Very interesting...

[r1eater]

Since all the attention and media coverage was on the twin towers I never paid much attention to the pentagon. In fact if you think about it, it didnt really get that much attention..


http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main

[L1nt2B]

WOW! that will make you think :confused:

[r1eater]

Sure does, that snap shot of the video sure looks like a tomahawk cruise missle. That thing can fly low enough to do that. Its also interesting that an mostly unused section of the pentagon was hit.

[Wht95Lightning]

Whaaaaaat :confused: I can picture the tail of the plane sticking out of the pentagon when it first showed on TV. I will try to find a picture of that.

[Tex Arcana]

Everything points to a plane that hit a good 500 yards away from the front door of the Pentagon--if that plane had hit at full power and full contact, that building would be mostly gone like the towers.

Also, the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down...

[r1eater]

where is the wreckage and where is the crater like the one left by the one that crashed in the woods? They say it was to big to be a cruise missle but certainly smaller than a 757. They think this was a global hawk, in fact they found a piece of carbon fiber houseing the same used in the global hawk

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/usaf_products/global_hawk/global_hawk.html

[Tex Arcana]

where is the wreckage and where is the crater like the one left by the one that crashed in the woods? They say it was to big to be a cruise missle but certainly smaller than a 757. They think this was a global hawk, in fact they found a piece of carbon fiber houseing the same used in the global hawk

http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/usaf_products/global_hawk/global_hawk.html

The pictures in front of the Pentagon show a furrow leading up to the front door; the destroyed section was barely wider than the wings; and the engines were on the front lawn, nearly intact.

The plane in Penn went down in a field, ended close to the woods. Witnesses at first said they saw two F16s chasing the plane, then recanted. If a plane shot down a 757 or 767, it would've gone down in multiple pieces.

[my2002lightning]

Wow! :(

I think I've come to one realization about 9/11: It's going to be like the Kennedy assassination... details start to leak out "later".

[Tex Arcana]

Wow! :(

I think I've come to one realization about 9/11: It's going to be like the Kennedy assassination... details start to leak out "later".

Well, of course!! And, given how life is today, I think a shitload will be coming out in the next few months...

[r1eater]

The pictures in front of the Pentagon show a furrow leading up to the front door; the destroyed section was barely wider than the wings; and the engines were on the front lawn, nearly intact.

The plane in Penn went down in a field, ended close to the woods. Witnesses at first said they saw two F16s chasing the plane, then recanted. If a plane shot down a 757 or 767, it would've gone down in multiple pieces.

If you find the pictures post them. I dont recall there being a burrow. Also if you see the video captured, you'd think you'd see a 757 atleast in one of the frames and those fuxors are big.

[Sixpipes]

Correct me if I am wrong, but no one knows exactly what happens when a 757 flies into a limestone building at an estimated 500+ mph. Dick Eastman has fabricated this whole thing out of thin air and here are the conclusions he now points to because of the "Pentagon coverup". He basically is accusing George Bush of orchestrating the WTC and Pentagon accidents for the following reasons.

SUMMARY POINTS - By Dick Eastman

I. MOTIVES
1] Getting the pipeline the Taliban had rejected; 2] Control of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan;:rll: 3] Generating a popular and sufficient reason to attack Saddam Hussein (whom both father and son Bush have long wanted to see dead); 4] Continued sustainability of the infamous "ring" of Afghan opium becoming Chinese heroin becoming laundered revenue proceeds becoming investment capital building new Chinese industry forcing the relocation of industry away from U.S. territory; 5] Big money for the FBI, CIA, military industrial complex; 6] Destruction of WTC-housed evidence in the biggest-ever illegal oil swap case; 7] Destruction of WTC-housed evidence in the biggest-ever gold price fixing case (illegal selling of Federal Reserve gold to elites at way below obtainable market prices); 8] Getting the FBI off white collar and bank crime (i.e. introducing total anarchy to the sphere in which the U.S. investment bankers, currency traders, derivatives makers etc. operate); 9] Having the CIA ("Capitalism's Invisible Army" as R. Buckminster Fuller called it) take over the FBI (the more legitimate and traditionally constitutional of Federal investigation and intelligence agencies) and in so doing purging the FBI of leadership sympathetic with anti- globalist, populist, nationalist, constitutionalist, or pro-sovereignty thinking -- in fact it is the druglords taking over the constabulary; and last, 10] Accomplishing pre-emptive war set-up to look like retaliatory self-defence, i.e., picking fights, against all "potential" terrorists by setting-up the those suspected of being capable of resorting to terror, actually conducting terror themselves so they can pin the blame on those they want to decimate, those who stand in the way of their economic and geopolitical dominance.

