Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Pentagon 911 Conspiracy?
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 89, 90, 91  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Adam Rang
PostPosted: 03-03-2002 22:42    Post subject: Was the pentagon REALLY hit by a plane? Reply with quote

A pentagon air traffic controller:

"All those years ago when I was in the Pentagon, this wouldn't have happened. ATC Radar images were (and are) available in the understructures of the Pentagon, and any commercial flight within 300 miles of DC that made an abrupt course change toward Washington, turned off their transponder, and refused to communicate with ATC, would have been intercepted at supersonic speeds within a max of 9 minutes by a Fighter out of Andrews. Period. Why these planes weren't, baffles me. If we could get fighters off the ground in 2 minutes then, we could now."

And the following website is also of interest...

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Judge for yourself.
Back to top
mrchopper
PostPosted: 03-03-2002 23:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

interesting point mate, personally i do think the US did realise what was going to happen before they let on, and i do find it hard to believe that these planes where heading towards inportant buildings and no-one niticed till it was too late,

a point i would like to makes is, after the planes hit the WTC and then one at the pentagon, George W Bush has openly admitted he gave his permission to the army to shoot down any threatening planes, soon after another plane goes down in the middle of no-where in pensilvania ( was it pensilvania? ) that receives no where near as much media attention and has almost been forgot about. was this shot down and there was no media coverage to throw people off the scent?

( sorry about the spellings and waffle but it's late and im nearly out of beer:) )
Back to top
minordragOffline
still a drag
Joined: 21 Jan 2002
Total posts: 1102
Location: Hovering just above the roof.
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-03-2002 00:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrchopper wrote:

a point i would like to makes is, after the planes hit the WTC and then one at the pentagon, George W Bush has openly admitted he gave his permission to the army to shoot down any threatening planes, soon after another plane goes down in the middle of no-where in pensilvania ( was it pensilvania? ) that receives no where near as much media attention and has almost been forgot about. was this shot down and there was no media coverage to throw people off the scent?


Don't know about overseas, chops, but that plane got an enormous amount of attention over here. We initially thought it had been shot down (and nobody had much problem with that, considering it was supposedly targeting the White House). The probable cause of it's crash was a planned uprising on the part of several passengers. This is known because of numerous cell phone conversations between these people and their loved ones. One of the stewardesses, if I remember, had the role of flinging boiling water from a coffee pot into the face of one of the hijakers. It's now accepted that their reprisal was successful to the extent that it caused the hijakers to nose the plane straight into the ground.

As far as the Pentagon goes, I would think that the gov't would have shot down the attackers had they been sufficiently alerted (or not so complacent). This building, sadly, would have taken precedent over a civilian target. Maybe that's cynical.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner
Location: Still above sea level
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-03-2002 07:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some intrigueing questions on that website, Adam.

It's also the first webpage I've come across that needs scrolling horizontally!
Back to top
View user's profile 
harlequin2005Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 03 Aug 2001
Total posts: 844
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-03-2002 09:28    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice site Adam!

I does give pause for some questions, since the later pictures (int eh time sequence of events) look cocnsistant with the impact of a plane with a building designed to withstand possible Cold War attacks, the early photos of the impact site are counter-intuitive for a plane hitting the building, although the construction of te building needs taking into account. IMHO, it looks like a rocket impact, but my civil engineering is VERY rusty. I'll run the images past a friend of mine who has more practical experience of planes hitting things and things that explode, when I see him next (before anyone gets antsy, he was a crash investigator)

8¬)
Back to top
View user's profile 
Anonymous
PostPosted: 04-03-2002 10:25    Post subject: Re: Was the pentagon REALLY hit by a plane? Reply with quote

AdamRang wrote:

A pentagon air traffic controller:

"All those years ago when I was in the Pentagon, this wouldn't have happened.

So maybe they've changed the system since. Significantly, we don't learn how many years ago he's talking about - if it was twenty years ago, systems and procedures will have changed. And do we know that he was ever an ATC anyway?
Back to top
_schnorOffline
Stand back boy!
Joined: 14 Aug 2001
Total posts: 1000
Location: Llangollen
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 04-03-2002 11:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm, very interesting. If the damage wasn't caused by it, then where did the second hijacked plane go?

I would also like to raise the point of the effect of shooting a plane down in a populated area; would the damage be less if the plane were allowed to be downed intact, rather than having lots of bits of plane falling over a large area? If it were me, I'd prefer the former, and would not shoot it down.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Anonymous
PostPosted: 04-03-2002 12:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, if you knew it was heading for the White House you'd probably do whatever it takes.

But that Pentagon thing, it seems strange if it wasn't the plane doing it. Else we got a hijacked plane nobody knows what happened to, an explosion in Pentagon that could have been a bomb(Placed in the Pentagon without anyone noticing?) or some missile hitting it(which would again require a plane) or a gas explosion(on the same day and same time as the terrorst attack?). Seems to me a plane is the most likely thing.

But I do remember I was amazed that it could happen. I thought Pentagon would have their own ground to air missiles and shoot down any airplanes coming near the area.
Back to top
ShadowPrimeOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 21 Aug 2001
Total posts: 690
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-03-2002 14:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

Admitting to VAST ignorance when it comes to the real nuts and bolts here, but...

