NationStates Jolt Archive

now i know the twin towers were hit by planes as i saw it with my own 2 eyes,and my uncle died in that tragedy.
but i have been debating someone about the pentagon,and as much as i know about the wtc,there are un answered questions remaining about the pentagon and the crash in pa.
and like with jfk,sometimes it takes a bit for the truth to come out...like a bunch of years that arlen specter wont talk about(probably threatened his family,as he was the main proponent of the magic bullet)
anyhow,that aside,and i hate to bring out the tinfoil hats,but there are many unanswered questions about the pentagon attack.
i am curious to everyones op,or am i just crazy?
it seems to me that we have seen scene after scene of planes striking the wtc,but none that hit the pentagon,and i am pretty sure the pentagon is covered with cameras,completely.
you judge for yourself,and if if i may,why would they lie about it?
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

now i know the twin towers were hit by planes as i saw it with my own 2 eyes,and my uncle died in that tragedy.
but i have been debating someone about the pentagon,and as much as i know about the wtc,there are un answered questions remaining about the pentagon and the crash in pa.
and like with jfk,sometimes it takes a bit for the truth to come out...like a bunch of years that arlen specter wont talk about(probably threatened his family,as he was the main proponent of the magic bullet)
anyhow,that aside,and i hate to bring out the tinfoil hats,but there are many unanswered questions about the pentagon attack.
i am curious to everyones op,or am i just crazy?
it seems to me that we have seen scene after scene of planes striking the wtc,but none that hit the pentagon,and i am pretty sure the pentagon is covered with cameras,completely.
you judge for yourself,and if if i may,why would they lie about it?
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

The unfunny truth about the 9-11 pentagon strike.... ITS FOIL HAT TIEM!

didnt the govt release video of the plane hitting the pentagon?

didnt the govt release video of the plane hitting the pentagon?

Yep. It only adds about one missing frame compared to the video that was available before, but that one frame shows a plane beyond any reasonable doubt.

didnt the govt release video of the plane hitting the pentagon?


no not that i am aware of,they released an unintelligble clip of a blur striking a building,not near the footage they like to show about the wtc..not even close.

i am not drawing conclusions but i think they shot down the plane and to cover it up,slammed a missilie into an unused part of the pentagon...pure speculation i must admit,but really,,we have thousands of images of the planes striking the towers,but none of the pentagon?the most heavily defended airspace in america?

i think a fighter jet did not pull up,as they were low trying to track a low flying plane,that was intent on crashing into the pentagon or the white house,and a pilot dove down to stop it and crashed.god bless him.

that doesnt make any sense.

both the pentagon plane and the pennsylvania plane were being hijacked. passengers called family from the planes eh?

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

Read first Aj, should help.

the most heavily defended airspace in america?

I'm guessing you've never been to Washington. The Pentagon is next to one airport, two Interstate highways, several major roads and bridges, and it has the Washington Metro (subway) running through its basement. While there are doubtless many, many security guards; it sits in a major urban area protected primarily by the concept of a no-fly zone. There are no missile batteries, no ready aircraft ... hell, they don't even have a runway, just big-ass parking lots full of compact cars.

As for your conspiracy, my friend was on the scene within two hours and saw shredded plane parts, which he photographed along with hundreds of others. While I wasn't at the helm of the plane or stationed in the zOMG secrit missal bases under the Potomac, I have no doubt whatsoever that these crackpots are just that, crackpots.

It was a plane. Now go away.

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

Read first Aj, should help.

Great site, AJ, go to Google Videos, and type in "Screw Loose Change".

You know what's amazing (and by amazing I mean sad, pathetic, and that this guy should be in a mental hospital) is that there are people who actually believed that no aircraft hit anything on 9/11, that it was all special effects done by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. and by several home videos, and mind control devices.

Killtown (http://killtown.blogspot.com/) is one of those guys.

I'm guessing you've never been to Washington. The Pentagon is next to one airport, two Interstate highways, several major roads and bridges, and it has the Washington Metro (subway) running through its basement. While there are doubtless many, many security guards; it sits in a major urban area protected primarily by the concept of a no-fly zone. There are no missile batteries, no ready aircraft ... hell, they don't even have a runway, just big-ass parking lots full of compact cars.