His theories are so preposterous, they don't even require comment. :cool:

[Silver_2000]

There was surveillance video that showed the impact at one point. It was played repeatedly ..

The folks who were flying the plane and the passengers who died - Those were all fabrications ???

Whatever ....

Padded Cell needed...

[Shiner1]

Correct me if I am wrong, but no one knows exactly what happens when a 757 flies into a limestone building at an estimated 500+ mph. Dick Eastman has fabricated this whole thing out of thin air and here are the conclusions he now points to because of the "Pentagon coverup". He basically is accusing George Bush of orchestrating the WTC and Pentagon accidents for the following reasons.

SUMMARY POINTS - By Dick Eastman

I. MOTIVES
1] Getting the pipeline the Taliban had rejected; 2] Control of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan; 3] Generating a popular and sufficient reason to attack Saddam Hussein (whom both father and son Bush have long wanted to see dead); 4] Continued sustainability of the infamous "ring" of Afghan opium becoming Chinese heroin becoming laundered revenue proceeds becoming investment capital building new Chinese industry forcing the relocation of industry away from U.S. territory; 5] Big money for the FBI, CIA, military industrial complex; 6] Destruction of WTC-housed evidence in the biggest-ever illegal oil swap case; 7] Destruction of WTC-housed evidence in the biggest-ever gold price fixing case (illegal selling of Federal Reserve gold to elites at way below obtainable market prices); 8] Getting the FBI off white collar and bank crime (i.e. introducing total anarchy to the sphere in which the U.S. investment bankers, currency traders, derivatives makers etc. operate); 9] Having the CIA ("Capitalism's Invisible Army" as R. Buckminster Fuller called it) take over the FBI (the more legitimate and traditionally constitutional of Federal investigation and intelligence agencies) and in so doing purging the FBI of leadership sympathetic with anti- globalist, populist, nationalist, constitutionalist, or pro-sovereignty thinking -- in fact it is the druglords taking over the constabulary; and last, 10] Accomplishing pre-emptive war set-up to look like retaliatory self-defence, i.e., picking fights, against all "potential" terrorists by setting-up the those suspected of being capable of resorting to terror, actually conducting terror themselves so they can pin the blame on those they want to decimate, those who stand in the way of their economic and geopolitical dominance.

His theories are so preposterous, they don't even require comment. :cool:
He said...Dick:rll: That's all that was worth repeating. Padded cell indeed.

[Wht95Lightning]

Conspiracy my ass. Here's your 757 parts.

http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/pic/Pentagon091107.jpg
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/pic/Pentagon091127.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general32/aedrive6.jpg

Compare to closeup of 757 landing gear:

http://www.rense.com/general32/pa_00239.jpg

Note the large chunk of fuselage (green primer) lying on the ground.
http://www.rense.com/general32/fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg

A 757 hit the pentagon, people were killed, period. Anybody that thinks this is incorrect is delusional, should go to the nearest recruiting office and sign up so they can go to the middle east and do something constructive instead of spewing this conspiracy bullshit. :flaming:

[Tex Arcana]

Conspiracy my ass. Here's your 757 parts.

