Airplane, my ass. (Screen capture graphic)

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

This is the single frame I was able to capture from the video that shows whatever the fu*k it is that's approaching the building. It's moving in a perfectly horizontal direction, just off the ground.

I do NOT see an airplane shape here. (Note: graphic enlarged approximately 4x from original capture.)

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Even the National Enquirer

could come up with a better video.

I really feel like it's one of those UPO hoaxes. What do you mean you can't see the spaceship?

[Justice Is Comin]

50. I have another question.

Look closely at the Defense Department video #2. At 27 seconds, there is a red fireball at the very left of the screen. It's incredibly quick, only there for less than a second.

It doesn't make sense that it's a reflection in the lens, of the fireball. Because why wasn't it there when the initial fireball occured. It happened after.

And for that to somehow be a result of the fire traveling through the building to that location, easily a hundred yards away takes logic to the breaking point.

What is that? It is clearly red flame of some sort and it is not clylindrical or spherical in shape.

[DoYouEverWonder]

62. Yes, the red 'fireballs' are odd.

Moving very fast is seems too.

Continue on to :35 seconds. What is that enormous flash after the fireball has died down?

[kenny blankenship]

80. Dude wipes the lens cover over the camera

all the way to that frame there is whitish blob of bird shit (guessing) in the upper right of frame, after flash the blob goes away. You see someone's shadow just to the left of the camera after that as well. That person probably walked in front and cleaned off the cover--plastic, glass, whatever it is-- and the flash is the artifact somehow.
This isn't video. If it were maybe we could see something.

[Ammonium]

2. It's either a Missle or a drone

Either a Cruise Missle or a Raytheon drone I think. Certainly not a 757...Bullox on it being a 757.

[liberalnurse]

3. So then, what happened to "Cupcake"?

Ted Olsen's wife Barbara who was suppose to be on that plane.

[Fridays Child]

14. She's over in Europe, smuggling counterfeit money.

Or, so a completely unsubstantiated report a year or two ago said.

Seriously, Where are the Flight 77 passengers? I'm sure a lot of MIHOP people like me wish they had the answer to your question.

[dogday]

23. If I remember there were two

unscheduled landings at Cleveland airport that morning... It was in that documentary loose change.. They verified the landings of two airplanes.... People being escorted to a building... The whole airport was evacuated due to bomb threat......

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

115. One Unscheduled Landing

DL 1989 and it was not a bomb threat. The two WTC crashes had already happened, some strange transmissions were heard just as UA 93 and DL 1989 were in Cleveland's control and in close proximity on radar.

DL 1989 reported an unruly passenger and it was thought to be one of the hijack planes with all the confusion and told to land at Cleveland. The ATC was NEVER fully evacuated b/c of a bomb threat.

[iconoclastNYC]

87. Investigate the passenger's backgrounds.

Knowing what we know from the Northwoods document the government didn't think it difficult to create fake passenger manifests.... and that was before they had the NSA to detect anyone with insider operation knowledge of the program talking about the conspiracy.

So if someone with some real money decided to go down the list of supposed passengers and dig you think you'd come up with one or more that woudln't check out if the flight did not exist. Or you could find them living somewhere in some sort of CIA witness protection program. I imagine this would cost millions of dollars.

The NSA spying program is probably looking for the "loose lips that sink ships", or in this case loose lips that would sink the ruling global order based on terrorism. I suspect that the intelligence apparatus understood the threat of the internet to bring together hundres of independent skeptical investigators and figured they needed a mechanism to monitor possible whistleblowers and rein them in.

Its really pathetic that the government did not release this videos and the others immediately. They don't have a valid excuse and it just creates the impression that they needed time to let the official story gel into to the unassaible official truth, and/or doctor up the footage to hide the fact that it wasn't a 757. And aren't there other tapes of this that were taken from different angles? How can it be that the center of our military only had one camera on it?

I'm not sure what hit the Pentagon but the official story sure does have a lot of holes in it. The engines punches wholes in the WTC but not the Pentagon. Why is that? If the Pentagno was reinforced then the engines should have been on the lawn.

[JuniperLea]

101. I've never seen one shred of evidence

that anyone involved or witnesses were interviewed by a reliable source.

We have been lied to before and about some very big things... like WMD, or the lack thereof... you know the list goes on and on... there is no reason whatsoever to believe we are being told the truth about this. They can't even show us a picture of the alleged plane, fcol! And you know they would if they could, just to shut everyone up.

[pretzel4gore]

49. dead n gone

i recall reading about the JFK assasination - why did they do it in such a public atrocity way, when it be relatively so easy to kill Pres Kennedy in private? Because the spectacle part was the MAIN OBJECTIVE, to create the disconnect between angry individuals and a cold blooded conspiracy, which ran the show via mass media regardless of any facts that showed up.....911 is in a long line of psyche ops carried out againt the american people (the oj simpson murder, the kal 007 shootdown, watergate, the regan shooting, the 'october sprise sprise sprise!' and so on...possibly the blow up of challenger and the ok city bombing(?)
ferchrissake, they're CRIMINALS guys! don't look so disgusted!

[DoYouEverWonder]

55. Have you seen Ted Olsen's latest wife

she looks a lot like Barbara.

