Surfed into this and had to share....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMnSti7TxeU&NR=1

A comment underneath said that the video was edited so that you wouldn't see the jet.

Yes, I'm fairly sure it was the 757 that hit the Pentagon.

It's possible to ask endless questions about a complex crash like this and come up with all kinds of possibilities. But, real life disasters have a way of being bizarre way beyond what any fiction writer would pass off as plausible. I tend not to entertain all these alternate explanations about the Pentagon crash simply because they make a lot of assumptions about the crash which may not be true. This video is full of them e.g. such and such an amount of jet fuel had to have created this big of a fire, or the hole had to have been bigger. But how do you know? You don't know, you're just making assumptions.

Some of the suggestions in the video are downright stupid. The narrator questions why the date on the video said "September 12" and not "September 11," apparently not considering that anyone trying to cover up a hoax could with a 10-year-old PC and photoshop doctor up anything to put the correct date on the video. In fact, CGI could have created a much more plausible video than was actually released. If someone were trying to cover up a missile attack, surely they would have released a more convincing fake video?

Let's turn things around. First of all, WHY would you hit the Pentagon with a missile? Taken by itself, you could question it but the WTC attacks were far more devastating, and those were enough to justify all that followed.

If a missile hit the Pentagon, then what happened to AA 77? Was it destroyed? Were the passengers taken off the plane and dumped in the ocean, or are they still in captivity somewhere? And how many people would have to be in on this secret and keep their mouths shut?

Does that make any sense at all? No. The idea that hijackers crashed the plane into the Pentagon makes a lot more sense.

Andrew

Occum's razor supports andrew's comments. I'd say we wait for more compelling evidence to surface before we get carried away with theories that it was something other than AA77.

It was a jet, plenanty of people saw it hit. And since a commercial airliner is primarily aluminium, not much was left.

Trixter, you're acting like a lackey of the looney left. Are you next going to tell us how good medical care is in Cuba?

Herb

This one is interesting....looks more like a missle hit.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1055549857976758693&q=pentagon+jet+cras h&total=186&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

If any of these theories are true, then what happened to the flight AA77? It couldn't have just disappeared?

looks more like my daughter discovering "Paint" in her accessory folder.

CNN's Jamie McIntyre, reporting from the Pentagon on 9/11/01, has famously been quoted as saying on air on 9/11 that the plane coming in "looked just like a missile." The point is, he SAW a plane but it LOOKED like a missile the way it came in. But, 9/11 theorists often misquote him, forgetting to note that he SAW the plane. McIntyre has since gone to lengths to clarify what he actually said, in context, that day while reporting from the Pentagon.

Andrew

I call bullshit.
Take a look at this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564139164761175637&q=pentagon+jet+cras h&total=187&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
A Boeing 757 with 5,300 gallons, 42,000 pounds of high octane jet fuel would have made a much larger fireball and it would have lasted more than a few moments. Also where is the plane debry? The damage to the building does not support a large wide body aircraft attack. It is far more likely that the Pentagon knew it was compromised and shot it down. The pentagon hit was likely from a small personal jet and was just used to cover up the AA77 disappearance.
Look at the following sight:
http://www.786.com.au/aa77.html
It sure raises a few red flags as far as I am concerned! No I do not believe a 757 hit the pentagon, yet something did so why this huge cover up as to what really happened.

The Pentagon knows and has buried it and we will likely never know until some actual footage surfaces.

A Boeing 757 with 7500 pounds of fuel would have made a much larger fireball and it would have lasted more than a few moments.

Sez who? Sez you! Would have, could have. You can't account for oddities in the circumstances that might have reduced the size of the crash explosion.

Also where is the plane debry?

People seem to think that this was a typical plane crash, where the pilot would have been trying to slow the plane down and perhaps land or ditch as safely as possible. But this plane was traveling even faster than full speed. You wouldn't necessarily expect to find the same kind of wreckage. But people did see it. CNN's Jamie McIntyre said, "In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/index.html?iref=newssearc h

It is far more likely that the Pentagon knew it was compromised and shot it down. The pentagon hit was likely from a small personal jet and was just used to cover up the AA77 disappearance.

Why not fake the crash elsewhere as happened (real crash) in Pennsylvania, in a field? Why bother to hit the Pentagon?

Andrew

OK....one simple question. Did the wings fall off of the plane prior to impact? If not were are the wing hits on the building? That in itself leads me to believe a much smaller jet or projectile actually hit the pentagon.
http://bogusstory.com/northlabeled.jpg

Darktemper writes:
OK....one simple question. Did the wings fall off of the plane prior to impact? If not were are the wing hits on the building?

I assume they came off at impact at 500 MPH and disintegrated, but I can't say for 100% certain. Still, can you ask that question HONESTLY and seek a reasonable answer, instead of just jumping on the conspiracy theory bandwagon? Just because you don't have an obvious, easy answer doesn't mean the answer must be "fake crash!"

