47 votes

What the Pentagon should have looked like on 9-11

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's not proof

but take it for what it is. Where else are you going to find any proof? The government confiscated all proof from nearby surveillance cameras.

examples?

examples?

Sorry

not all private property can be googled. No links.

If from a journal...

You can always google abstracts.

Wouldn't it be easier to actually crash a plane

than plant all this fake evidence everyone is talking about? Why not just have a false flag bombing, instead of pretending that a bombing is a plane crash? In the grand scheme, a REAL 757 is cheap.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

You're asking people to speculate

The evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. That is the most important thing. Why the planners decided to do it this way we can only guess, but one of the most obvious hypotheses would be that the Pentagon is the DoD's headquarters and they didn't want to leave anything to chance. It'd be too risky to actually crash a plane into their own building, especially if they wanted it to hit low and level at the designated spot, which is at ground level and is protected by a hill to the west and many light poles and other obstacles.

That section of the Pentagon was under renovation for years (that is why only 125 died on the ground inside a building with over 20,000 people in it daily). This would have given them the perfect cover to plant explosives and some random pieces of debris. That way they could control the damage with much greater precision.

See also: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/faq-plane_debris_pho...

Why not just a false flag bombing?

Why bomb the place, then call it a plane crash? Why bother with all the shenanigans when a bomb plot is perfectly terroristy?

My favorite part of all of this is the armchair speculation of what would happen to an ultra-lightweighted aluminum can crashing into a building at 500 miles per hour. As if there were many examples of jetliners running into the Pentagon at full speed to reference from?

A 100mph car crash (cars are designed for collisions, planes are not), looks like a disaster. With 25 times the kinetic energy, you're not going to have much that's recognizable.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

Laws of Aerodynamics say, No.

If it was a 757 and it DID manage to fly that low to the ground, it would have lost lift and crashed into the lawn. Even if it was remotely piloted. There wasn't enough air under the wings for it to fly so close to the ground.

Then people wouldn't be asking who flew the plane but who flew the drone or guided missile. Not very good for the cover story of hijacked planes since the other options point to government.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Not sure what school of aerodynamics you went to

but I'd ask for a refund.

Airplanes actually fly better and more efficiently close to the ground. It's called "ground effect", and it's something all pilots have to deal with when landing and trying to get their airplanes on the ground. In WWII, some long-range flights actually flew just above the ocean (the effect usually starts about a wing-span distance from the ground/ocean). The increased efficiency allowed for longer flights utilizing the fuel on board.

Ground effect is absolutely right.

How else would planes land or take off?

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

I think something hit the building

I'm just not sure it was the actual jetliner. I'm open to being convinced either way. The lack of video evidence this far removed from the event still bothers me greatly. Same with the Sandy Hook shooting. I'm open to it all going down they way we were told but at least give me an example of why showing these video clips puts national security or more children in danger? I mean, we can watch the planes hit the twin towers day in and day out but we can't be shown at least one clip of the pentagon that clearly shows a plane hitting it when we know it is one of the most heavily recorded buildings on the planet?

If we use that premise that it threatens national security, then shouldn't the witnesses be jailed or killed by DHS since these people saw what they say the rest of us cannot see for security purposes?

I just don't get it.

It was 2001, and cameras weren't quite as good/everywhere

Say its an inside job, say it isn't.

Regardless, if it were faked, an airliner would be the WORST thing to fake. There's 150 fake identities you have to make up, and a million EMTs and firefighters witnessing it. If they are so brilliant they could pull THAT off, why wouldn't they just plant some explosives and say it was Al Qaeda?

If they HAD to use a plane, use a cargo plane with one guy in it.

They're either brilliant or stupid, and if guys looking at pictures on Google can figure it out, they're stupid. If they can pull off a huge stunt will thousands of people involved and no one involved is talking, they're brilliant. Brilliant people don't come up with hokey plans and then execute them perfectly.

I don't think there's any question as to whether a plane crashed into the building. The who and why are up for grabs.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

Isn't it telling what some

Isn't it telling what some people here are really after by downvoting your comment/question? I mean how dare you politely ask a logical question!

Pentagon eyewitnesses

For anyone who hasn't yet done so, please watch the documentary National Security Alert at CitizenInvestigationTeam.com. It presents video recorded eyewitness interviews conducted during a multi-year field investigation into the Pentagon event. Many of them are interviewed on location in the exact spots from which they witnessed the plane. There was a large plane on the scene, but according to the witnesses it flew nowhere near where it HAD TO BE to hit the light poles and cause the directional damage to the building. It could not have and did not hit the building and was seen flying away by multiple eyewitnesses such as Officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. The damage was caused by preplanted explosives, much like at the WTC. There is also an extremely revealing interview with the cab driver whose car was allegedly speared by a pole. Please watch it.

Also, read the FAQ section after your done as it addresses many common questions.

For example: Weren't there photographs of plane parts taken inside and outside of the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly thereafter? If so, don't these photographs prove that Flight 77 hit the building?

http://stj911.org/legge/Legge

http://stj911.org/legge/Legge_Chandler_NOC_Refutation.html

http://scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebutting-cit/

http://scienceof911.com.au/announcements/is-this-the-last-pa...