Amazing what a little surgery can do.

[savemefromdumbya]

137. you're joking ofcourse?

[Virginia Dare]

4. There were numerous eyewitnesses to a jet...

I personally know two people (credible) who witnessed an airplane hit the Pentagon.

Having said that, I have my doubts as to whether a single commercial jet could do the kind of damage that was done that day.

I don't have any answers unfortunately.

:shrug:

[shadowknows69]

8. In extreme situations

sometimes the mind will create the most likely answer for an unfathomable event. A winged missle could easily be identified as a plane at high speeds. Just my opinion.

[JuniperLea]

91. I agree

The mind can rationalize anything.

I saw a man fall from the bed of a pickup truck doing at least 90 on the freeway. His limp and still traveling body was less than ten feet from me and I remember thinking for a split second, oh, he is sleeping. I remember headlights on him, from a white Cadi driven my an elderly man, but I don't remember him being hit. It was horrific. It was a few days before I could sleep and my mind kept trying to tell me that he had just fallen asleep. I think it is self-preservation. I remember having similar rationalizing thoughts the morning of 9/11.

I'm sure I would have imagined something had I been outside the Pentagon that day. Even if only for a few minutes. I think a lot of us have a very strong sense of self-preservation.

[Rainscents]

10. One of the DVD of 9/11 explained what it was.

One thing for sure... it wasn't no FUCKING 757! 757 is HUGE aircraft and you CAN"T miss it!!!

[JuniperLea]

99. We didn't see a bit of fuselage either

No wings, no tail... that tail would have been hanging out the backside!

I've yet to see a believable scale picture of a plane and the building.

And why didn't that building burn for days like the towers did? How were they able to get it out so fast? We know that building is falling apart, old and decrepit. Why didn't it burn to the ground at least on that one spot? The plane had a full fuel tank just like the others!

If anything, this video just stirs the pot again... so it must be a distraction.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

128. Because they were actually able to fight the fire.

They were never able to truly fight the WTC fire.

How do we know the building is falling apart, old, and decrepit?

How exactly does this video stir the pot.

You know its amazing, the * administration is inept in every other way, but when it comes to this, they are smart enough and have the wherewithal to plan the PERFECT operation with the PERFECT cover up, not one person involved has talked.

That is the claim that you must be willing to accept to go for MIHOP.

[leftofthedial]

130. they are inept at governing

because they don't


otherwise, they are anything but inept.

[tridim]

15. Not that I doubt that you know people who claimed to see it, but

isn't it weird that so many people on DU know so many other people who witnessed it, yet nobody actually saw it themselves? It's always second hand, and always described the same, "I know someone who saw a plane hit the Pentagon." It's never a blood relative, it's always a "friend" or someone they know, and it's certainly never a first hand account.

Where are all the actual eyewitnesses? I'd like to talk to just ONE!

[Virginia Dare]

25. I can only give you my own anecdotal evidence..

One was a relative of my spouse, the other was a friend and neighbor of mine. Both were in seperate cars driving on 395, which is the highway that passes by the Pentagon when the plane hit.

One was a recovered alcoholic and it sent her back to AA. The other had her young son in the car with her, and he ended up in therapy.

It was hard for both of them to talk about exactly what they saw, but whatever it was, it was traumatic. They both specifically mentioned seeing "the plane hit".

As I said in my post below, the power of suggestion could be playing a role here.

[karlrschneider]

71. Here

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

[Trish1168]

111. Look at the poll at that site!! Do you believe AA77 hit pentgn? 60% NO!

No one is even believing the dubunking web site!!

This gives me hope that America can be saved.

I voted NO!!

The eye witness accounts are not so numerous or strong. There are plenty of troubling questions with regard to the official story, not the least of which is the very obvious and clear fact that they are obstructing our access to all of the information regarding 911.

[Grateful for Hope]

112. Good catch!

And, 5% say they "don't know", while only 33% say "Yes". Lots of responses (about 30,000).

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

117. I call BS...

A) People here are not just wanting to "talk" to eyewitnesse, you want to grill them with questions like so how many windows did you see on the plane, what was the exact color configuration, etc. You will NOT accept any eyewitness account. Every eyewitness has different recollection of every event, they are not reliable sources as history has proven time and time again. You just use those to "prove" your theories, which by the way no one ever poses in a positive statement.

B) When does everyone with a theory of the crime get to talk to eyewitnesses in ANY other case? In other words, why should you get access to them? Why should any conspiracy theorist get access. You are not trying to start from zero to find out what happened, you are trying to get them to prove that you are wrong, which no one can do.

[Zynx]

127. You're talking about a very small number of people.

Only several hundred at the most. The odds of running into one of them are quite low.

[Virginia Dare]

17. Plausible...

it was an extremely shocking and stressful event, the power of suggestion in the aftermath could have been enough to convince people of what they had just seen?

I have my doubts as to whether we will ever know the full truth, at least not in our lifetimes.

Hell, I'm still waiting for the truth about the JFK assassination!

