Skip to main content

Here's the link to an interesting site that raises serious questions about the purported flight that rammed into the Pentagon.

Check it out for yourself.

link

Contrary to the pictures shown to the American public, after the fact, why does photographic evidence taken only a few moments after the Pentagon event show no wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon? Where is the plane? Where is the tail, the wings, the luggage, the seats, the landing gear; the engines? What happened to the passengers?




Here's an intriguing part . . .

From Deception to Revelation Part II

Newly revealed photos are irrefutable proof that
a Boeing 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon!

By Dave vonKleist

Within 12 hours of posting the first part of this analysis, photos were discovered that show that a fire truck had responded to a fire that had been possibly caused by a small aircraft hitting the lower portion of the Pentagon. The area had not yet collapsed and firefighters were working to contain the flames. The collapse occurred after fire retardant foam had extinguished a portion of the fire. These photos are self-explanatory and are irrefutable evidence that the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, was not caused by a Boeing 757, and in fact the story about the airliner is a complete fabrication.

The implications are of indescribable significance and it must be assumed the Pentagon, the U.S. military, the government and the media are engaged in the biggest cover-up in the history of this country, if not the world. As stated in the first part of this analysis, the events of September 11, 2001 are inescapably tied to one another, and if one group can be tied to one of these events, it would be safe to assume that they would be tied to all of them. No one wants to even entertain the idea of our own government being responsible for the horrific slaughter on innocent lives, police officers and firefighters, but the evidence is now before us that this might very well be the case.


© MBM

Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

During the first gulf war a C-5 transport crashed on takeoff from Ramstein AB in Germany, for those unfamiliar with the C-5 its the largest transport aircraft we have, I saw the accident site about 8 hours after and for an aircraft that huge you could hardly find any pieces big enough to identify it. So no large aircraft pieces really doesn't mean anything when an aircraft flies into a building.

By the way, the C-5 crashed down though some trees about 150 yards off the main road coming into the base, if you had been driving onto the base you would have seem one hell of a show.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

LOL... I find it funny the amount of work people on the net have gone through over this topic. Here's a possibly convincing refutation:




Let me just run with this for a moment. Here's a pic from the site you posted Vox. It appears to be of the inside ring of the Pentagon - ostensibly where the nose of the 757 busted through. Isn't it rather curious that the wings and tail made absolutely NO IMPACT on this part of the building - or any other frankly? I'm no scientist or forensic expert, but if you looked at that hole, wouldn't the more obvious answer be something other than a 757? Look how the building right outside the area that was blown away is relatively unscathed. The wings contain the fuel. Remember in the pictures of the attacks on the WTC how the entire plane went into the structure of the building and created a massive explosion the entire width of the plane? Furthermore, remember how an explosion the entire width of the plan shot all the way through to the other side of the WTC building? Why are the bricks and material at the Pentagon in this picture not charred? Why didn't the fuel and fire act in the same way here?





Why would the physics be any different at the Pentagon? That "No Parking: sign looks untouched. How does that happen? Why does a plan crashing into a building in NY act one way, but in DC act another? One could argue that the stone and brick of the Peantagon should have been even more impacted by the plane than the steel and concrete of the WTC.

The other thing is that is troubling me is that this didn't occur in "Paduca, WI". This occurred in Washington, DC! Why aren't there tens of video tapes that clearly show what happened? There is that one that is certainly unconvincing at best. This is DC - isn't every inch of that place on camera?

Think about it this whole scenario. Bush is in the air. We know that he's freaking out! (Did you see Fahrenheit 9/11?) At that time commercial planes are still flying. Cheney isn't sure WTF is going on. It is not sure whether there are more hijacked planes in the air or not. Are you going to tell me that with both this plane and the one that supposedly went down in PA that Cheney is not going to give them authorization to shoot them down? They think the government is under attack - are you going to tell me that Dick's going to let a plane get all the way to the Pentagon???

And regarding the PA plane - isn't it also curious that the dramatic "Let's roll" scenario is completely untraceable? C'mon - that plane was shot down. Why wouldn't if be shgot down? Honestly, if I were president, I'm not sure I would have made a different call under the same scenario.