As for your conspiracy, my friend was on the scene within two hours and saw shredded plane parts, which he photographed along with hundreds of others. While I wasn't at the helm of the plane or stationed in the zOMG secrit missal bases under the Potomac, I have no doubt whatsoever that these crackpots are just that, crackpots.

It was a plane. Now go away.

If it was really just a plane then why are they acting so suspicious? Why not just release the proof (more convincing than that pixelated video the site had) and let the truth be known?

And I also wonder how a plane crash like that could have worked... but a good video would explain that, surely.

If it was really just a plane then why are they acting so suspicious? Why not just release the proof (more convincing than that pixelated video the site had) and let the truth be known?

And I also wonder how a plane crash like that could have worked... but a good video would explain that, surely.

what makes you think that better video exists?

Oi, security cameras hardly ever shoot at a full 24fps, or even a frame per second.

Most shoot at like .25 frames per second, so you might only see one frame of a quickly moving object.

Also: numerous telephone poles and light posts in a wide area were found knocked down pointing towards the Pentagon. Also the debris.

Unused, tell that to the 100 people inside who died...

Furthermore, the pentagon is hardly covered from the air, at least then, and there wasnt much they could do, as they did not know where the plane was heading, nor had any confirmation if it was hijacked, and if they did, they only had minutes to launch a jet and take it down. I always suspected that they had some sort of air defense missile bases near Washington that could have possibly defended it, but apparently they didn't.

It was a plane. Now go away.

Despite the impeccable logic you demonstrated in your post (where the idea that the Pentagon airspace was so heavily defended before 9/11, I'll never know), I doubt these people will go away.

In fact, if this forum is anything like others I have been on, summer invasions of teenagers off from school only bring more of them.

If it was really just a plane then why are they acting so suspicious? Why not just release the proof (more convincing than that pixelated video the site had) and let the truth be known?

And I also wonder how a plane crash like that could have worked... but a good video would explain that, surely.

Because the government gathered up all of the video to use as evidence in their pursuit to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice.

Because the government gathered up all of the video to use as evidence in their pursuit to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice.

Well, I'd say its more because they don't want terrorists knowing the weaknesses of the Pentagon's structure.

I always suspected that they had some sort of air defense missile bases near Washington that could have possibly defended it, but apparently they didn't.

That's right, no SAMs. I think during the mid-Cold War they had Nike Ajax, followed by Nike Hercules missiles around DC, but they were all retired in the 80s, or even before that. The primary threat stopped being from bombers, but instead from ICBMs or SLBMs, and it no longer became cost effective to maintain a defense against a method of attack that wasn't going to be used.

Remember that the Soviets never really produced a long range heavy bomber in any large numbers. They had the Tu-95 Bear, a prop driven bomber produced in maybe the hundreds, but the vast majority of those were made into maritime patrol aircraft, not bombers. Then at the end of the Cold War (after the SAMs were gone), they produced the Tu-160 Blackjack, but it wasn't produced in significant numbers before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and then ran into serious problems with the Ukraine having most of them and refusing to give them to Russia.

The primary other SAM systems produced by the US weren't put around cities. BOMARC (retired by the 60s, if I recall) was deployed primarily in Canada (IIRC), Hawk was a theater (battlefield) defense missile not deployed to defend US cities, same with the Patriot.

Following 9/11, Avengers were deployed around the White House and I believe the Pentagon. Avengers are Humvees armed with Stinger missiles and a gun or cannon, can't remember which. Either an M2 MG, or a 25mm cannon. I'm pretty sure they have since removed the Avengers...

Because the government gathered up all of the video to use as evidence in their pursuit to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice.

Those responsible for the attacks went into the building during them.

If it was really just a plane then why are they acting so suspicious? Why not just release the proof (more convincing than that pixelated video the site had) and let the truth be known?

And I also wonder how a plane crash like that could have worked... but a good video would explain that, surely.

what makes you think that better video exists?

Actually, perfect video would convince ME it was a set-up. Why WOULD they necessarily have all the perfect angles you want?

WTC was a lucky coincidence. Plane 1 we got a glimpse of because the fire department was filming a training video. It was Plane 2 we got the best footage on because every camera they could get was aimed at the first burning tower.