[xxqqqzme]

22. I was in DC in January and ended up being the only

person on a tour arranged by my hotel. Being just me & the guide, we had long conversations about the current state of affairs. He asked me what I wanted 2 see, suggested a few places...he took me to a long narrow park across the river from the pentagon - which you could not see because of the trees & terrain - people in the area probably know the name - I don't remember. He said on 9/11 he was in the park w/ 2 other tour vans when the plane flew right over their heads and that the ground shook at the same time the huge ball of fire/explosion happened. I have no reason 2 doubt this man's story. But like others - where is the plane's debris? What happened to the wings? All the normal questions. I know, on 9/11, after seeing the first pictures of the pentagon, I was surprised there was not more damage; or rather that the damage was not spread wider.

[tridim]

35. "the ground shook"

Look at the video again, do you see the camera shaking? It was about 100 yards away and remained rock steady the whole time.

[global1]

54. I've Been Going To D.C. Every Year Since 2000 And Every Cab...

driver I talk to swears they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Everybody wants to say they where there and experienced history. It makes them feel important.

I say power of suggestion - if they say it was a plane - people will see a plane.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

116. You're right

3 jets did all that damage....

Come on, b/w 255,000 and 275,000 pounds with highly combustable fuel travelling at several hundred mph can't do all that damage?

Methinks you give too much credit to the architects & engineers.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Nope, neither do I, however, the possible ...

truth is apparently too painful for The American People to face. Well, the foregoing and/or the fact that we have no Investigative Mass Media Press Corps in the USA. :shrug:

[InaneAnanity]

6. this video has the tape

It's highly unlikely that a flight school student could fly a 757 2 feet above the ground into a five story building.

Watch this movie, get enlightened.

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php

[joeunderdog]

38. Awesome. nt

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

118. Absolutely right.

It was the flight computer that did it.

The plane was not flying for any lenght of time at 2 feet above the ground. It was crashing at the time, hardly flying.

Not like it went up Pennsylvania, tooka left on K, etc.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

7. So then, here's what I want to know.....

If there really was a flight they are saying crashed into the Pentagon, where is it? If this isn't it, where is the plane and the people flying on that plane? Did they just make it (the flight number and passenger manifest) up?

[LuckyLib]

12. I suspect Ted Olson doesn't have a made-up wife, Nancy.

She died in the Pentagon airplane. Let's get real. The plane was at full throttle, it was a moving bomb, and it blew up in a fiery explosion.

[ShortnFiery]

19. Way too small even for "a blur" in motion ...

I agree Ted's wife and all the others aboard have met their maker ... are deceased ... but exactly how is still a mystery ... that PIC don't *look right* to me. :( :shrug:

[The Straight Story]

It's not really that small. It's perception - take a gander

At some of the overhead shots of the pentagon. Then take a look at how far away the camera was (security booth). I don't have my web server currently (replacing parts, should be done this weekend) but I have the shots with the calculation of distance (and also note it was coming in at an angle to the wall - not straight at it).

[zeemike]

31. I thought Olson's wife was in the one that hit the WTC

[goclark]

105. Didn't he marry soon after the crash?

I thought I read that some place.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

29. A coworker of mine was on that plane

She wasnt made up. Her name was Suzanne Calley

The missile theory is just silly. Even if you totally subscribe to the MIHOP theory, why would they use a missile at the Pentagon?

No one disputes that 2 aircraft hit the WTC. Why would the perpetrators switch to a missile for the Pentagon? Furthermore if MIHOP is true, using a missile would only endanger the deniability that an aircraft attack provides.

Frankly, those that suggest a missile was used simply havent put any thought into it.

[karlrschneider]

75. The CT nutters just want something OTHER than the obvious to believe

in just because it's different from the obvious. It's a kind of mild mental illness.

[astonamous]

9. Where are the videos

from the traffic cams and from the security cameras in the area?

Trudy
www.richardpryor.com
www.pryorsplanet.com

[walldude]

11. Good question, this looks like something from

Americas Home Vidoes. Where is the Pentagon survellience cameras video? Also some other videos had been confiscated on 9/11, where are they?


I miss Richard. :cry:

[astonamous]

32. I just saw the video for the first time today...

I couldn't even see the "White Flash" they were talking about.

I miss Richard too...I miss his "truth".

Trudy
www.richardpryor.com
www.pryorsplanet.com

[Marie26]

33. Did nobody see this?

I'd like to see some of the eyewitness testimony. Surely, w/all the people there, someone must have been outside the Pentagon when this happened.

[InaneAnanity]

13. Facts

The Pentagon stands 77ft 3.5 inches tall

A Boeing 757 is 155 ft 3 inches long, with a wingspan of 124 ft 10 inches.

You tell me if those measurements fit with that picture above.

[zeemike]

39. You are right

The scale is all wrong and the object is just a few feet off the ground, something a well trained pilot could hardly do if he wanted to.
The scale is more like a commuter jet or a cruse missile.

[zeemike]

45. And doing some quick measurements of the photo

And if the Pentagon building is 77 feet the object is no more than 40 feet long and that would make the hight of it no more than 10 feet.

[otherlander]

16. If there was no plane, then what happened to the people on the

alleged flight?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

18. You said it yourself:

"Alleged"

[otherlander]

30. But there were PEOPLE who got on a PLANE

so where did they go and where did the plane go?

