9-11 Pentagon Strike

[kendonewbie]

Hey. Since the more obnoxious trolls have been banned *cough*Issac ru*, the flames area has been pretty quiet, so i decided to start a new flame war.

I noticed a lot of things that were wrong on 9-11. I found a video online that partially confirms some of my suspisions about the pentagon (don't get me started on the WTC building). Anyway, the link to the video is http://www.freedomunderground.org/me...tagon.php#Main Please let me know what you think of this.
*Edit* Make sure the video screen is as large as it will get...don't want to miss some of this stuff...its very interesting.

[kendonewbie]

Note: I'm not trying to imply anything/point fingers. I just though this would make an interesting debate topic.

[nikolaj]

Myeah, I've seen videos like that one before, and ones like it about the towers.
To tell you the truth, I honestly don't know what to think. Seeing this stuff does make all of it seem fishy, and after all the rubbish that came with 9/11, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more to it than we know.

therefor, I choose to use the solution I use for most of life's harder and more philosophical questions that lack an easy answer.
think of something else,and pretend it's not there. It'll go away eventually.

[Infinity]

that was fascinating...

[kendonewbie]

mm...it is pretty interesting. I just wish i knew how credible the sources were..

[drizzt]

ok theres a couple od issues here.....

A. the plane they claimed hit the pentagon DID disapear, so if it wasnt it, were was it.

B. if even a low powered missle had hit the pentagon it would have destryoed the "intact windows" that video went off on.

C. I know about three civilians who can tell you the difference betwee what a "missle" sounds like and a plane. Civlian ears are not trained to recognize the difference, and a missle that might be mistaken for a small plane.....well there would have been nineteen kinds of early warning systems goiing off for something that big, including every patriot battery on the east coast.

D. If the terrorist forces that hit the pentagon had been sophisticated enough, and had spent the money to launch a missle, it would have had a MUCH more deadly warhead on it. Probably a small nuke, as the "plane" many witnesses are describing as being around the size of a lear jet would be capable of carrying a warhead larger than a tomahawk's


Point blank, the damage pattern is inconsistent with a large missle strike, but i do agree that there is quite a bit of plane missing on the outside.

MY hypothesis, they never show you the inside of the building. I beleive the plane tip-stalled at low speed, and the damage to the outside is simply were the wing tip struck, cartwheeling the aircraft inside the petagons walls.

That video is citing evidence disproving its other eyewitnesses, and making assuption about what plane crashes are like. Think about WTC, there was very littel wreckage that came out of the building there.

[Wes Nazo]

Pretty interesting:http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/pentagon/

[eXact]

pretty cool show but yeah lots of ppl make things like this to stir shi* up so its hard to fully trust it.

[Hai_hai]

The website makes theories which conflict with each other and do not give substance to any solid statements of fact. Not to reiterate dritzz's statements...

1. It was a plane that crashed into a building. The website showed plane wreckage photos of planes that crashed into the ground, not into a building. How a plane wrecks in those two cases is very different.

2. A plane flying low altitude at high speed burns a lot of fuel. It's not fully topped off at the point of impact.

[Jerott]

I have a slow computer so i can't watch it but i can imagine....

[piggy]

Pretty interesting:http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/pentagon/

i'm sure thats what they had in mind when they built it.(<sarcasm) the pintogram is not nessasarily evil. in some beliefs it can mean just the opposite.

[drizzt]

The website makes theories which conflict with each other and do not give substance to any solid statements of fact. Not to reiterate dritzz's statements...

1. It was a plane that crashed into a building. The website showed plane wreckage photos of planes that crashed into the ground, not into a building. How a plane wrecks in those two cases is very different.

2. A plane flying low altitude at high speed burns a lot of fuel. It's not fully topped off at the point of impact.

Thanks i forgot those. I still beleive they were aiming for the otherside of the building(wich was a more sensitive area i might add) and the damn thing tip-stalled. those planes have a very bad tendency to do that. Ive seen scale R/C models of them turned into toothpicks from tip stalling on aproach.

[jimswanson]

Fortunately for my dad, it hit where it did. A few feet to the left and he would have been dead. Unbeknownst to most people, the section of the Pentagon that was hit was mostly empty thanks to DoD beaurocracy. My Dad was supposed to be in that section. If it had hit a little higher, it would have done more damage and killed a LOT more people.

Jim

[Hai_hai]

Thanks i forgot those. I still beleive they were aiming for the otherside of the building(wich was a more sensitive area i might add) and the damn thing tip-stalled. those planes have a very bad tendency to do that. Ive seen scale R/C models of them turned into toothpicks from tip stalling on aproach.

I heard that the pilot was originally looking for the White House but couldn't find it so he flew towards the Pentagon. I don't know about your tip-stall theory as I think the pilot was aiming to hit the building directly and had the throttle completely forward. Second, I don't know if the pilot had the intel that the other side of the building was more sensitive. I don't know why you know that, the NSA might visit you.

[drizzt]

I heard that the pilot was originally looking for the White House but couldn't find it so he flew towards the Pentagon. I don't know about your tip-stall theory as I think the pilot was aiming to hit the building directly and had the throttle completely forward. Second, I don't know if the pilot had the intel that the other side of the building was more sensitive. I don't know why you know that, the NSA might visit you.

that was a "heard it" from a guy who worked in the pentagon for a while. i have no idea whats there, just know there are security checkpoints on that side reuiring a higher access code. Honestly im not shure what he was trying to do as far as throttle position, but theres a good chance he over slowed the plane(again im speculating on this because of the damage pattern, not any particualr knowledge.....me may have slammed the SOB in full power LOL)

I have no idea on the whitehouse thing, Could very well be, as the white house would have been a significantly better target for these punks(i dont deign to use the word terrorist here.......that would imply a minimal level of proffesionalism to what theyve done. There punks who like to kill people, nothing more)