9/11 attacks on pentagon????

[Darknut Profile]

You know... missiles explode when they hit their targets. Ever seen a video of a large building that gets hit by a bomb or missile? Debre flies all over the friggin' place. The Pentagon on the other hand looks like something rammed the lower floors. Note that the building looks collapsed and the roof is pretty much intact. Had a missile hit the pentagon the roof would have been blown upwards and out. It's called an explosion for a reason. Go watch some real world videos from Iraq showing buildings getting hit by explosive ordnance and you will see what I am talking about.

Also, let's take this into consideration: Let's say the Pentagon never got hit but the WTC still did; would you still be pissed? In other words, what is there to gain from shooting a missile at the Pentagon?

[Major SONAR Profile]

I don't believe the Pentagon had ever employed any AA system prior to 9/11

I don't know about that... I have a relative that works for Lockheed-Martin. He's a senior aerospace engineer that designs rockets for warfare. He insinuated we did have some sort of rocket defense in/around DC and other cities. He didn't say much except that we had the Patriot missle defense during the Gulf War (ca. 1990 - 91) That being 15+ years ago and how much technology had improved since then. The stuff he works on is all classified, so he can't say much about it.

I wouldn't doubt that we have some sort of missle defense around DC.

One other thing.. people will believe what they want to believe. I personally believe a plane did crash into the Pentagon. I've looked at both sides of the issue and it seems plausible to me that it was a plane and not a missle or a conspiracy, but that's just my opinion.

[JimmyTango Profile]

This just in: 9-11 didn't happen. It was Gods will because of homosexuals, internet porn, and conspiracy theories.

There is also a chance it was because of minorities and anglo saxons that do not have pale white skin, blue eyes and blond hair, incest, people who did not read the bumper sticker and messed with Texas, The Dixie Chicks, Elvis being in fact dead, and people who wear the always tacky bow ties.

[Wesley Profile YIM]

Originally posted by Alofwar
In that picture of the pentagon with the damage it looks like a very small section actually, looks too small to be done by a massive plane.

Also the plane would not have dissintergrated, you see pictures of other plane crashes where it would have exploded and there is wreckage everywhere, metal doesnt just disintergrate in an explosion, it may be torn apart at its weakest points but then its carryied away by the force of the blast.

First off when you typically see crashes of planes, it is not a planned crash to destroy a building. Typically the plane is slowed down and taking every precaution to cause as little damage as possible. Also most crashes don't involve 90% full tanks of jet fuel.


The Pentagon walls are 77+ feet in height, while a Being 757 is 44+ft at its highest point(the tail end). The wings would have done minimal damage and the tail end probably the same since the Pentagon was made to take a beating. Although not from a full sized airliner. The hole in the Pentagon was very close to the same size as a Boeing 757.

Also the white smoke blah blah about Jet fuel burning black and the Pentagon smoke was white. Before anyonje brings that up, go find some cement and start chiseling away at it, tell me what color the dust is. The Pentagon was built of cement with very little steel used since it was built during WW2, where steel was used for the war effort.

http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/impact.html check it out for yourself.

[TiNM@N Profile]

i'm done checking this thread....

If you want to believe the government destroyed part of the Pentagon to invoke fear in the american population, fine.

If you want to beleive every word this government tells you cause you know they have been forth coming and honest with the truth for the last 60+ years, fine.

I guess i have more distaste in my mouth for those who believe were #1 and whatever we do is perfect.

I'm from the midwest so maybe i don't understand " the feeling" of having my city or state being the main target of these attacks.

I just look at the past where we, 'the people' were told one thing to only have the truth leaked by someone with a guilty conscience or the determination to uncover lies.

Soon this thread will break down to 'red states' vs 'blue states'. Have at it kids.

[Sabres Profile ICQ]

Originally posted by Conscious*
To comment on Sabres post...

1) People say it sounded like a missle, maybe it hasn't happened to me yet, but I've never heard a missle fly by me.

2) The planes that crashed into the WTC didnt even go through the WTC and with over 9,000 gallons of jet fuel basically dissintegrated. This explains why little material was actually found from the plane. Seeing thats its made of metal like the building its not easy to differentiate between a plane and a wall. Any of the eye witnesses would not have made those claims if they worked for the pentagon, so therefore they are outside sources who can't be validated IMO.

3) Honestly, where did the missle come from.

4) Where did American 77 flight go.

5) The missle was never shot, American Flight 77 went into the pentagon.


Not bashing you Sabres, just explain why the video is complete bullshit.

As for the government not releasing footage, do they ever? No they don't, for good reason to. Seeing that they know the exact plot of Marwan al-Shehi its almost ignorant to think that anything but a plane flew into the pentagon.

nice points you got there. For some reason, I got severe deja vu when I read your post. I don't know why either...