The broader point of all of this, though, is that people believe, pretty much, what they are told. These pictures, IMHO, would lead most logical people to conclude that something other than a 757 hit the building. Nevertheless, because the government tells us another story - well, most folks pretty much believe it. Again, I'm not saying what did or did not happen. How the hell do I know. I'm also not maligning people who believe the "official story". I just think it is interesting that if someone sees something, but gets consistently told that they really saw something else - then eventually they are going to change their mind from what they saw with their own eyes to what they are told.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:

As for that parking sign, you stated that what we are looking at is the exit side of the hole. It is reasonable that a sign could remain intact.



Why would that sign remain unscathed at the Pentagon when the pictures from the WTC show that the entire opposite side of the building was blown away? How do you explain the extraordinary difference between what happened to the buildings in NY versus DC?

Interesting subject matter...

I have been hearing about this controversy for some time now. It brings to mind two questions:
    1. What happened to the wings? The hole made in the pentagon was relatively small, so shouldn't have the wings been sheared off? Where are they?

    2. If what hit the pentagon was not a plane, than what happened to the plane?


Just to add "fuel to the fire" here is another controversial point.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
The broader point of all of this, though, is that people believe, pretty much, what they are told. These pictures, IMHO, would lead most logical people to conclude that something other than a 757 hit the building. Nevertheless, because the government tells us another story - well, most folks pretty much believe it. Again, I'm not saying what did or did not happen. How the hell do I know. I'm also not maligning people who believe the "official story". I just think it is interesting that if someone sees something, but gets consistently told that they really saw something else - then eventually they are going to change their mind from what they saw with their own eyes to what they are told.


Isn't propoganda amazing?

P.S. About shooting down the other planes off course once the first WTC tower was hit...Why don't we ever get to hear the control tower tapes?

And in the WTC buildings themselves...Jet fuel heats up hot enough to melt steel that results in a building collapse, and destroys the Black boxes in airplanes...but lets the terrorist passports survive unscathed? Roll Eyes

Something is fishy IMO...

AudioGuy...I love Rense.com The X-tian/Euro centered overtones are the only flaw IMO..but nobodies perfect and it's hard to escape one's life perspective.
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:

1. What happened to the wings? The hole made in the pentagon was relatively small, so shouldn't have the wings been sheared off? Where are they?


Good question! Either that, or as I asked above, since the wings penetrated the steel and concrete of the WTC, why didn't they go through the concrete and brick of the Pentagon?

quote:
2. If what hit the pentagon was not a plane, than what happened to the plane?


Cheney wasn't having it! He shot those MF's down (Pennsylvania and the Pentagon flight) with the quickness!
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Here's the link to an interesting site that raises serious questions about the purported flight that rammed into the Pentagon.

Check it out for yourself.

http://thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htm

Contrary to the pictures shown to the American public, after the fact, why does photographic evidence taken only a few moments after the Pentagon event show no wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon? Where is the plane? Where is the tail, the wings, the luggage, the seats, the landing gear; the engines? What happened to the passengers?


http://thepowerhour.com/news/compall_1.JPG

Here's an intriguing part . . .

From Deception to Revelation Part II

Newly revealed photos are irrefutable proof that
a Boeing 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon!

By Dave vonKleist

Within 12 hours of posting the first part of this analysis, photos were discovered that show that a fire truck had responded to a fire that had been possibly caused by a small aircraft hitting the lower portion of the Pentagon. The area had not yet collapsed and firefighters were working to contain the flames. The collapse occurred after fire retardant foam had extinguished a portion of the fire. These photos are self-explanatory and are irrefutable evidence that the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, was not caused by a Boeing 757, and in fact the story about the airliner is a complete fabrication.