And of course as I stated in another comment, there is always discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies of any event. Just look at the replay in a football game where half the stadium thinks he was in bounds and half thinks he was out of bounds even after watching the replay several times.

somebody gettin

they ass kicked all over this site, better change your name , Tiger!

Literally

We're talking the equivalent of an ass kicking that most people who bring some rationale get. If you bring logic and reason to a discussion where the villagers are engaged in a witch hunt, you can generally expect to be burned at the stake or stoned violently.

Good metaphor you've got there.

Eric Hoffer

oh, you poor stupid old man...

We're the wiches being hunted thanks to folks like you. Your fear or unemployment have let you make some pretty poor decisions about which rocks you're willing to look under. You must learn critical thinking. To me it is glaringly obvious that airplanes have wings, but...."It's easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled". ... - Mark Twain. Looking at eye witness information is not a witch hunt but defending sociopaths will bring us all down.

Must be mistaken

No one here has indicated that airplanes don't have wings. In fact, I haven't seen a single person in the thread advocate that position. How's the straw man working out for you?

You realize the eye witnesses you're quoting saw a plane right? They all specifically mention a plane, and they're the ones YOU'RE quoting.

Do you understand why your logical path baffles the rest of us?

Eric Hoffer

the building had no wing marks on it

therefore no plane hit it. If I slap your face to wake you up there will be the marks of a hand left on your smooth shaven government cheeks. the pentagone didn't have a beard the last time I checked. Am i going slowly enough for you? nice to out another pro here, going to check out your other gang bangs here at your job.

Slowly?

I don't know how slow this is, you've jumped from "not much visible damage" to "obviously the airplane had no wings!"

http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html

Are we done here? There's obviously damage, but it's dwarfed by the extent of the damage from the main body of the aircraft and therefore harder to see unless you actually look at the images. I know it's difficult to do while maintaining a forced naivety, but try for the rest of us eh?

So your obsession with beards and desire to go check out gang bangs (kind of seems more like your business than anyone else's here, but... thanks for sharing?) aside, there's obviously damage.

Can you shut it now and quit repeating the same busted point ad nauseum now?

Eric Hoffer

where are the wing marks that SHOULD be on exterior

structural walls? Their impact is clearly shown on the computer generated model funded by our tax dollars? People inside the pentagon at ground zero saw no evidence of a plane crash neither has anyone else. Scattered pieces on the lawn don't add up to anything. Please honor yourself and forgive yourself unless you are a computer. Again....... Where are the wing marks that clearly must have impacted the Pentagone? again.... why do Pentagone employees, (who pulled themselves out of the rubble) all agree that there was no evidence of a plane crash? Rumplestillskin!

LOL

Ok guy, now you're just straight out obviously lying. Go pat yourself on the back there Mr. Romney.

Eric Hoffer

Worried

I'm kind of worried that this is how you try and pick up women.

I don't know if this is a "these are not the droids you're looking for" moment or if you're channeling Jafar from Aladdin.

Eric Hoffer

I am a very talented and attractive, wealthy man.

Public speaker/ office holder, yoga teacher, chef, contractor, accomplished musician, architect, designer, artist, entrepreneur, Gardener, inventor, mechanic, outdoors-man... I have a gorgeous wife and child. I am enjoying a life quite different from most I know. I believe everyone is doing the best they can. I am grateful for the challenges and opportunities to succeed that I have garnered. I will continue to win for truth and freedom and love. Get used to it.

You are citing proven disinformationalists

You first cite a paper by Frank Legge and David Chandler, and then provide two links to Legge's website. Chandler's previous paper on this subject was thoroughly debunked by CIT. They also challenged him and his co-author to a public debate, which he refused to accept. Frank Legge's previous paper was also through debunked by CIT.

Around the time that the paper that you cite was published, CIT again challenged Chandler, Kevin Ryan (Legge's co-editor), and their associates to an in person debate, on camera while they were all scheduled to be in Toronto for the 10th anniversary of 9/11. In the invitation it explained:

We will be arriving in the early evening on Thursday, September 8th, the first day of the Toronto Hearings. We will not be departing until the early morning on Tuesday, September 13th. There is no reason that the people who apparently have such strong concerns with our work and who have attempted to publicly paint us as dishonest shouldn't be able to set aside a couple hours to take us up on this offer, "expose" our supposed dishonesty, and refute the evidence we present proving the plane did not hit the light poles or Pentagon. We will work with them to find a mutually convenient day and time.

None of them accepted.

How are they "proven

How are they "proven disinformationalists"?

My point is that there are "experts" on both sides of the "flight path" debate. Either way it makes no difference to me as building an entire case off of discrepancies in eyewitness testimony and disregarding all other evidence doesn't begin to prove anything to me. I mean if that's the best evidence against the AA flt hitting the Pentagon then like I said there's no comparison in the evidence. Over 100 witnesses, plane parts, and body parts identified by dna all dwarf theories supported only by eyewitness testimony discrepancy to me.

SteveMT's picture

Adding to jaded41 pics: the C-ring hole at ground level.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/punchou...

What made this hole; one of the engines or the fuselage or something else?

Maybe thats where the two

Maybe thats where the two Rolls Royce engines escaped and went to air plane heaven.