Andrew

http://bogusstory.com/northlabeled.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=201999927748989554&q=plane+crash&total=7 793&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

Remember that tanker fire in Oakland....it was carrying 8,600 gallons of unleaded fuel.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9053373991783147791

The crash at the Pentagon wasn't the tanker fire in Oakland. The circumstances were different, the physics and physical conditions were different, and you can't expect the exact same kind of fire.

Andrew

If any of you conspiracy Einsteins want to out-think Popular Mechanics, be my guest:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

Herbert M.

I think something hit the pentagon no doubt. The damage just does not match. There were early reports that people saw what appeared to be a small 20 seat commuter jet which would make more sence. I dunno, I suppose it possible that a 757 hit the pentagon but it is also possible that it was something else. The WTC fires were so hot that it caused the steel to buckle and collapse and the Oakland fire was so intense it collapsed a concrete and steel freeway. I truly believe that 5300 gallons of aviation fuel would have done far more damage than is present.

I am finding, after looking further, pictures of wreckage that do match the plane so I, after digging deeper, find it likely that the 757 did in fact plow into the pentagon. The buildings itself is a very strong and reinforced design that ate the wings on impact instead of leaving an entrance hole. I only used the oakland fire as an example of what that amount of burning fuel looks like. I conceede that at 500 mph the plane mostly vaporized but the fuel would have burnt until it was depleted. Maybe with the smaller than usual passenger load they opted to carry less than capacity. With only 25% occupancy they would only need about half of a full load for that trip. There has to be some footage somewhere though. I find it hard to believe in this electronic age nobody caught that low flying jet on a cell camera or something.

Unfortunately, Darktemper, a lot of people can't look at these things rationally like you can and reconsider your conclusions. For most of the conspiracy theory folks, you can knock down ten of their "What about this?" items and they'll just come up with ten more. It's a never-ending race of circular reasoning. But I applaud you for at least reconsidering.

Herb's right about Popular Mechanics; they even turned the original PM story into a book that I browsed through and is very well researched and hard to refute (though conspiracy theorists have of course tried to do).

Andrew

I'm open-minded and never always right!
(Unlike certain members herein)
Anyway.....
It is and was easy to fall into the theory and am now basically dismissing that as false. There are to many pieces that match the aircraft which have been found. I still don't quite understand why the fireball was not bigger.

I am just glad the terrorist's attacked from the side as that is one strong building. If they would have crashed through the roof there may have been far more damage.

Why was there a less fireball? Aircraft had used up most of its fuel, it was a newer jet, which has better fire safeguards.

What fire safegaurds are there when the tanks in which the fuel is carried are oblitterated?

How many people were on that flight again?

According to WikiPedia, 64 people were killed on the plane, so I assume that's how many were on AA 77 (including the hijackers presumably).

Andrew

6 Crew and 58 passengers! Only about a 25% capacity flight.

lets consider the fuel for a sec . . . JET-A is closer to diesel than gasoline and slower burning. a JET-A fireball would not resemble a gasoline fireball.

I thought is was more like a high octane unleaded type of fuel. So it's a high octane diesel type then? That wood splain it LUCY!

4 planes. Terrorists bent on massive destruction and loss of life.

I don't buy into any of the theories. It was well executed. Multiple planes simultaneously hitting 3 out of 4 intended targets. A classic al_Queada attack.

In regard to why many of these planes were carrying low passenger loads, the hijackers deliberately chose flights with low counts so there would be less resistance.

I've said it before, it boils down to this:

Either this administration is the worst in the history of our country because they ignored every warning, shrugged off every briefing, snubbed the transition team and hung our asses in the breeze with a bright red target. "Garsh, we was just moonshinin' and not listenin' to the hounds."

Or, this administration is the worst in the history of this country because they left the warnings unheeded knowing full well that it would gain them money and power. It was the huge blank check every despot dreams about, but few have the opportunity to cash. "Cha-ching!"

9/11 has kept Americans focused on hocus-pocus, conspiracy and bogeymen instead of the passive arsonists who still chuckle at us with crooked grins and count the mounds of money and dead.

So which is it? Were they victims of Goober or Goebbels? That is really the biggest unanswered question.

Seeing the immense profits, the war and the ceaseless erosions of Liberty, my gut feeling is the latter.

Herb...
I ask a question! I did in NO way mean to start some conspiracy left winged nut thing.....

"I ask a question! I did in NO way mean to start some conspiracy left winged nut thing....."

Trixter, with all due respect. Akin to your question, I could ask something like 'Did Hitler really kill millions of people?'

But what's the point? Ponder all you want. Bring solid evidence if you can. But otherwise, it simply sounds like you've been listening to a tad too much Art Bell.

Herb

Don't you love the conspiracy theorists? They're fun because they're so damned easy to distract... sorta' like throwing a bouncy ball and watching the puppy chase it.

