Pentagon Video

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
A lumbering (compared to a fighter jet) hijacked jet flies and is tracked for almost two hours over the most heavily guarded airspace in the world and then manages to crash into the headquarters of the US military defense – 15 minutes later the first fighter jet shows up.
[/quote]

They were flying in controlled space for 2 hours? How far does a plane fly in 2 hours? Is the controlled airspace in Washington DC that big? Especially before 911?

First they need to see the thing, and figure out what the fuck is going on. Next, especially before 911, they would attempt to contact the plane. Back then they thought if a plane was off course it was pilot error, plane problems, or if it was terrorists, they were only hijacking the plane to hold hostages for a couple of hours, which is all they used to do.

As far as the military, it takes time to get military jets into the air. They didn’t have people sitting in them ready to go, they need to call up the pilots, get them suited up and into the plane, which they may also need to prepare, get it into the air, and then they need to not only find the plane, they still need to fly to it.

This is asking an awful lot in 2 hours.

62

[quote]The Mage wrote:
4est wrote:

Santa Clause does exist. Prove me wrong.

[/quote]

LOL

63

[quote]doogie wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

CNN Reporter at Pentagon - Sept 11, 2001
“From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon”…
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf

Senior Douchebag,

I don’t know how to post the actual video, but here is the transcript of the report this CNN reporter gave on 5/16/06. In the report, they play THE WHOLE statement he made. I’ll highlight that part below. Here is the link to the transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/16/acd.01.html

MCINTYRE: Until now, this single frame was the only image that showed the jetliner before it hit the Pentagon. And the image is so indistinct that it helped fuel conspiracy theories that abound on the Internet, despite pictures of the wreckage and eyewitness accounts.

MIKE WALTER, EYEWITNESS: I looked off. I was – you know, looked out my window and I saw this plane, a jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, this doesn’t add up. It’s really low.

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN, in which I, myself, appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001)

MCINTYRE: But from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCINTYRE: In fact, I was talking about an eyewitness who thought the plane landed short of the Pentagon, and went on to say, the only crash site was at the Pentagon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001)

MCINTYRE: The only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in. And, as I said…

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCINTYRE: 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.
[/quote]

MCINTYRE: Durrr, when I said that I didn’t see a plane crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon – I meant besides the American Airlines jet that most obviously crashed INTO the Pentagon. Gosh.

Obviously the whole plane and passengers got sucked into a 12 foot hole just like a plastic bag getting sucked into a vacuum cleaner.

Hell there’s a lot more convincing evidence and video for UFO’s for cryin’ out loud.

64

[quote]doogie wrote:
Mishima wrote:
when there were 1.0000000000 witnesses why has nobody taken just one picture. proof me wrong, but there is not ONE picture showing a crashed plane.

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-001.jpg[/quote]

Oh yeah, those pieces…

65

[quote]The Mage wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
A lumbering (compared to a fighter jet) hijacked jet flies and is tracked for almost two hours over the most heavily guarded airspace in the world and then manages to crash into the headquarters of the US military defense – 15 minutes later the first fighter jet shows up.

They were flying in controlled space for 2 hours? How far does a plane fly in 2 hours? Is the controlled airspace in Washington DC that big? Especially before 911?

First they need to see the thing, and figure out what the fuck is going on. Next, especially before 911, they would attempt to contact the plane. Back then they thought if a plane was off course it was pilot error, plane problems, or if it was terrorists, they were only hijacking the plane to hold hostages for a couple of hours, which is all they used to do.

As far as the military, it takes time to get military jets into the air. They didn’t have people sitting in them ready to go, they need to call up the pilots, get them suited up and into the plane, which they may also need to prepare, get it into the air, and then they need to not only find the plane, they still need to fly to it.

This is asking an awful lot in 2 hours.
[/quote]

What!? They already flew 2 jets into the WTC, there was no question what they were going to do.