[InaneAnanity]

34. they're dead

plane was shot down

[flyarm]

90. people should go back and read RICHARD CLARKS BOOK

READ IT PEOPLE READ WHAT HE WAS TOLD THAT MORNING!! when he was running the white house during the events that occured!!

i believe it was on page 13 ..but i can't find my book right now to be exact...

read it..

hint kentucky!

fly

[InaneAnanity]

20. shot down

to make a conspiracy that a plane hit the pentagon, a flight had to be shot down, of course.

Flight 77 dissappeared from radar 45 minutes before the pentagon was hit.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

36. Yea that makes sense.

Lets see.

2 aircraft hit the WTC.

Now lets shootdown another aircraft with a missile. Then fire a missile into the Pentagon and hopes nobody sees a missile..because if they see a missile, then this well crafted conspiracy falls apart. oh yea, then make sure that nobody sees a crashing airliner, and then make sure you cover up the crash.

2 possibilities:

1) The perpetrators of 9/11 used 3 aircraft, 1 missile to shootdown an aircraft, 1 missile to attack the Pentagon, and a precision and timing to coverup an airliner crash somewhere in America, and crossing their fingers that nobody noticed a missile flying across Washington DC.

or

2) They used 4 aircraft.

[savemefromdumbya]

129. if it ever took off?

[brook]

37. Good question.

All I know is that my friend, Vicky Yancey died on Flt. 77. She left behind an army of friends and a loving family. I find these tin foil hat threads annoying and an insult to the victims. Incompetence and arrogance on the part of * and the a^^hats around him continue to cause death and destruction. These excercises in fantasy are a complete waste of time, imho.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

78. If close to 3000 were killed at the WTC, what would another 30 or so

passengers mean? Two thoughts. From what I have heard, many on Flight 77 had security clearance. They can be in Fiji for all we know. Or in the ocean.

[cigsandcoffee]

21. I have questions for those who don't believe a plane hit...

1. What happened to the plane and passengers that never came home? If you're going to get rid of it and kill the passengers, why not just fly it in to the Pentagon anyway?

2. Why wouldn't the WTC be enough for any nefarious conspiracy purposes? Why add such a risky plan as using a missile and "dissapearing" a jumbo jet just to add another target?

3. If they could organize two planes to hit the WTC (which is indisputable that it was hit by planes), why is it far fetched to believe that they'd just organize a third to hit the Pentagon instead of using a missile or whatever?


I don't want to be linked to any endless online thesis concerning this, or be given book recommendations that will purportedly change my mind. These simple questions should have simple and realistic answers if a conspiracy theory is to hold any water.

[InaneAnanity]

28. answers

1. It would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to fly a 757 jet into the side of the pentagon. Look at my facts post above, and then realize that to fly a jet that big into a building that small beight-wise, withoght hitting the series of highway overpasses, is probably impossible to do. The plane was probably shot down 45 minutes or so before the pentagon was hit, when it dissapeared from radar.

2. Why attack Iran?? Isn't Iraq enough?? Who knows, this question is one of psychology, not plausibility.

3. As I said, the pentagon is 77 ft tall, while the WTC towers were close to 1400 feet tall.

[cigsandcoffee]

40. Those aren't really answers, though

If I'm going to believe a missile hit the Pentagon, understanding the reason why one would be used - especially considering that they got real live planes to hit the WTC - is the first order of business.

If you're going to blow up the plane and passengers anway, why not just fly it in to the Pentagon for full effect?

[tridim]

43. Only a missile could provide the pin point accuracy needed

to hit The Pentagon at the one spot that was conveniently under construction.

[cigsandcoffee]

46. So why hit it at all?

Taking down the nation's most visible landmark in New York (with actual airplanes) wasn't enough?

[tridim]

52. I don't claim to know why they chose hit it.

But my guess is that it's a symbol of American military superiority.

[rman]

122. If AQ did it, why were the towers not enough?

Don't forget that the point of a conspiracy is to make it look as though it is not a conspiracy.

If you believe the Official Story and accept without question that AQ did hit the Pentagon, then why is it a problem that the Pentagon was hit if the whole thing was an inside job?

[Bolo Boffin]

125. Because of the final video AQ wanted.

The pattern in New York - one hit that takes people unaware, and gets them to get their cameras out. Then a second to play live around the world.

Based on that, I think the Washington attack was meant to be the same thing. One attack out of the blue, and then everyone's got their cameras in the air. If United 93 had made it to Washington, the videos there would have knocked the WTC footage out of the spotlight, because the suspected target was the Capitol Building. Imagine that video, rman. A plane shooting past the Washington Monument, down the Mall, and crashing into the Rotunda. The final blow.

If they had this kind of vision, you can see why the towers weren't enough. They wanted it all.

[rman]

126. OK, and then there is a conspiracy that wants it to look like AQ did it

So they do what AQ would have done.
And if AQ's plans can be partially screwed up (4th plane not making it), then why not the conspirator's plans?

In conclusion, the fact that more then only the towers were hit does not show it was AQ's work.

[genie_weenie]

51. Only a missile could have the pinpoint accuracy needed

to hit the Towers in New York City. I mean when you factor in the number of other buildings in the city the Towers represent less than 1/10 of 1 percent of buildings, therefore it was a missile that hit them. QED.

