Intresting Video (1 Viewer)

[Tim L]

Not sure if this has been covered before but I thought it was pretty interesting-
Tim

http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

It's been covered before, and it's also been debunked my many internet sites. I don't believe a word of it.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

It's been covered before, and I have yet to hear one pro-airline crash remark that has not been debunked on any number of internet sites. I believe every word of it.

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

Believe what you want. What we do know is this:

1. A 757 was hijacked that day and never seen again.
2. Many of the passengers where on their cell phones indicating that they were flying back towards Washington DC.
3. Radar shows the plane going towards Washington DC.
4. There is no other plausible crash site in the Washington DC. area.
5. The Pentagon had spent many years strengthening the building. The side that was hit had been very heavily reinforced. A 757s body is pretty fragile. If a 757 where to hit the Pentagon at high speed, don't expect to see recognizable wings and tails after the crash. Remember, we never found the ValueJet that crashed into the Everglades either - does that mean that it didn't happen?
6. We have actual video showing a 757 crashing into the Pentagon, although these internet sites discount them.

What I don't understand is if the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to it? And why would there be a major government coverup? Even if fighters downed the plane, I don't think that very many citizens would be upset by that (given the events of the day and the obvious downside of a 757 hitting the White House, Congress, Pentagon, etc.) Why would the government need to fire a large missile into the Pentagon to "cover it's tracks"?

I guess that it's more fun to believe in over elaborate conspiracies than the answer that makes the most sense.

 

[Dheiner]

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/

Read and learn.

 

[Antonio_B]

another case where the governement will cover-up and never talk about it...

 

[Scooter]

IBL

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

John, the eastman theory was interesting but it creates more questions than it answers, such as:

1. If flight 77 landed in the airport, what happened to all of the people. I assume that the people will say they were summarily executed. But if you wanted to kill the people anyway, and you also wanted to damage the pentagon, why not just take the easiest approach and crash the plane into the pentagon in the first place?

2. Why would the government (whom I assume would be the only entity able to dispatch the second aircraft given that it is ostensibly a fighter jet) want to damage the Pentagon in the first place?

3. Such a conspiracy would be very complex, require perfect timing and coordination, and would involve many people. Such conspiracies don't tend to hold up well over time. And of course, I assume that the whole purpose of the conspiracy would be to for the government to stage the events of 911 for it gain power over its citizenry, but if that's the case, why would it need to attack the Pentagon at all? In fact, the events at the Pentagon were largely eclipsed by the events in NYC, so the government would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I'm afraid that I didn't learn much reading the link above. I have yet to hear a conspiracy that makes sense in a way that the governemnt benefits from attacking the pentagon and killing the people on flight 77, but not attacking the Pentagon with the actual plane.

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

I hope not. We've had other conspiracy threads last a long time (moon landing, JFK assassination), and the mention of "the government" doesn't even need to refer to any specific official (after all, 911 was in the planning phase long before the current adminstration took office).

It seems like a lot of people belive this particular conspiracy, so I'd really like to hear why. To me it seems overly complicated with very little to gain. If there is a particular theory that can at least show how taking the plane, killing the people, attacking the pentagon (but not using the actual plane to attack the pentagon) could in theory be to somebodies benefit, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I don't subscribe to the JFK or moon landing conspiracy theories either, but at least I could see where somebody could benefit from them. It's not obvious to me in this case.

 

[Seth_L]

This is why the thread will get locked...

The "benefit" you can't see will be described by the believers as something along the lines of: "It was carefully crafted plan by Bush administration to get rich (Haliburton and the oil in Iraq) and to increase military spending, as well as justify military action in the Middle East."

 

[Leila Dougan]

I'm confused by this statement. Does this mean, also, that you believe the WTC attacks were crafted by the Bush administration as well? Because, quite frankly, the WTC attacks pretty much overshadowed the Pentagon attack. So if the WTC attacks were caused by terrorists, why was an excuse even needed? And if all three attacks were coordinated by the Bush administration, and judging by the WTC attacks success, why even bother with the Pentagon?

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

Seth, you are obviously trying very hard to get this thread closed, and you probably just succeeded. I have many responses to your post that would definitely get this thread closed.

Either way, I don't see the logic because:
1) 911 was in the planning phase long before the current administration was in office.
2) Why would hitting the pentagon make any difference. That event was largely eclipsed by what happened in NYC, so an attack on the pentagon was unnecessary.
3) If they wanted to hit the pentagon for the reasons you suggest, why not hit it with the plane they hijacked rather than create an overly elaborate scheme using multiple planes?

Edit: I see the Leila made my point #2 before me. Seth, I understand why you WANT to believe whatever you believe - I am merely asking for an intelligent reason why such a theory would make sense. So far, nobody has mentioned any.

 

[Chris]

Knowing someone who was physically there when it happened (my brother works in the pentagon), I always wonder what drives people to irrational theories. Good luck for the kool-aid drinkers who buy in, though

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Tin foil hats! Get your tin foil hats here!



Regards,

Joe

 

[Scott L]

My father was also working in it when it happened, he works in the NW side and the plane hit the West side. IIRC he said his dept. all heard a plane coming before they were jolted in their seats. I'll have to ask him again.

 

[Prentice Cotham]

There were plenty of eyewitnesses on the freeway who saw the plane coming in. It hit telephone poles, signs, etc. One member of ASPE (or whatever that engineering association is) had to run to escape the incoming 757. He saw the wing crash through a generator then crash into the building. There is no conspiracy here.

If you want to talk conspiracy, let's talk about TWA800 in 1996.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

The pentagon obviously blew-up from the inside. testing new unscrupulous weapons to use against the DNC no doubt ......

 

[Seth_L]

Slow down there... Call off the attack dogs guys. I don't believe that. I was merely offering the explanation as to why the thread would likely get locked by providing the missing bit of information that was needed to complete the conspiracy triangle.

IMHO you have to be a loon detached from reality to believe that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon and it was all a conspiracy.

 

[Randy Tennison]

The basis of their theory is that the plane hit the side of the building, on a straight path. In reality, it hit the roof of the outer ring, as you would expect with a plane coming in at an angle due to it's decending.

Oh, by the way, Humpty Dumpty was pushed!

 

[JustinCleveland]

You're a cook, there were two different films and he was clearly, CLEARLY intoxicated and fell of his own volition.