As for “asking an awful lot in 2 hours” – is defending the nation’s capital somehow so different than a emergency medical team responding to a life threatening incident? Relatively speaking.

Medical Helicopter Response Ambulance
http://www.state.nj.us/health/ems/flydrive.htm

66

[quote]doogie wrote:
[/quote]
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm

I thought the wings folded back on impact and got sucked into the 12ft hole?

67

The FBI has EIGHTY FIVE (85) tapes which show a plane hitting the Pentagon, you just can’t see them because of national security on how airplanes fly in the air.

68

Another video has been released!

69

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
doogie wrote:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm

I thought the wings folded back on impact and got sucked into the 12ft hole?

[/quote]

I’ll be sure to ask the CS majors and Civil Engineers about structural mechanics of airplane wings at homecoming. With the number of Av Techs and MEs running around the campus you think they could’ve snagged one.

“The immediate motivation for the project was to understand the behavior of the building under the impact. The longer term motivation was to establish a path for producing high-quality visualizations of large scale simulations.”

Also, the plane they chose to model only vaguely resembles a 737:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/gallery/737700-10.html

(Admittedly, the closest I’ve come to being an Aviation Engineer is rooming with one.)

So were they actually trying to prove the wings didn’t fold up or are you citing them out of context?

70

I love you conspiracy theory guys. Please keep posting. When I have a hard day I just click over to your latest nutty thread and break out in laughter.

(Banging hands on table and belly laughing)

Again…many thanks.

Please continue…

71

Also, the theorists need to realize that disproving the ‘popular theory’ doesn’t prove your theory. Further, all the ‘back story’ I read on the ‘popular theory’ makes sense has data/credibility. The conspiracies I read instantly leap from the planes (not) crashing to the ‘inner circle’ that masterminded the whole thing.

Fine, it was a missile fired at the pentagon, despite the anomolous mountain of data. Who? (We know the hijackers and disproving their presence still doesn’t prove your theory) Why? (We know that the hijackers were working on behalf of an organization that both hates the US and claimed responsibility.) How? (Given the choice between an airplane [w/witnesses and everything else that happened that day] and a missile of that power being fired unnoticed, I choose to go with the airplane [w/witnesses and everything else that happened that day]). And, of course, the clincher, do you have even the slightest shred of evidence to prove any of it?

72

If you weren’t there, then you can’t possibly claim to “know” what happened – in the strictest, empirical sense. Everything is speculation. If you buy the official version, you are speculating based on certain evidence. And likewise if you subscribe to the other accounts.

If a bear shits in the woods, does it stink? How can you tell without an observer? Answer: You can’t, you can only assume. There is no “truth” in this matter for people who were not there in person to witness the events on the day they transpired.

And even if, hypothetically, you were there on that day and DID see what happened - that only provides empirical confirmation from YOUR point of view. To someone else, YOUR account is nothing more than another piece of evidence contributing to the speculation.

So why get cocky? You don’t really “know” what happened any more than the next dude.

73

Oh oh!

“I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons.” 10/13/2001

Bin Laden says in an interview, "I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle. …

The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia.

In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him. … Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year. … They needed an enemy. …

Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked who carried out the attacks."

Daily Ummat (Karachi), 10/28/2001

The videos Bin Laden ‘released’ which show him actually claiming the attacks, have him actually wearing a ring, which he does not, as it is entirely against his zealous practice of Islam, and actually writing with his offhand (in the video).

So no, Bin Laden has OBVIOUSLY NOT claimed responsibility for the attacks.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html

74

Do you believe the government is evil? Not just corrupt, bad, selfish, money hungry…but pure satanic evil. Please answer.

If you do, then the conspiracies, to you, are plausable. I’m willing to bet nobody thinks this.

If you do not believe the government is pure evil, then it is impossible to believe the 9/11 attacks were anything other than a terrorist attack.

How do you rationalize the idea of a government conspiracy that killed over 3,000 Americans if you do not believe it is run by evil men?