One issue to consider is the HEAVY air traffic - commercial air traffic - in the vicinity of the Pentagon. This was much-discussed after 9-11... the fact that one of the only ways to really safe-guard Washington, if one is not confident that hijackers can be prevented from commandeering planes shortly after takeoff from Reagan Airport, would be a HUGE reconfiguring of flight paths and the like. While conspiracy-minded and US-bashing folks on this board might think otherwise, I think most of us concede that decision to bring down a commercial flight would not be made lightly (even if only for the cynical reasons of political fallout!)... so even IF the Pentagon was equipped with some kind of missle-defense, I cannot see it being used (especially on 9-11) without a HIGH degree of confidence re the target.

Also... as has been mentioned... if it was NOT a plane that plowed into the Pentagon, we are left with a massive coverup that is, with due respect, hard to envision, given the scrutiny of the events around 9-11... what happened to that flight, the people on-board, etc?

At any rate... think that Ocham's (SP?) Razor probably applies here....often, the simplest explanation IS the best...

Shadow
Back to top
View user's profile 
harlequin2005Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 03 Aug 2001
Total posts: 844
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 04-03-2002 14:50    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the look of the damage is due to the nature of the construction of the pentagon... after all, how thick are the walls and more importantly how far does it go down?

If the plane hit at a steep angle it could well have dropped into the underground elements of the Pentagon...

If there is a 'cover-up', its most likely around what the plane hit, rather than there is a missing plane

8¬)
Back to top
View user's profile 
NilesCalderOffline
Reptilian Overlord
Joined: 20 Aug 2001
Total posts: 1833
PostPosted: 05-03-2002 00:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would hazard that the plan hit at a far steeper angle than otherwise states, striking the roof rather than the ground floor.
This would account for the fire spreading over the roof, since the vast majority of an aircraft's fuel is stored in its wings.

That said there does appear to be impact damage on the ground floor, where the wings would have impacted in the official story. (Q5, right hand image). At a rough guesstimate I would hazard that those walls are some 3 meters thick. Even so what happened to the fuel, that lawn should be burnt from the aviation fuel stored in the wings.

Niles "Glad that the Penatgon kept it's shape" Calder
Back to top
View user's profile 
SmirnoffMule
PostPosted: 05-03-2002 00:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

Picture the plane striking the side of the building low enough to take out the bottom of the wall, but not the top. It would have been practically on the ground already before it struck. If the plane had touched down before it struck, the loss in momentum could explain why only the outer wall is damaged.
Niles is right, Q5 does seem to show damage where the wings struck. The damage is very low down, on the ground floor, again giving the impression that the plane was pretty much on the ground before it struck. The picture in Q3 also seems to show this. HOWEVER there's no damage to the lawn in Q3. It looks pretty much pristine, not at all like a boeing just trundled across it. Very Weird.

I don't think there's any mystery about sand and gravel being spread over the turf, though. They were probably just making the terrain easier for all the rescue vehicles etc moving back and forth. Turf would quickly turn to slush with that level of traffic on it.
Back to top
View user's profile 
WISQ2000Offline
Grey
Joined: 21 Aug 2001
Total posts: 21
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 08-03-2002 00:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

a set of images from a security cam.
Use the >> button to scroll along.
Pentagon.


Last edited by WISQ2000 on 08-03-2002 00:35; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile 
Adam Rang
PostPosted: 08-03-2002 08:52    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow! Great find.

I'm sorry but I see no plane in that video, can anyone else? confused
Back to top
Adam Rang
PostPosted: 08-03-2002 08:59    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to Whatreallyhappened.com...

"As can be seen by the above, there are photos which show the wreckage of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon. The claim that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon was never credible. If the plane hadn't hit the Pentagon, where had it gone? There were simply too many witnesses to the plane for it not to exist.

One of the earliest clues that this was a deliberate operation by an intelligence agency was the sheer volume of emails insisting that this issue HAD to be looked at. Sometimes the spooks betray themselves with their own heavy handedness.

So, why would anyone work so hard to try to establish such an obviously phony straw man?

The truth is that the US Government's credibility within the nation and around the world has hit an all time low. Traffic at this website has quadrupled in just the last week alone, with about 50,000 accesses per day of the main article page. The US Government has had a long history of trying to trip up critics of the government with phony planted stories, in order to discredit and embarrass them. Such certainly seems to be the case now. Government operatives have been feeding this bogus claim that there was no plane impact on the Pentagon all over the internet, while the media tries to claim that this idea is the generally accepted view of all government critics. Then, when the government hands out photos of the actual impact taken by a security camera, the same media will work hard to dismiss all critics of the government, indeed the internet community as a whole, as not worthy of serious note. Intelligence agencies call the practice "poisoning the well", and like staging fake terror attacks on ones own people to start a war, such dirty tricks have been used by governments for thousands of years. The "umbrella gun" in the House Select Committee On Assassinations was a similar operation. More recently, during open congressional hearings into public concerns about government abuse, a plant was sent in, dressed in camouflage fatigues, to scream about the secret government tornado making machines. This planted operative became the focus of the media's subsequent campaign to dismiss anyone who would be concerned over government abuse as not worthy of notice.

Have no doubt; right now there is a war being waged for the minds of America, and the internet is the high ground. The government always plays dirty, because anyone who still plays fair will be at an automatic disadvantage.

This story that the plane did not hit the Pentagon was obviously flawed, primarily because it did not account for where the uncrashed plane went off to. So, think about all the people who tried to sell you this lemon (in my case, many of the return email addresses were fakes), and recognize that they are either idiots or government stooges.

And note the timing of the phony story, appearing just at the right moment to distract attention away from the Israeli spy scandal."
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 89, 90, 91  Next
Page 1 of 91

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group