The implications are of indescribable significance and it must be assumed the Pentagon, the U.S. military, the government and the media are engaged in the biggest cover-up in the history of this country, if not the world. As stated in the first part of this analysis, the events of September 11, 2001 are inescapably tied to one another, and if one group can be tied to one of these events, it would be safe to assume that they would be tied to all of them. No one wants to even entertain the idea of our own government being responsible for the horrific slaughter on innocent lives, police officers and firefighters, but the evidence is now before us that this might very well be the case.


http://thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/rpt2b.jpg


The conspiracy theory nuts on those sites need to study a little more physics and engineering.

The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete structure,

An airplane travelling at a high velocity which is primarily 6061-Al or aluminum striking the structure at an angle:

Do the math or actually read the enginnering analysis on it.

Conspiracy theory nuts of this type are generally what I call "physics challenged" Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Kuya Pat:
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
Here's the link to an interesting site that raises serious questions about the purported flight that rammed into the Pentagon.

Check it out for yourself.

http://thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htm

Contrary to the pictures shown to the American public, after the fact, why does photographic evidence taken only a few moments after the Pentagon event show no wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon? Where is the plane? Where is the tail, the wings, the luggage, the seats, the landing gear; the engines? What happened to the passengers?


http://thepowerhour.com/news/compall_1.JPG

Here's an intriguing part . . .

From Deception to Revelation Part II

Newly revealed photos are irrefutable proof that
a Boeing 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon!

By Dave vonKleist

Within 12 hours of posting the first part of this analysis, photos were discovered that show that a fire truck had responded to a fire that had been possibly caused by a small aircraft hitting the lower portion of the Pentagon. The area had not yet collapsed and firefighters were working to contain the flames. The collapse occurred after fire retardant foam had extinguished a portion of the fire. These photos are self-explanatory and are irrefutable evidence that the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, was not caused by a Boeing 757, and in fact the story about the airliner is a complete fabrication.

The implications are of indescribable significance and it must be assumed the Pentagon, the U.S. military, the government and the media are engaged in the biggest cover-up in the history of this country, if not the world. As stated in the first part of this analysis, the events of September 11, 2001 are inescapably tied to one another, and if one group can be tied to one of these events, it would be safe to assume that they would be tied to all of them. No one wants to even entertain the idea of our own government being responsible for the horrific slaughter on innocent lives, police officers and firefighters, but the evidence is now before us that this might very well be the case.


http://thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/rpt2b.jpg


The conspiracy theory nuts on those sites need to study a little more physics and engineering.

The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete structure,

An airplane travelling at a high velocity which is primarily 6061-Al or aluminum striking the structure at an angle:

Do the math or actually read the enginnering analysis on it.

Conspiracy theory nuts of this type are generally what I call "physics challenged" Big Grin


So I guess it vaporized then...
quote:
Originally posted by Kuya Pat:
The conspiracy theory nuts on those sites need to study a little more physics and engineering.

The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete structure,

An airplane travelling at a high velocity which is primarily 6061-Al or aluminum striking the structure at an angle:

Do the math or actually read the enginnering analysis on it.

Conspiracy theory nuts of this type are generally what I call "physics challenged" Big Grin


If you look at the "physics" that 6061-A1 aluminum should never have made it through all those rings of reinforced concrete and steel, but it did.

If you look at the "physics", the hole made by the plane is relatively small... where are the wings?? Are you saying that the wings just disappeared? Maybe they were dragged into the hole by the rest of the plane? Maybe they came off while in flight and fell into the potomac river prior to striking the p'gon?

What does your extensive background in physics and engineering say about that?
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kuya Pat:
The conspiracy theory nuts on those sites need to study a little more physics and engineering.

The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete structure,

An airplane travelling at a high velocity which is primarily 6061-Al or aluminum striking the structure at an angle:

Do the math or actually read the enginnering analysis on it.

Conspiracy theory nuts of this type are generally what I call "physics challenged" Big Grin


If you look at the "physics" that 6061-A1 aluminum should never have made it through all those rings of reinforced concrete and steel, but it did.

If you look at the "physics", the hole made by the plane is relatively small... where are the wings?? Are you saying that the wings just disappeared? Maybe they were dragged into the hole by the rest of the plane? Maybe they came off while in flight and fell into the potomac river prior to striking the p'gon?