That not good enough? How could a government, you consider at best to be completely incompetent, coordinate an attack on it’s own people, in broad daylight, in the nation’s capitol? Do you think the government is that organized and coordinated? There were hundreds of eye-witnesses. Where is flight 77 if it was a missile?

75

[quote]lucasa wrote:

So were they actually trying to prove the wings didn’t fold up or are you citing them out of context?[/quote]

I’m saying the model/simulation is not representative of the “official” story. Clearly the model shows the wings as slicing through the outer wall INTACT and damaging the inner support columns – this doesn’t represent physical reality, that’s my point.

There was no jet-shaped hole in the side of the pentagon.

76

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
…

If a bear shits in the woods, does it stink? How can you tell without an observer? Answer: You can’t, you can only assume. There is no “truth” in this matter for people who were not there in person to witness the events on the day they transpired.
… [/quote]

This is the oldest and stupidest argument and is only made by people that do not accept reality.

77

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
…

If a bear shits in the woods, does it stink? How can you tell without an observer? Answer: You can’t, you can only assume. There is no “truth” in this matter for people who were not there in person to witness the events on the day they transpired.
…

This is the oldest and stupidest argument and is only made by people that do not accept reality.[/quote]

Well said. Here’s a thought:

If a tree falls in the woods and kills a mime, does anybody care?

How do we know Lincoln freed the slave? How do we know there was Civil War? All those pictures and personal letters could be fake. Does Sweden REALLY exist? I’ve never been there so I have no real proof it exists. Did Kennedy really get shot? I wasn’t there, so who knows? What about Alamo? Anyone remember the Alamo? Hitler must have been a hoax also because I wasn’t there either.

Hummm…what else? Caesar Agustus…fake. David Hasselhoff, never met him so he’s not real. Richard Simmons…I actually met him. Very nice guy. He’s unbelievable, but real. The Dallas Cowboys didn’t really win 5 Superbowls. I saw 2 of them on TV, but I wasn’t there.

If you weren’t there then there’s no proof, right? That’s at least 5th time n the last 3 days some liberal freak has said something to the effect that if I (you, the lib in question) don’t personally know every fact, have total unfiltered accest to every piece of evidence, then it’s fake or a cover-up. A big scandal.

You people (skeptics) are truly amazing. Do you honestly believe the crap you spew?

To accept your theories, you would have to believe that the people you consider totally incompetent are actually the most organized and well prepared people on the planet. Sun Tsu in “The Art of War” says in order to feign chaos, you must have complete control.

78

Ok so now that your proven blind of just pre-posted text:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

I’ll post it twice since you obviously have a hard time identifying links to sites written by highly qualified professionals in their respected fields in relations to these ‘conspiracy theories,’ but you may immediately commence writing as if the topic has now, on your side of the argument, be set in some pre-assumed order of precedent, consideration, or concern, considering:

The US government, entirely the single most powerful entity in this entire world, still and has admitted, nothing more then theory on this obviously professionally orchestrated and flawlessly executed plan, and such catastrophic day, now which is no less similar and equivalent to the start of World War 2 to 3, and it’s global and domestic effect no less a significant and novel effect, raise at least the minimum concern of doubt, or at least interest?

These plans, the day to day we are living right now, has been written in Neo-Conservative strategy plans which were fully released decades ahead of our current time, we are now living in an entirely Neo-Conservative Single Man=Decider government.
One you must remember, which has a group with a track record of willfully shitting on the right and true Republican agenda on even the most basic levels, and has absolutely no concern or needed interest in the Democrat party, due to both of their entirely and obviously dismantled and destroyed state as example of Bore/John Kerry and George Bush running against each other.

They chose John Kerry, possibly the worst and least amiable figure out of the entire Democrat lineup the Dead Democrat the party could poorly run, in contrast to more likely candidates.
George Bush, the knowingly and publicly admittedly stupidest President this magnificent and proud country in its entire history has ever been led by, a president who preaches to the Christian conservatives, but whose entire life has been anything but exemplary, and who is publicly known to be entirely absent of having any history of being pious or religious in his entire life, a President that negotiates and deals with Republicans, but never accurately or fully activates their ideals, plans, or benefits.