[tridim]

56. The target size and approach are completely different

Try again.

[genie_weenie]

57. Okay

How about these questions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1208689&mesg_id=1209008

[tridim]

68. ...

where are the passengers from the flight 77? And what happened to it?

No idea.

Why do people claim they saw a plane flying fast and low just before the Pentagon was struck?

I've never heard anyone claim that except for a few people hanging around the Pentagon that day. There are lots of unsubstantiated claims that could have come from anywhere. I've yet to talk to or meet anyone who was actually there.

What fired the missile at the Pentagon? An F-117 stealth? A SAM? Was this person "lost" afterward in order to maintain secrecy?

Could have come from anywhere. A Cruise Missile could easily do it from hundreds of miles away.

Was this done in order to bolster support for war after the Towers were destroyed? Meaning, why hit the Pentagon on 9/11? To what purpose? Rile military members?

It's a military symbol.

Who ordered the Pentagon strike? Did they have to fill out paperwork?

No idea.

[genie_weenie]

82. "A Cruise Missile"?

From what ship? Did the DoD "disappear" the sailors of that vessel? Or were they hand-picked from idealogical tests to be willing to fire on the US?

I'll let you have the final comment on our discussion.

[tridim]

93. That was just one example..

But since you apparently think they are all marine based..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile#Conventionally_armed

"The US Air Force deploys an air launched cruise missile, the AGM-86. It can be launched from bombers like the B-52 Stratofortress. Both the Tomahawk and the AGM-86 were used extensively during Operation Desert Storm."

Regardless, there are many other ground and air based guided missiles that could have been used.

[Zynx]

108. Do you have any idea of the relative sizes of missiles versus airliners?

The object in the picture is far, far too large to be any cruise missile ever made, and it detonates like something filled with jet fuel.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

53. Who says they needed pin point accuracy?

Do you really believe they wanted to hit that one certain spot on the Pentagon because it was under construction?...why because they were afraid of hurting someone??

the Pentagon is one of the worlds biggest buildings...Hardly pinpoint accuracy.

Even if you accept the silly claim that pin point accuracy was needed to hit one of the worlds largest buildings, pilots EVERYDAY land with pinpoint accuracy on strips of concrete FAR FAR narrower than the Pentagon.

[tridim]

59. Pilots land on runways that are thousands of feet long

They also have beacons, flight control and instruments, AND they have years of training.

The "hijackers" had none of these things.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

64. Never heard of VFR?

Proably not. Look it up. Even airliners use it on clear days sometimes.

And they don't land in the middle of the runaway. The land in first hundred foot or so on a strip of concrete 50ft wide.

It takes years of training to land a commercial airliner using IFR safely.

It takes very little training to crash one.

[rman]

123. It takes accuracy to crash at high velocity in a precise location

Precise as in "give or take a few feet". The speed being much faster than landing speed makes it even harder to be precise.

If AQ or whoever did it had wanted to make it easy on themselves they'd have nose-dived onto the Pentagon. Apparently whoever did it head reason not to do so, but rather to hit the facade of the section that had just been renovated and was still mostly empty.

[Ovett]

58. how about a remote controlled airliner? n/t

[Freedom_Aflaim]

66. I suspect the flight attendants might complain

that no pilots are on their aircraft.

[zeemike]

61. But what if it was felt necessary for there to be an attack on

The Military? After all their was going to be a declaration of war and any war must involve the military.
But you cannot always rely on some nut cases to do what you want, so if you know that the attack is imminent and you want to juice it up to fit the war declaration (remember WMD and iraq) you fire one at the symbol of the military itself. And maybe flight 77 was headed for the white house instead and so it was shot down.

[leftofthedial]

131. re: #2

they wanted to send a message to the DOD

[Marie26]

24. Doesn't it sort of, almost, look like a Predator?

We've been using the Predator unmanned aerial vehicles to do many bombings in Afganistan & Pakistan - and the Pentagon? :tinfoilhat:

[porphyrian]

26. Earache My Eye

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earache_My_Eye

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

63. Apropos

:rofl:

[LastDemocratInSC]

27. Why so many 757 parts at the site, then? Here are the photos and analysis

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

[blonndee]

65. Wow. I have never seen these pics before. nt

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

72. Why is the EXACT FLIGHT PATH marked BEFORE the "crash"?

This satellite photo was taken on 9/07- three days BEFORE the incident. That streak is EXACTLY the incoming path of whatever the hell it was that hit the building.



It would perhaps be a convenient marker if something were being controlled from, say, a satellite, eh?

[HuffleClaw]

113. interesting photo

is there a link to it?

[QuettaKid]

114. thanks for bringing that photo up.

I have always wondered about that lawn marking myself....very odd. Can't imagine that they would use something as simple as markings on the lawn though to guide the A-3 in. GPS ya know...?

[Tobias]

136. It´s NOT at all the exact flight path, just your phantasy. NT

[Chomp]

96. One of the best sites on it I've seen n/t

[Balbus]

And this is the reason you're not allowed into GD on a regular

basis. You all are just bat-shit crazy!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

77. Why, thank you.

Your comment explains exactly nothing, but thank you anyway.