I always suspected that they had some sort of air defense missile bases near Washington that could have possibly defended it, but apparently they didn't.

Go to www.maps.google.com and search for "the pentagon". Put it in Satellite mode and zoom in on Reagan National Airport. You'll see that one of the runways (labeled #15) points directly at the Pentagon, and another (#19) is just slightly oblique to it. Planes taking off from #19 must immediately bank left over the Potomac for both noise abatement and White House security reasons, so pretty much every plane taking off from National when the wind is coming from the north must fly almost directly over the Pentagon.

That's a busy commercial airport, much busier than Washington/Dulles, and the flight time from liftoff to Pentagon overflight is measured in seconds. There isn't an air defense system in the world that could accurately and safely protect the airspace over the Pentagon without shooting down two or three US Air flights every month.

Those responsible for the attacks went into the building during them.

Really, bin Laden went into the buildings? I could have sworn I've seen video footage since then.

what makes you think that better video exists?

The fact that it was the second or third most important US government facility, thus there being more cameras.

That and the current video is shit, so it shouldn't be hard to beat. Blurrier than the Bigfoot pictures, I tell ya.

that doesnt make any sense.

both the pentagon plane and the pennsylvania plane were being hijacked. passengers called family from the planes eh?


i dont doubt the planes were hijacked,and i dont doubt the passengers tried to wrest control from the terr's on the plane that crashed in pennsy,but i do doubt that they were not shot down,which i think was prudent

Actually, perfect video would convince ME it was a set-up. Why WOULD they necessarily have all the perfect angles you want?

WTC was a lucky coincidence. Plane 1 we got a glimpse of because the fire department was filming a training video. It was Plane 2 we got the best footage on because every camera they could get was aimed at the first burning tower.

That is an interesting point, but surely there's SOMETHING else out there that would satisfy?

i dont doubt the planes were hijacked,and i dont doubt the passengers tried to wrest control from the terr's on the plane that crashed in pennsy,but i do doubt that they were not shot down,which i think was prudent

"Which is prudent"?

Tell me, do you have an actual understanding of the US air defense system?

The fact that it was the second or third most important US government facility, thus there being more cameras.

It's a huge office building. Apart from the sheer size of the damn thing and its location, it's not that important in the greater scheme of things.

You are probably right about the cameras, at least in a sense. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out that some DARPA project had tons of high-res interior cameras tied to some sort of AI face recognition software, just to make sure that nobody on their face lists slipped past security.

Exterior cameras taking continuous video of traffic day in and day out? Why? What possible use would that be?

Go to www.maps.google.com and search for "the pentagon". Put it in Satellite mode and zoom in on Reagan National Airport. You'll see that one of the runways (labeled #15) points directly at the Pentagon, and another (#19) is just slightly oblique to it. Planes taking off from #19 must immediately bank left over the Potomac for both noise abatement and White House security reasons, so pretty much every plane taking off from National when the wind is coming from the north must fly almost directly over the Pentagon.

That's a busy commercial airport, much busier than Washington/Dulles, and the flight time from liftoff to Pentagon overflight is measured in seconds. There isn't an air defense system in the world that could accurately and safely protect the airspace over the Pentagon without shooting down two or three US Air flights every month.


you make good points,i was just trying to get an understanding of the video a friend sent.
i wont make up my mind yet,but if we can kill jfk and convince everyone that a bullet did backflips,nothing suprises me about the capabilities and lies my gov is capable of,especially nowadays.

It's a huge office building. Apart from the sheer size of the damn thing and its location, it's not that important in the greater scheme of things.

You are probably right about the cameras, at least in a sense. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out that some DARPA project had tons of high-res interior cameras tied to some sort of AI face recognition software, just to make sure that nobody on their face lists slipped past security.

Exterior cameras taking continuous video of traffic day in and day out? Why? What possible use would that be?

Security

Well, I'd say its more because they don't want terrorists knowing the weaknesses of the Pentagon's structure.

In any criminal investigation, the lawyers have to gather up evidence to present their side of the case. Investigating the 9/11 attacks is a criminal investigation, thus the security cameras that surrounds the Pentagon are evidences of the attacks and are subject to the investigations and investigators.