Run, fella, run! Chase that obscure, mildy interesting but otherwise implausible theory....that's a good boy!

"I thought is was more like a high octane unleaded type of fuel. So it's a high octane diesel type then?"

Frankly, I'm not sure octane has that much to do with it. Diesel fuel and JET-A smell and look nearly the same. My understanding is that JET-A evaporates faster than diesel, hence unlike diesel JET-A doesn't leave as much greasy stains on your clothing when you overfill! However, like diesel, its hard to ignite (toss a match into a bucket of either, it may or may not ignite).

At any rate, to make it simple for the layman, one gallon of gasoline ignited will go "Boom" while a gallon of Jet fuel will go "Whoosh". So looking at the crash video, (including the WTC towers) experts can tell if its jet fuel or something else.

No doubt okie will check in with his own perspective.

This debate about the Pentagon attack has raged for years with inconsistencies on all sides of the issue. There is no clear "truth" to be found anywhere -- it has been beaten to death, blurred or buried -- so we can stop biting our tails folks. The fact remains that a lot of brave folks died and deserve honor.

What were the results?

Who profited?

What can we do now?

These questions are more important than the grisly details of a scary and horrific morning. It is time to let those wounds heal. It is time to trust that our military will be providing full disclosure someday when the shrub is gone -- or sooner, if he continues to abuse our troops.

When the flames are roaring through the countryside, it is not a great time for debate. We can either all stare in disdain at the charred cigarette butt at the edge of the woods, or we can get a damn bucket brigade together and save the forest.

One last comment on this. One thing after seeing a simulation of the planes flight path, isn't this area restricted airspace, the circling of the pentagon and the amount of time it took why were there no fighter jets scrambled?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1095639883481050461&q=aa77+flight+path&t otal=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

Final, Final comment. On super important buildings like this why is there not a Phalanx or Goalkeeper defense system in place. What, is an aircraft carrier more important than the Pentagon or the White House. Heck, some carriers have four of these things. One of these bad boys would pretty much shred anything in route that is not supposed to be.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7093548074896848077

Herb said>>>
Trixter, with all due respect. Akin to your question, I could ask something like 'Did Hitler really kill millions of people?'

Well, how many have DUHbya and "DICK" been responsible for???

But what's the point? Ponder all you want. Bring solid evidence if you can. But otherwise, it simply sounds like you've been listening to a tad too much Art Bell.

Art Bell??? WTF! I'm bringing a VIDEO that I watched on YOUTUBE!
Man you really are a neo-CONer...
WOW!

Trixter-Once you're done drinking the Kool-Aide, get back to us when you can actually refute Popular Mechanics.

Herb

I'm NOT refuting PM and I'm NOT drinking any of your neo-CONer EXTREME REICHer Kool-Aide. That sticky grape stuff is for the BIBLE THUMPIN' Holier then thou crowd like yourself.
Get back to US (Everyone on the Planet) when you wake the F up and figure out that there is other people with other thoughts on this planet except YOURS!

Earth to Trixter.

We're looking for evidence, not platitudes.

Popular Mechanics is considered credible by most people. Prove 'em wrong and you've got an audience.

Herb

If it wasn't a plane, then where is Barbara Olson the conservative who supposedly died on that Jet. She was on her way to California to promote her new book about President Clinton.

She was the wife (he has since remarried) of former Solicitor General Ted Olson.

Herb....
I ASKED A QUESTION!
YOUR NOT GETTING IT!!!!

Mechanix Illustrated = Mimi.
Popular Mechanics = Meme.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :0)

"...there is other people with other thoughts on this planet except YOURS!"

Without question, there are plenty of other thoughts. Your problem is granting equivalency to many of them where there is none.

Herbert M.

So YOU won't let others think what they want to?
Sounds a little fishy....
If you want Fascism fine. Just don't live here.

"So YOU won't let others think what they want to?"

If you read what I wrote, you'd know that isn't my position. Again: Your problem is giving equal weight to uncredible views.

I ask for you to deal with an authoritative source. You not only refuse, but try to make it about me.

This is simple. Show us evidence to refute the engineering reviewed studies performed by Popular Mechanics.

I'm not an engineer, but I trust them a whole lot more than loons like Michael Moore and scare America.

Herb

I ASKED A QUESTION WITH SOMETHING I WATCHED ON YOUTUBE!
JHC! How deft are you???

A co-worker of mine was killed on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I can assure you, as will his widow and children left behind, that the plane did indeed crash into the Pentagon.

Facts don't matter to true conspiracy theorists, Vitalogy.

If that were the case, Art Bell would have been off the air long ago.

Herb

I BELIEVE it was a jet! AGAIN! I was posting something that I saw on YOUTUBE nothing more, nothing less.
Glad to see Herb get all twisted into knots.

troll sez: "Facts don't matter to true conspiracy theorists, Vitalogy. If that were the case, Art Bell would have been off the air long ago."

As would Rush, Hannity et al.