[genie_weenie]

41. So, the questions are

where are the passengers from the flight 77? And what happened to it?

Why do people claim they saw a plane flying fast and low just before the Pentagon was struck?

What fired the missile at the Pentagon? An F-117 stealth? A SAM? Was this person "lost" afterward in order to maintain secrecy?

Was this done in order to bolster support for war after the Towers were destroyed? Meaning, why hit the Pentagon on 9/11? To what purpose? Rile military members?

Who ordered the Pentagon strike? Did they have to fill out paperwork?

[Awsi Dooger]

42. This is the only time I'm bewildered by DU

The conspiracy nonsense. Flat out scary. Not a clue regrading probability.

The plane hitting the Pentagon requires no other variables. If you try to assert it's not the hijacked plane, then necessary additional variables fly into the argument from every direction. Exponentially more unlikely, a chain of requirements, to the point of absurdity.

Is this just a coincidence the "missile" was mistaken for the hijacked plane? Or did the conspirators know that's how it would evolve all along? No problem, there won't be a suitable video. We'll dispose of that missing plane elsewhere and hit the floor in hysteria as the ignorant masses think it was the damn plane!

If there were no videos of the planes hitting the World Trade Center, just imagine the creative crap in that regard. UFOs. Big birds. Explosions from inside the buildings.

[Marie26]

48. Right, it doesn't make any sense

Goes directly against Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that a plane did hit the Pentagon; any other explanation is complicated & ludicrous. But, if it was a 757 plane, why isn't there any image of it hitting the Pentagon? Why does the flying object look nothing like a 757? Why would it leave a trail behind? It's just a very weird video That left me w/more new questions than answers.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

60. This is such a stupid thread

Lets see.

2 aircraft hit the WTC. One crashed in Pennsylvania. SOMETING hit the Pentagon..Lets examine the possibilities:

2 possibilities:

1) The perpetrators of 9/11 used 3 aircraft. 2 hit the WTC, One crashed. Instead of using an aircraft, the perpetrators killed everyone on board flt 77. They then fired a Missile at Pentagon and hoped that NOBODY saw a missile launched from a fighter, fly across Washington Dc and strike the Pentagon. They then loaded up a dump truck full of 757 parts and dumped them into the Pentagon. They proably disguised the dumptruck as a firetruck to fool the hundreds of cameras and onlookers who would proably wonder why they were dumping 757 parts at the site of where a 757 was perported to have crashed.

or

2) They used 4 aircraft.

[rman]

124. There is suitable video, but it's being withheld

Recordings made by cameras on the nearby gas station and on a nearby hotel have been confiscated and are not being released.

You call the conspiracy scenario absurd, but it's not absurd enough for the government (more accurately: certain elements within the government) to conceive and consider such scenarios. See Operation Northwoods:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro as part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative.

...

In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project (Col. Edward Lansdale), the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outline plans) the author believed would garner public and international support for US military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin, with a number of them having real casualties. Central to the plan was the use of "friendly Cubans"—Cuban exiles seeking to oust Fidel Castro.

The suggestions included:

- Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[drhilarius]

44. Anyone actually live in the DC area?

Anyone know the relationship of I-395 to the pentagon? Just so happens I do, and trust me you can make out the planes flying over 395 (into national) quite easily, quite clearly, sometimes to the point of being able to see markings.

Ever see I-395 at that time of day? I have. Trying to claim that that number of people had a "mass hallucination" is absurd on its face.

[karlrschneider]

69. Reading these CT nutcase posts is worse than watching W.

I swear to god.
:eyes:

[Freedom_Aflaim]

70. I've lost 15 IQ points just participating in this thread

How can reasonable people believe this crap about a missile?????

[InaneAnanity]

74. You tell me

Look at the picture again. The building is 77 feet tall.

Is that "plane" 150 feet long??

[Freedom_Aflaim]

79. save it

the facts tell the story for anyone smart enough to understand.

[InaneAnanity]

86. Nice argument

You're the smarter one because you say so.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

88. Its not an argument. It exasperation

directed at those whom logic means nothing.

And yes, I am smarter than anyone expousing such a silly theory. But that doesnt mean much because so is my dog and he's pretty stupid.

Go ahead and get in the last word, Im done with this waste of time.

[InaneAnanity]

89. Did you ever start??

You haven't made a single argument to support your position. All you have is "exasperation."

[JuniperLea]

95. And all you have is bullying condescension!

I'd rather be exasperated than rude like you!

[JuniperLea]

94. Hey, I'd pit my IQ against 98% of the population

Don't be a fekking dick! To call someone stupid because they have a serious doubt about this is not only asinine, but it shows what a creep you are! Back off! Or I'll take you to my next Mensa meeting and tie you to a chair while we all laugh our asses off at you!

Nothing pisses me off more than someone with a steel trap mind with no opening!

If you are so smart, then where is the fekking plane? Don't you think the government would show a plane if there were a plane to be shown if only to make all the theories die? Get a grip and back off with your asinine condescension!

[karlrschneider]

102. Reasonable people don't.

:eyes:

[JuniperLea]

100. Did anyone "we" trust ever get to interview those people?

Was there a verified list of people who died on that plane?