http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/pic/Pentagon091107.jpg
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/pic/Pentagon091127.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general32/aedrive6.jpg

Compare to closeup of 757 landing gear:

http://www.rense.com/general32/pa_00239.jpg

Note the large chunk of fuselage (green primer) lying on the ground.
http://www.rense.com/general32/fuselagefragment_MVC-027S.jpg

A 757 hit the pentagon, people were killed, period. Anybody that thinks this is incorrect is delusional, should go to the nearest recruiting office and sign up so they can go to the middle east and do something constructive instead of spewing this conspiracy bullshit. :flaming:

No question about it, it hit the Pentagon, the question is why wasn't tehre more damage? Hence the questions, and the alternative explanations.

[Wht95Lightning]

A 757 is a pretty big plane but the Pentagon is a REALLY big structure.
It'd be like ramming your L into Texas Stadium. There's be damage but it would seem small when you look at the scale of it.

[98Cobra]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[Tex Arcana]

Since all the attention and media coverage was on the twin towers I never paid much attention to the pentagon. In fact if you think about it, it didnt really get that much attention..


http://www.muchosucko.com/flash/pentagonlies.html#Main

After watching that, I'm rethinking a few things as well. Despite the Snopes conclusion, I'm beginning to think that there's something to this. Obviously, the damage isn't as extensive as it *should* be (I mean, 5300 gallons of jet fuel makes a helluva bomb, as amply demonstrated by the WTC crashes). :nono:

I think there is ample evidence for an investigation, but who would conduct it?? By the time the word "investigation" left anyone's lips, every shred of evidence would have been tossed down the maw of the OLLIE-9000 shredder... :eek:

[r1eater]

Also why wont they release the other videos? And I agree, the fuel is what really brought the WTC towers down. That fuel burns hot and melted the support beams which toppled the upper levels.

[Tex Arcana]

Also why wont they release the other videos? And I agree, the fuel is what really brought the WTC towers down. That fuel burns hot and melted the support beams which toppled the upper levels.

Remember how the planes seems to disappear, like a person diving off the high board into a pool? That sort of impact and damage would rupture every fuel tank on board, and as the fuel ignited, it'd go off like a bomb. The upper levels dropped, and thier impact into the lower levels (along with propagating member failure) brought the rest of 'em down.

So, it follows that the Pentagon should've had much more damage done to it, if indeed a 757 hit.

[r1eater]

Remember how the planes seems to disappear, like a person diving off the high board into a pool? That sort of impact and damage would rupture every fuel tank on board, and as the fuel ignited, it'd go off like a bomb. The upper levels dropped, and thier impact into the lower levels (along with propagating member failure) brought the rest of 'em down.

So, it follows that the Pentagon should've had much more damage done to it, if indeed a 757 hit.


I'm with ya on that :tu:

[TreeFiddy]

A 757 is a much smaller plane than a 767, and the Pentagon is a much bigger building than people realize. Look at the attached picture. That's the Beltway next to the Pentagon, and it's 8 lanes wide.

I still have yet to hear any theories as to what actually happened, it's just a lot of stupid people saying what didn't happen.

BTW, the plane clipped the light poles on the way down. Missles don't do that.
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/pic/Pentagon091124.png

[ghostt]

was there once with my dad when i frist joined up and they show u the building is made in more then one section( 1 wall a gap and then again with a wall and gap) before getting to a main hall there are a total of six walls i think that it had to pass to get to the other side of the hall ,and seeing how they have add extra protection over the yrs bullet proof glass and extra linings to the walls this may be why the one hole is so small you can only force so much in to a hole before the sides would have started to peel back , and im sure if some one wants to look u sould be able to find out how thick the walls

[03LightningRocks]

Snip..........(I mean, 5300 gallons of jet fuel makes a helluva bomb, as amply demonstrated by the WTC crashes). :nono:


Just soes you are aware of what "Jet Fuel" is in a commercial airliner, we used to refer to it as KERO...LOL....as in kerosene. Also known as diesel fuel.