Security

Security for what? You're making the classic "truth-seekers'" mistake of looking at the situation from a post-9-11 viewpoint. Yes, it seems now that more exterior cameras would have been a good thing, but as Frisbeteria has pointed out, the Pentagon is surrounded by parking lots and highways. Nobody ever thought they would need an HD picture of a plane going 530 mph. When you have some of the best security in the country starting from every door and encompassing the whole building, why would you need video of the lawn off of the E section?

Now, I've seen much higher quality videos both on television and elsewhere on the web. Let's keep in mind that this is a low quality video on some twatbag's website, and as someone has already mentioned, there are one or two frames cut out that clearly establish that it was a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Please tell me this thread isn't for real...

i wont make up my mind yet,but if we can kill jfk and convince everyone that a bullet did backflips,nothing suprises me about the capabilities and lies my gov is capable of,especially nowadays.

Oswald killed JFK, not the CIA.

Please tell me this thread isn't for real...

I would, but I have this thing about lying.

Oswald killed JFK, not the CIA.

Ehh....that's debatable, I mean yes he did kill JFK, but how do we know that there weren't forces acting on him? I mean Oswald did spend some time in the USSR before shooting JFK, so maybe he became a KGB agent? Also, what is Jack Ruby role in this whole thing, why did he kill JFK?

The rabbit hole goes deeper than you know.

Ehh....that's debatable, I mean yes he did kill JFK, but how do we know that there weren't forces acting on him? I mean Oswald did spend some time in the USSR before shooting JFK, so maybe he became a KGB agent? Also, what is Jack Ruby role in this whole thing, why did he kill JFK?

The rabbit hole goes deeper than you know.

He could also have been abducted by Xenuvians from the Large Magellanic Cloud who brainwashed him to kill the President, but without EVIDENCE you aren't going to get me to believe it.

Oh, and Jack Ruby killed Oswald, not JFK. And here is an idea, maybe he didn't like the guy that assassinated the President.

He could also have been abducted by Xenuvians from the Large Magellanic Cloud who brainwashed him to kill the President, but without EVIDENCE you aren't going to get me to believe it.

Oh, and Jack Ruby killed Oswald, not JFK. And here is an idea, maybe he didn't like the guy that assassinated the President.

Thanks for the correction, but doesn't it seem odd that a guy was able to walk into a police station with a gun, and just shoot the guy? I mean I know this is the 1960's but even back then they had some form of security check point, I hope.

but i have been debating someone about the pentagon,and as much as i know about the wtc,there are un answered questions remaining about the pentagon and the crash in pa.
and like with jfk,sometimes it takes a bit for the truth to come out...like a bunch of years that arlen specter wont talk about(probably threatened his family,as he was the main proponent of the magic bullet)
anyhow,that aside,and i hate to bring out the tinfoil hats,but there are many unanswered questions about the pentagon attack.
i am curious to everyones op,or am i just crazy?
it seems to me that we have seen scene after scene of planes striking the wtc,but none that hit the pentagon,and i am pretty sure the pentagon is covered with cameras,completely.
you judge for yourself,and if if i may,why would they lie about it?
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

My father's company occasionally does business with the government, and he was *in* the Pentagon *when* the plane hit and he *saw* the plane.

The only way the tinfoil hat folk could be convincing here is if they argue successfully that my father is a liar (unlikely; I know him better than they, and he's a crummy liar), or that he doesn't know what a plane looks like (unlikely; he flies dozens of places per year), or that he's brainwashed (uhm).

So for me anyway, this question is not a question. It WAS a plane. And also, the Holocaust DID happen.

Thanks for the correction, but doesn't it seem odd that a guy was able to walk into a police station with a gun, and just shoot the guy? I mean I know this is the 1960's but even back then they had some form of security check point, I hope.

People are still able to get into court rooms with guns today, and that is with today's prevalence of metal detectors at courtrooms, etc., something that didn't exist in the 60s. If someone was really determined to take revenge for JFKs death, then they could do it. Unless you bring actual EVIDENCE it was something else, than I'm not going to believe it any more than aliens brainwashing Oswald.