I'm just asking.

[theboss]

110. They identified the remains

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A61202-2001Nov20

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

119. So who do you trust?

Who do you nominate to conduct the "interviews?"

CT interviews are all the same, you are trying to get the interviewee to prove you wrong, i.e. prove a negatvie, which is impossible to do.

[theboss]

109. I live in DC

On Septemeber 11, I lived on Columbia Pike in Bailey's Crossroads. If you drove down Columbia Pike towards the Pentagon, you eventually drive right into the side of the Pentagon that was hit. My landlady claimed that she heard the flight overhead on its way.

Frankly, having followed that path towards the Pentagon and having stood by the gas station there and taken pictures of the hole in the building, I don't see how this was such a tremendously difficult flight path. Basically, they had to follow a four-line highway through a mostly residential area with no tall buildings. Once you get within a mile of the Pentagon, it's more or less a straight shot to the crash site with hardly any landmarks blocking your path.

As for 395, it runs right next to the Pentagon. I would say it's less than a thousand feet from the steps. The only thing between 395 and the building is the massive parking lot.

You could not mistake a plane heading for the Pentagon as a plane heading to Reagan National. The runway runs perpendicular to the highway. The flight path at the Pentagon runs nearly parallel, as Columbia Pike is pretty much parallel to 395.

A lot of people on 395 saw the plane; it hit durng rush hour when 395 is at a standstill, including Troll/Former Presidential candidate Gary Bauer.

Also, my friend's mother works in one of the office buildings in Rosslyn which have a clear view of the building. She claims to have seen a plane.

[merbex]

47. What kind of plane was the one that hit again, asks a former flight attend

and how far is this camera from that object?

Anyone know?

[Rex]

67. Kinda looks like one of these

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.members.aol.com/ultraphoto/WingedMissiles3.htm&h=446&w=288&sz=108&tbnid=BqM29g6cfl5DlM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=80&hl=en&start=54&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dadvanced%2Bmissiles%26start%3D40%26svnum%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN

[SheepyMcSheepster]

73. I can see the plane, see if this helps.

I have seen it for the first time today after someone else pointed out the angle of impact to me.

the plane hit the pentagon at about a 45 degree angle. The plane doesn't go left to right across the viewing area, it comes out of back right corner at an angle. Below I have tried to illustrate what I am seeing. See if it helps at all.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

83. You just colored in the treeline above the object

when you indicated "Front Top Of Body". The object itself is the white blur BENEATH the green treeline. (Not accusing, just letting you know.)

[SheepyMcSheepster]

92. Agreed

After looking at the video again, your right. The red colored portion could be clipped just a bit on the top.
I have spent far too much time on this already, so don't expect a correction, thanks though! :hi:

[JuniperLea]

97. No harm in trying!

Good for you for trying to make some sense of this.

[InaneAnanity]

84. The possibility exists

That it was a plane. I dont think anyone can be sure though.

[Nightflurry]

76. Neither side makes sense to me.

The photos make it look very clear that it's not a 757, yet common sense says a missile hitting it is just asking to be exposed. So I have no idea in hell what happened. It doesn't make sense to me from any angle.

[DisgustedTX]

81. Why do SH followers always have FEW?

SH!

[Random_Australian]

85. That looks like an aeroplane to me....

[New Government]

98. And WHY is this the ONLY VIDEO?????

Surely, the military headquarters of the United States of America is one of the most guarded buildings in the world. This really bugs me: WHY is this the ONLY video??? You would think there would be dozens - if not hundreds - of surveillance video at the Pentagon. And, in high definition! I mean, the convenience store down my street, the car wash, and a Home Depot all caught video of an ATM break-in at a bank across the street from those places. But, this is how they photographically protect the Pentagon? I've never been a LIHOPer or a MIHOPer, but this is ridiculous. Call me a IDWTBICHAHOPer. (I Didn't Want To Believe It Could Have Actually Happened On Purpose.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Created this as a thread of its own. This doesn't question THIS video, but the LACK of all the others!

[Peace Patriot]

103. I respect all sincere investigators trying to figure out the actions and

crimes of this most secretive and criminal of regimes, and I maintain a skeptical, rational mind and try not to get too scared--or spooked--by that which we know (which is bad enough) or by that which we suspect.

Re: 9/11, I think we have to come at the issues first of all from an assessment of Bushite secrecy. What is it they are trying to hide? Because they are obviously hiding something, or many things. And we have to ask ourselves--not what we can guess and speculate, as to scenarios and motives, but WHAT WE KNOW, and WHAT THEY WON'T TELL US or have given suspicious/incomplete accounts of.

Let me give you a for instance: Those who argue for a missile hitting the Pentagon are asked to speculate on a scenario that makes a missile make sense. But we should be focusing instead on the missing surveillance tapes, and also on the missing Secretary of Defense (who was AWOL during the critical hour when a defense of the capitol should have been mounted, and who had pulled all NORAD decisions into his own hands six months before). Because we can't get answers and accountability from our government, we are forced to guess and to fill in gigantic black holes of information that they are withholding.

