate their building.

http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/911-training-exercise-planned-for-simulated-plane-crash-five-minutes-before-pentagon-attack-took-place/

The section of the pentagon was renovated and certainly you could plant something to make it go boom, but have we evidence for that ?


Ever heard of fuel-air explosives ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9xCgNdZPKk

[hack89]

9. Self delete

[hack89]

10. Do you realizes just how much real estate a Patriot battery takes up?

Fire control radars alone are big and conspicuous. Can you show me a picture of any at the Pentagon?

[hack89]

11. Self delete - wrong location. nt

[hack89]

12. So the impact of a 250 ton plane would not be noticed

but the launch of a 1000 pound missile would? Got it.

[Realityhack]

16. Who cares what you think... show us the calculations.

Go ahead... What would be the equivalent in TNT of the plane hitting.
Now what about the missile. Remember that such a missile would explode outside the pentagon not in contact with the wall.