A President that has absolutely no needed fear of the Democratic Party, no matter what he can/does(not) say or what he can/does(not) do to anyone anywhere and even no matter the cost, be it in constitional rights, privacy rights, or the colossus deficit in a fully functioning economy which will never on any normal circumstance produce on average any more then our current GNP, which is revealed to us simply by living today, has been deliberately set on a planned trend of significant overspending, ignorant to Republicans ideals and grossly exceeding any past-began Democrat spending at any time, but without any social benefit realised what so ever.

This is only why I began to become skeptical of politics, our politics, peoples lives.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
metalsluggx wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You are rambling because you have nothing intelligent to say yet you can’t let these disgusting conspracy theories die.

It is very sad.

Stop rambling unintelligently and prove me wrong.

I and others have shredded these stupid theories many times on this forum. I am tired of proving you wrong. Go check out the popularmechanics.com rebuttal of all the 9/11 theories. Until you read them and tell me why they are wrong in detail I will not waste any time with you in real debate.

Your very sad.

(robot voice)
Hello I am autononmous.

The word is you’re. It is a contraction of you are. If you are (you’re) going to accuse me of acting unintelligently at least try to get it right.
[/quote]

79

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Well said. Here’s a thought:

How do we know Lincoln freed the slave? How do we know there was Civil War? All those pictures and personal letters could be fake. Does Sweden REALLY exist? I’ve never been there so I have no real proof it exists. Did Kennedy really get shot? I wasn’t there, so who knows? What about Alamo? Anyone remember the Alamo?

Hitler must have been a hoax also because I wasn’t there either.

Hummm…what else? Caesar Agustus…fake. David Hasselhoff, never met him so he’s not real. Richard Simmons…I actually met him. Very nice guy. He’s unbelievable, but real. The Dallas Cowboys didn’t really win 5 Superbowls. I saw 2 of them on TV, but I wasn’t there.

If you weren’t there then there’s no proof, right? That’s at least 5th time n the last 3 days some liberal freak has said something to the effect that if I (you, the lib in question) don’t personally know every fact, have total unfiltered accest to every piece of evidence, then it’s fake or a cover-up. A big scandal.
[/quote]

Your relating events which are entirely separate in their: public source of information, desire (or need) to be altered (faked misinformed,) also known as purpose (the idea that your argument is VOID of), for example (because you need an example) who in power would want to realistically (right now is only reality don’t forget that) change the facts about Lincoln or Caesar. No one.

If purely and entirely by chance, and if only by at least a seldom known precedent in affairs, 9/11 was a planned ‘objective’ from a powerful group residing in this entire world (if such a group could ever, at least somehow manage to actually exist [sarcasm] in this world,) and be closely affiliated to this administration, would maybe rather choose to deliberately alter information about their own ‘assumed’ undertakings, rather than as your example, Caesars past.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
You people (skeptics) are truly amazing. Do you honestly believe the crap you spew?

To accept your theories, you would have to believe that the people you consider totally incompetent are actually the most organized and well prepared people on the planet. Sun Tsu in “The Art of War” says in order to feign chaos, you must have complete control.[/quote]

Sun Tzu is reknown from accurately predicting and advising conflicting forces and remains habitually correct to this very day.

80

So you didn’t bother going to the CNN site and watching the original video from 9/11? The quotes I posted aren’t just him explaining things last week, it shows the FULL clip of his report on 9/11 that your stupid conspiracy site edits down to make it appear to say something it doesn’t.

Your stupid conspiracy video just shows this part:

MCINTYRE: But from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

What he actually said was:

MCINTYRE: But from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in. And, as I said…

Are you too lazy or too afraid to go watch the original report and admit your stupid link is full of shit?