What does your extensive background in physics and engineering say about that?


You mean my Bachelor's & Master's in Mechanical Engineering along with PE licenses in several states? Cool

You want a real world rational analysis go here:

http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0212/news_1-1.html

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

You want to believe in fairy tales hey it's a free country.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuya Pat:
You mean my Bachelor's & Master's in Mechanical Engineering along with PE licenses in several states?


So you went to the pentagon to apply your extensive background?
quote:
You want a real world rational analysis go here:

http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0212/news_1-1.html

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

You want to believe in fairy tales hey it's a free country.

Article # 1 did not mention the wings or how a plane made of 6061-A1 aluminum made it through 200+ ft of reinforced concrete and steel and the second article did not mention the size of the original hole made by the aircraft (approx 14ft) in relation to the wings.

So I ask you (again):
    1. What happened to the wings?
    2. How did an aircraft made of 6061-A1 aluminum make it through 200+ ft of reinforced concrete and steel?


Please tell me in your own words.
quote:
Originally posted by AudioGuy:
quote:
Originally posted by Kuya Pat:
You mean my Bachelor's & Master's in Mechanical Engineering along with PE licenses in several states?


So you went to the pentagon to apply your extensive background?
quote:
You want a real world rational analysis go here:

http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0212/news_1-1.html

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

You want to believe in fairy tales hey it's a free country.

Article # 1 did not mention the wings or how a plane made of 6061-A1 aluminum made it through 200+ ft of reinforced concrete and steel and the second article did not mention the size of the original hole made by the aircraft (approx 14ft) in relation to the wings.

So I ask you (again):1. What happened to the wings?
2. How did an aircraft made of 6061-A1 aluminum make it through 200+ ft of reinforced concrete and steel?

Please tell me in your _own_ words.


Sure it pretty much all boils down to F=M*A
or Force equals Mass times Acceleration

So for question one the the photo implies that upon impact all parts of the plane will continue going forward in a straight line which is what it implies by saying "Hey the hole is bigger than the wings"

The problem is wing structures are not designed as a rigid structure but to buckle and bend:

For example watch a video of a B-52 taking off or landing and watch the wings flex & bend.

Compare to say a jet fighter in which the wing is designed as a more rigid structure.

A passenger jet is closer to the former design parameters. Hell we design the damn engines to fall off above a certain load. But I digress.

None of the effects of deformation or the impact shock of a sudden deceleration of that magnitude are considered in those sites.

Which is why they are crackpots.

Similar to the "The temperature wasn't enough to melt the steel crowd" No it wasn't but it's enough to lessen the yield strength + you have hundreds of structural members destroyed + you get with elevated temperatures (and now a non-symmetric or balanced structure if you will to put it into laymans terms) stresses too great for the remaining load bearing members to carry as beams expand due to the elevated rise in temperature.

Anyhow the second question boils down to the force varies with the square of the velocity when you derive the equation.

So just as a lead bullet in .308 caliber will not only penetrate a bullet proof vest but 1/4 of steel so will a relatively soft structure ie aluminum penetrate into a concrete building.

Hope that helped and was clear enough.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0210-22.htm

As one of Gladio's operatives said, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

It's a theme as old as statesmanship. And judging from the war(s) that the US is/will be engaging, the legislation being passed (the patriot acts) and outright attack on the economy, at least the part that touches the poor and middle class, it seems to be working.

Bravo, fascists. You've learned the lessons well.
9/11 commission: FAA had al Qaeda warnings
Report's post-election release date questioned




WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Aviation Administration received repeated warnings in the months prior to September 11, 2001, about al Qaeda and its desire to attack airlines, according to a previously undisclosed report by the commission that investigated the terror attacks.

The report by the 9/11 commission detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders from April to September 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

The commission report, written last August, said five security warnings mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijackings and two reports concerned suicide operations not connected to aviation. However, none of the warnings pinpointed what would happen on September 11.

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown on Thursday said the agency received intelligence from other agencies, which it passed on to airlines and airports.

But, she said, "We had no specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

Brown also said the FAA was in the process of tightening security at the time of the attacks.