As to a missile hitting the Pentagon: If people are going to try to hypothesize a believable sequence of events on this, it has to take into account the "chaos" theory--of things not going according to plan. Just as a for instance, say that there were insiders involved, and--after the WTC hits--the Flight 93 hijackers, whose plane was being remotely controlled by those insiders, offered to surrender, and the insiders--knowing that the hijackers were patsies, and not wanting them to ever talk--ditched the plane way out in the ocean. Meanwhile, somebody (a good guy) had launched a missile to take the plane out. What to do with that flying missile? Maybe that's what Rumsfeld was doing in his missing 30-50 minutes: choosing a plausible, war-motivating target to re-direct the missile to (the under construction wing of the Pentagon). Or maybe Cheney was trying to take out Rumsfeld (or take out Bush--who was kept at a known location long after he should have been whisked away)? Who knows? Or maybe these theorized insiders launched the missile deliberately as cover for the plane they decided to ditch--and they didn't have time to think much about video images except to rip out all the cameras they knew about.

When you add in the "chaos" factor--unexpected occurrences, failure of part of the plan, double-crosses, or whatever--the facts that we DO know could conceivably fit a scenario gone awry, but we CAN'T KNOW what the chaos may have been, because the government has withheld (or destroyed) so much evidence.

My point is that we shouldn't START with such scenarios--and then all get arguing about whether or not they make sense. We should start with the plethora of MISSING FACTS and anomalies, and the absurd 9/11 report, and the Bushite secrecy, and work backwards. And, as I said, I have respect for all those who have sincerely tried to fill in the missing blanks, especially those who have assembled detailed information, for all to review.

I read somewhere that the missile theory is a psyops ploy to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Could be. Hard to say. But the weirdness around the Pentagon hit--and around the whole event--cannot be easily dismissed. Me? I'm much more interested in Rumsfeld's whereabouts than I am in what hit the Pentagon. I also think that the demolition theory of the WTC collapse has a lot more going for it, than the missile theory. But I don't think we're in a position to rule anything out.

And that is the problem. We, the American people, are not in a position to know what really happened. There should be little doubt by now, and yet the questions grow rather than diminish.

I think it's a political problem--created by loss of transparent elections, loss of our right to vote, and thus loss of our sovereignty. We are in no position to demand the information that we, the people, have a right to know. Why was there no air cover for our nation's capitol, no defense, with 50 minutes notice? I would start with that--rather than speculating about the lack of images of a Pentagon plane. I've seen the debris photos, by the way, and, while they tend toward a plane having hit, they are not totally convincing, and the other evidence--or, rather, lack of evidence--is the problem. Once again, the government SECRECY and possible destruction of evidence are the problems; not what may have occurred, but what we don't know BECAUSE of the highly suspicious secrecy.

I think we WILL figure this one out--but a lot depends on our restoration of transparent elections and recovery of our power of inquiry. And I urge a moratorium on all fighting and name-calling about 9/11 truth. Please, let's do our job as citizens and put the American people back in control of this country. Transparent elections should be our first priority.

[Sterling]

106. Great post

IMO

[DemonFighterLives]

104. Paula Zahn was on showing the pictures

I always suspected the plane story with reservations, but these pictures did not sell it for me. Some guy who helped with the release says it was to dispel rumors, but it just may be go Huh?
They even agreed it would not settle it and the "other" videos were mentioned and it was stated that the powers that be claimed to know nothing about other videos.
Big Question- Why now? Moussaoui was used as the reason- he was convicted, so now they could show them.
Amazing that the picture could not be a little clearer. It looks like badge man behind the fence on the grassy knoll.
:argh:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

107. CNN Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre

On September 11th, 2001, CNN Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre stated the following on the air:

"From my close up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon...The only PIECES left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and caused the sides to collapse..."


Yesterday on CNN, that same Jamie McIntyre said that he had said the exact opposite. He referred to seeing a fuselage and airplane parts at the Pentagon on 9/11, whereas his actual on-air description was that he saw no airplane parts and no fuselage, even on close inspection. I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories but I find it incredible that someone like McIntyre could have said yesterday that he'd said the very opposite of what we have him saying on videotape. McIntyre has been very, very pro Bush lately in his other reporting, too.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

120. And reporters are the best investigators?

How many reporters do you know report all the facts correctly?

Also, look at the statement, he is saying that it does not look like a plane hit the Pentagon, not that a plane DID NOT hit the Pentagon. He is merely saying it is not what you would expect.

PS, this iw what happens to a plane when it hits a wall...


http://gprime.net/video.php/planevsconcretewall

[Duer 157099]

133. I've heard other people talking about this too

Is it possible that his first comment was made when he was quite far off, and that he later got a closer look and saw the things he now describes? Has anyone asked him to explain?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

121. A security camera is a low quality camera.

Are you people expecting that a security camera be an HD camera flying at 1000 frames per sec and able to catch every marking and detail on an object flying at 500mph?

I suspect if it was, you would still say that you could see the windows but still weren't convinced b/c you couldn't see the people through the windows.

[savemefromdumbya]

132. You would think the County would have photos of highway

[Duer 157099]

134. there are traffic cams located all along those highways

the question is where the video is, if they even save it

[savemefromdumbya]

135. I wonder did anyone ask for them - did the 9/11 commission?