[Sir Loin Profile]

watch this video.....it will explain everything

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

if anything else...it will make you laugh.

[SavageParrot Profile]

Er scroll up, posted that link on page 1

Typically misslies sound higher pitched than planes because they are travelling faster. But the sound most people associate with planes is based on what they sound like on takeoff/landing or at a great distance.

I'm willing to bet that a jet flying very fast and very low could easily sound so unfamiliar to people used to hearing jets from far away, that it would in fact sound like a missile.

As far as I can see the only alternative to flight 77 flying into the pentagon would be if it were shot down. Even then I can't see the need to cover that up by firing a missile at the pentagon unless the missile attack was a separate alquaida attack. Frankly though the simplest explanation is almost invariably the truth and in this case the simplest explanation is that flight 77 did in fact crash into the pentagon

I nevertheless find that video I posted interesting as it's quite clever about letting people think what they want. Watch it again and see if it actually says anything at all. What it does is show what is not there and what was not reported. What it doesn't do however is show the obvious reasons why that very material was not reported i,e that it was either unsubstantiated and inexpert hearsay or that it was not in the interests of pentagon security to expose andy weaknesses that might be exploited further. It doesn't make any final conclusions. Whoever made it I think wanted to keep it vague so as to avoid it being taken apart. It's a clever little piece of subversion.

As fo what I think about the official story I think it's as full of holes as I would expect from an attack on a military facility. Some shit they are just not gonna tell you. I'd like to know why the pilot chose to fly right at the white house then turn 270 degrees to slam into the side of the pentagon when all he had to do was fly almost dues south from the airport to achieve the same thing with no sharp turns. Other than that I fully understand why they don't want to broadcast the level of damage achieved in case someone fancies another crack.

[Conscious* Profile]

Thanks Munky.

[Alofwar Profile]

The video does raise some good points, yet as parrot said it leave alot unseen. However if it is correct it show a point, the wings and tail would have been ripped off at first impact, the hole it made was way too small to be a 757. All the evidence suggests that it was a smaller plane. There are major holes in the official story and the conspiracy one.

[Darknut Profile]

Look at the WTC rammings. Where were the wings and tail then? Watch the video. The plane hits the building and the plane dissappears. The wings, the tail, everything goes inside the WTC. Why does it have to be different for the Pentagon?

To the odd course, the plane had to be hijacked first so it wouldn't have a direct route... that and the hijacker pilots weren't reportedly the best of pilots according to the flight school they attended.

[SavageParrot Profile]

Well they were obviously better than the flight school thought. Maybe he was grading them on their landing/takeoff ability because they achieved some pretty fancy flying...

[Sabres Profile ICQ]

Originally posted by Darknut
Look at the WTC rammings. Where were the wings and tail then? Watch the video. The plane hits the building and the plane dissappears. The wings, the tail, everything goes inside the WTC. Why does it have to be different for the Pentagon?

Because if you look at the hole in the Pentagon, there are no spots where the wings hit. So are you saying the wings fell off in mid-air, then it crashed into the Pentagon?

[]DP[Artie Profile]

The wings made holes in the WTC cause it's mostly glass with some steel running through it. Unlike hitting the WTC, hitting the Pentagon is like flying into a mountain. It isn't just a thick concrete building, it's shell is solid stone that's quite thick. It was designed to withstand military strikes, including indirect nuclear blasts, unlike the WTC which had no such considerations given during it's design. The (mass x velocity) of the fuselage applied enough force to penetrate the pentagon but the wings did not, they snapped back and followed the path of least resistance which was created by the fuselage, along with all the fuel.

Consider also that if a missile hit it would either:

a) explode on contact, causing severe damage (including fire) in the outer ring, but not cause much damage (if any at all) to inner rings, especially not causing the large fires also seen in those rings.

b) if it had a time delay fuse to allow penetration, it could have caused the damage seen in one of the inner rings. But since it would not have exploded until it got that deep it could not have possibly caused the damage/fire seen in the outter ring of the building.

It's physically not possible that a missile hit the pentagon, add to that that fact that there's video footage of a palne going into it, and many credible eyewitnesses to the event and it's amazing that such a myth could possible be so long lived. Yeah i know, "it's the internet" but still......

[Conscious* Profile]

The only thing that seems odd about the pentagon to me is, the plane flew into the pentagon amazingly low, there are random wires and pulleys on the building that received no damage and were near the impact zone, and nobody on the highway really came out and said they saw a plane, when the plane flew almost right over the highway. Granted I still believe it was a 757, it was a very fishy situation, and the fact that the plane passed the pentagon and did a U-turn only to hit the only part of the building that had been reinforced with more strength is very odd. No matter how you look at it 9-11 is shady, but I find it hard to believe the government had any involvment in planning or aiding the attacks.