"We were spending $100 million a year to deploy explosive detection equipment at the airports," she said. The agency was also close to issuing a regulation that would have set higher standards for screeners and, for the first time, give it direct control over the screening work force.

Questions about timing
Al Felzenberg, former spokesman for the 9/11 commission, which went out of business last summer, said the government had not completed a review of the 120-page report for declassification purposes until recently.

Carol Ashley of Rockville Centre, New York, whose daughter died in the attacks, said the report should have been released sooner.

"I'm just appalled that this was withheld for five months. That contributes to the idea that the government knew something and didn't act, it contributes to the conspiracy theories out there. We need to rebut those with the actual facts, but we need the facts to do that," she said.

California Rep. Henry Waxman, ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee, asked for a hearing on whether the Bush administration played politics with the report's release. The letter, also signed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, said the committee should probe whether the report was delayed until after the November elections and the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

The unclassified version, first reported by The New York Times, was made available by the National Archives Thursday.

Specific findings
According to the report:


Aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security" and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures."

Of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between April 1, 2001 and September 10, 2001, 52 mentioned bin Laden, al Qaeda, or both, "mostly in regard to overseas threats."

The FAA did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten airport screening for weapons. It said FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack.

A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 had been held up by the Office of Management and Budget and was still not in effect when the attacks occurred, according to the FAA.
Information in this report was available to members of the 9/11 commission when they issued their public report last summer. That report itself contained criticisms of FAA operations.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuya Pat:
Sure it pretty much all boils down to F=M*A
or Force equals Mass times Acceleration

So for question one the the photo implies that upon impact all parts of the plane will continue going forward in a straight line which is what it implies by saying "Hey the hole is bigger than the wings"

The problem is wing structures are not designed as a rigid structure but to buckle and bend:

For example watch a video of a B-52 taking off or landing and watch the wings flex & bend.

Compare to say a jet fighter in which the wing is designed as a more rigid structure.

A passenger jet is closer to the former design parameters. Hell we design the damn engines to fall off above a certain load. But I digress.

None of the effects of deformation or the impact shock of a sudden deceleration of that magnitude are considered in those sites.

This does not answer the question.

The original hole made by the aircraft was approx. 14ft in diameter, that leaves approx. 110ft of wings that are unaccounted for. Are you saying that they were sheared off? (in which case they would have been laying on the ground in the photo) Or are you saying that the wings were somehow brought into the building - through the 14ft hole? (which would defy the laws of physics)

quote:
Anyhow the second question boils down to the force varies with the square of the velocity when you derive the equation.

So just as a lead bullet in .308 caliber will not only penetrate a bullet proof vest but 1/4 of steel so will a relatively soft structure ie aluminum penetrate into a concrete building.

Hope that helped and was clear enough.


I would buy this theory except on thing - the planes that crashed into the WTC (by you own admission, a much weaker structure), were essentially swallowed by the building, they did not travel 200 hundred feet after impact. How is it that those planes did not travel 200 ft and the one that hit the p'gon did? (a much more fortified structure)

Please explain this.
Has anybody seen the latest home video that shows the explosion at the Pentagon ... but again, no airplane actually crashing into it? Confused

I was able to watch it one time at the AP Video site, but then no matter how many times I clicked "play", I could only get the video of them moving the USS Intrepid out of the mud! Eek Then it disappeared off the playlist altogether. Roll Eyes

But, I saw it on CNN Headline News last night ... so I know I'm not crazy. Not about this, anyway! Big Grin
9/11 Pentagon Video

This is supposed to be a new home video footage that was just released by the FBI (or CIA or whoever). It allegedly was taken from an apartment building a couple of blocks away from the Pentagon.

It's grainy and out of focus, but is supposed to show the explosion that happened upon impact. However, there's still no airplane in sight! Just an explosion. Eek

The link above will take you to the AP video site. Then click on the "Caught On Tape" button (far right) and the video is entitled "Raw Video: New 9/11 Pentagon Video Released". There's no sound and is in black and white. sck

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×