The DPS out at DFW used to put on a fire training safety coarse for us. A couple of examples they would show for how explosive the KERO wasn't, included sticking a lit flare into a bucket of "Jet Fuel" and putting out a fire by throwing that same bucket of Kero on it.

Now I'm not saying the stuff isn't flamable....but it is not quite the same way a bomb works. The Kero actually spills all over everything around it and will burn just like in a Kerosene lamp.........slow and black.


Oh...by the by.....I happened to have been employeed as an Airline fueler at DFW airport when the Delta L 10-11 decide to skip off of 114 and crash just before the landing strip. I was roughly 200 yards from it watching it land.........you would not believe how much those things desentigrate(sp?) on impact. That one was in a slow decline when it hit. The one that hit the pentagon was cruising at what????500 MPH??? Imagine the physics in that.

Thin walled aluminum against 6 walls of concrete and gawd knows what else...the airplane will lose. Take an empty coke can and mash it into a brick wall...the brick won't even know you did it. The can...LOL...flat.


Just some thoughts for the theory.

[Silver_2000]

Just soes you are aware of what "Jet Fuel" is in a commercial airliner, we used to refer to it as KERO...LOL....as in kerosene. Also known as diesel fuel.

The DPS out at DFW used to put on a fire training safety coarse for us. A couple of examples they would show for how explosive the KERO wasn't, included sticking a lit flare into a bucket of "Jet Fuel" and putting out a fire by throwing that same bucket of Kero on it.

Now I'm not saying the stuff isn't flamable....but it is not quite the same way a bomb works. The Kero actually spills all over everything around it and will burn just like in a Kerosene lamp.........slow and black.


Oh...by the by.....I happened to have been employeed as an Airline fueler at DFW airport when the Delta L 10-11 decide to skip off of 114 and crash just before the landing strip. I was roughly 200 yards from it watching it land.........you would not believe how much those things desentigrate(sp?) on impact. That one was in a slow decline when it hit. The one that hit the pentagon was cruising at what????500 MPH??? Imagine the physics in that.

Thin walled aluminum against 6 walls of concrete and gawd knows what else...the airplane will lose. Take an empty coke can and mash it into a brick wall...the brick won't even know you did it. The can...LOL...flat.


Just some thoughts for the theory.
If it were that resistant to flame then how do you explain the fireballs that occur when a plane chrashes... Is it the hairspray from the stewardesses suitcase ??

[03LightningRocks]

If it were that resistant to flame then how do you explain the fireballs that occur when a plane chrashes... Is it the hairspray from the stewardesses suitcase ??

First off Doug....I did NOT say resistant to flame:hammer: . The fire ball is from a portion of the fuel that atomizes on impact. The remainder of the fuel...for example in the Towers...pours all over everything and burns like a wick.

As a matter of fact, their where interviews with people in the trade center that talked of jet fuel running down the elevator shafts.

Do this little test.....soak a rag in Gasoline, light it....what happens??? You get an instant Poof...and the whole wrag is ablaze.

Now soak a wrag in Kerosene(jet fuel)...light it....what happens??? It slowly lights at one end and spreads to the other.


Rocks

[03LightningRocks]

What I am trying to point out is that it is more like a molitov cocktail than a bomb. So when talking about the hole in the Pentagon and how big it is, one would not be able to figure in the fire as helping to make the hole bigger.

Everything that gets soaked in the Kero will catch fire and burn....but the hole is simply made from the original impact...not the ensuing fireball. The pentagon is built to withstand a sizeable blast. A commercial airliner is not supplying a blast...it is supplying impact only....


Rocks

[Silver_2000]

You can do the same trick with Gas - BUT I wouldnt recommend it

You can toss a lit match into a bucket of gas - Assuming that the room is vented well the match will go out.

Like I said I wouldnt recommend the test

Its all about the vapor - Gas vaporizes real easy and Kero and its relatives vaporize very poorly and slowly. If the match deosnt pass thru enough vapor in the right percentage it doesnt light and the liquid extinguishes the flame...

Doug

[03LightningRocks]

You can do the same trick with Gas - BUT I wouldnt recommend it

You can toss a lit match into a bucket of gas - Assuming that the room is vented well the match will go out.

Like I said I wouldnt recommend the test

Its all about the vapor - Gas vaporizes real easy and Kero and its relatives vaporize very poorly and slowly. If the match deosnt pass thru enough vapor in the right percentage it doesnt light and the liquid extinguishes the flame...

Doug
You are correct...it is a "parlor trick" of sorts...LOL. And I wouldn't recommend throwing a bucket of Kerosene on a kitchen fire :D .


Rocks

[Ivanhoe_Farms]

Someone's imagination is working way overtime. We were near the Pentagon (about 600 yards away) and there was no question that it was a 757. There were too many eye witnesses to the fact!!

There were passengers on the airplane talking to relatives as it was going down --- they know the flight number and tracked the plane!!

Additionally, the Pentagon is built in multiple rows --- to prevent an explosion from collapsing the whole building --- it is designed that way.

There was an F-16 that came in about 10 minutes or so after the plane crashed, it did break the sound barrier, and did make some swishing sounds.

http://www.f150online.com/galleries/pictureview.cfm?pnum=2705&anum=195
http://www.f150online.com/galleries/pictureview.cfm?pnum=2697&anum=195
http://www.f150online.com/galleries/pictureview.cfm?pnum=2706&anum=195

[Tex Arcana]

Just soes you are aware of what "Jet Fuel" is in a commercial airliner, we used to refer to it as KERO...LOL....as in kerosene. Also known as diesel fuel.

The DPS out at DFW used to put on a fire training safety coarse for us. A couple of examples they would show for how explosive the KERO wasn't, included sticking a lit flare into a bucket of "Jet Fuel" and putting out a fire by throwing that same bucket of Kero on it.

Now I'm not saying the stuff isn't flamable....but it is not quite the same way a bomb works. The Kero actually spills all over everything around it and will burn just like in a Kerosene lamp.........slow and black.


Oh...by the by.....I happened to have been employeed as an Airline fueler at DFW airport when the Delta L 10-11 decide to skip off of 114 and crash just before the landing strip. I was roughly 200 yards from it watching it land.........you would not believe how much those things desentigrate(sp?) on impact. That one was in a slow decline when it hit. The one that hit the pentagon was cruising at what????500 MPH??? Imagine the physics in that.

Thin walled aluminum against 6 walls of concrete and gawd knows what else...the airplane will lose. Take an empty coke can and mash it into a brick wall...the brick won't even know you did it. The can...LOL...flat.


Just some thoughts for the theory.


I've seen footage of plane crashes done early on, in which the plane went up like a fireball on the very first impact. Of course, this was the footage that was taken during tests on plane crashes and fuel flammability that led to the higher-flashpoint fuels and additives taht help prevent fireballs when you look at 'em funny; but the fuel still should've gone off, especially whe you consider all the electrical lines that got severed by the impact.

ANd, yes, true, planes are aluminum; but when you're talking TONS of metal, the impact is STILL very significant.

[TreeFiddy]

I've seen footage of plane crashes done early on, in which the plane went up like a fireball on the very first impact. Of course, this was the footage that was taken during tests on plane crashes and fuel flammability that led to the higher-flashpoint fuels and additives taht help prevent fireballs when you look at 'em funny; but the fuel still should've gone off, especially whe you consider all the electrical lines that got severed by the impact.

ANd, yes, true, planes are aluminum; but when you're talking TONS of metal, the impact is STILL very significant.

Um...the fuel did go off. There's a show on KERA right now where the witnesses are talking about it.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/110804factsstraight.htm

Good estimate, Ivanhoe! The F-16's arrived 12 minutes after impact.