Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video

[alphaDelta]

it did fire and the missile boomeranged back into the pentagon....dr jazz you were right

Perhaps it assessed the threat to national security and sacrificed itself accordingly?

 

[editor]

it did fire and the missile boomeranged back into the pentagon....dr jazz you were right

You're on to something here because I believe the Pentagon's Famous Automated Missile Defence System (TM almeria) was built by American Airlines who used mini versions of their own passenger planes to cut costs!

 

[pk]

Aviation grade lightweight aluminium meets steel reinforced concrete at several hundred miles per hour (and even assuming the video cameras were running at the US rate of 30 frames per second - which they clearly weren't) what did you expect to see Dr Jazzz?

I truly cannot believe you are still serving this shit up as "proof".

Even more unbelieveable is the fact that it's not been consigned to that great dustbin that hold all the previous "evidence" you've singlehandedly unearthed from conspiranoid sites to "prove" that it was the lizards what done it.

Stick to the piano Dr Jazzz, I hear you're pretty damn good at that ...

 

[Jazzz]

He'll be telling us next that the Concorde crash was faked as that was a 'hollywood' style explosion as well !!!

No it wasn't. Lots of fire, yes. Hollywood fireball, no.

 

[Jazzz]

Could you provide a credible link to this 'famous' automated missile defence system please?

Of course the Pentagon has automated missile defence systems you wazzock. It's the most heavily protected building in the world...

Well here's John Judge

10.23.16.00 scenes of the Pentagon after the attack.
There was shock, incomprehension and unbelieving astonishment that the one of the best-guarded buildings in the world could not defend itself from attack. John Judge knew the Pentagon since childhood . 10.23.37.00 (Voice-over: John Judge)
When I was 10 years old, I would go into the courtyard of the Pentagon to eat. I sat down on a silver box and my father said: Get down from there, that is an anti-aircraft missile port. Thatís how I knew that the Pentagon has such air protection. In addition, it is possible for a jet to investigate, and if necessary, shoot down such a plane.

10.24.03.00 scenes from the Pentagon after the crash
For John Judge, whose parents worked in the Pentagon, the explanation that a timely defense of the Pentagon was not possible is completely unbelievable. He does not want to speculate if it was in fact a plane that struck the Pentagon. The testimony of eye witnesses are too confusing. In fact, one could conceive of many kinds of flying devices, and even an explosion set off inside the building has been suggested. In any case, the collapse of the building wall occurred some time after the original explosion.

http://nancho.net/911/unsolved.html

They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters? . . . How were they allowed to come into the most restricted air space in the world with no challenge or defense? That is the question that answers both when Bush knew in advance and begs any rational response. John Judge

 

[Loki]

Of course the Pentagon has automated missile defence systems you wazzock. It's the most heavily protected building in the world...

Well here's John Judge



http://nancho.net/911/unsolved.html

They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters? . . . How were they allowed to come into the most restricted air space in the world with no challenge or defense? That is the question that answers both when Bush knew in advance and begs any rational response. John Judge

It wasn't designed to ward against a complete surprise attack by terrorists hijacking passenger jets taking off from US airports, rather a war situation against e.g. the USSR.

The person you quoted didn't even work at the pentagon, his parents did. So he has bugger all knowledge about how their defenses work.

Have you looked at the front page of that website you quoted DrJazzz?

"Dispensing Magic Memes for Corporate Ills
Since the Year '01"

Please tell me what the fuck that means, sounds pretty loony to me

And what's "Eco somatic energy"?????

Why can't you ever quote credible sources?

 

[NuTbAr]

The specs for a tomahawk missile have been posted up severel times before, it's body is only 18 inches in diameter.

So if this mystery object is from a tomahawk missile then the people carrying it can only be about 6 inches high

The Basics
A cruise missile is basically a small, pilotless airplane. Cruise missiles have an 8.5-foot (2.61-meter) wingspan, are powered by turbofan engines and can fly 500 to 1,000 miles (805 to 1,610 km) depending on the configuration.
A cruise missile's job in life is to deliver a 1,000-pound (450-kg) high-explosive bomb to a precise location -- the target. The missile is destroyed when the bomb explodes.

no one considers that there are other cruise missiles, with different specs that make more sense than a tomahawk cruise missile. i used to live in alberta where the us had authority to test cruise missiles. i've seen them myself, one flew over my house, low ...they look like this:

they are AGM-86B/C MISSILES and here's a little something about them:
<snip>
General CharacteristicsPrimary Function: Air-to-ground strategic cruise missile
Contractor: Boeing Defense and Space Group.
Guidance Contractors: Litton Guidance and Control, and Interstate Electronics Corp. (AGM-86C model)
Power Plant: Williams Research Corp. F-107-WR-10 turbofan engine
Thrust: 600 pounds
Length: 20 feet, 9 inches (6.3 meters)
Weight: 3,150 pounds (1,429 kilograms)
Diameter: 24.5 inches (62.23 centimeters)
Wingspan: 12 feet (3.65 meters)
Range: AGM-86B: 1,500-plus miles; AGM-86C: 600 nautical miles (nominal); classified (specific)
Speed: AGM-86B, about 550 mph (Mach 0.73); AGM 86C, high subsonic (nominal), classified (specific)
Guidance System: AGM-86B, Litton inertial navigation element with terrain contour-matching updates; AGM 86C, Litton INS element integrated with multi-channel onboard GPS
Warheads: AGM-86B, Nuclear capable; AGM-86C; Block 0, 2,000 pound class, and Block I , 3,000 pound class
Unit Cost: AGM-86B, $1 million; AGM-86C, additional $160,000 conversion cost
Date Deployed: AGM-86B, December 1982; AGM-86C, January 1991
Inventory: AGM-86B, Active force, 1,142; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0.
AGM-86C, 239, Block 0, 41; Block I, 198

MissionThe AGM-86B air-launched cruise missiles and AGM-86C conventional air-launched cruise missiles were developed to increase the effectiveness of B-52H bombers. In combination, they dilute an enemy's forces and complicate defense of its territory.

Features
The small, winged AGM-86B/C missile is powered by a turbofan jet engine that propels it at sustained subsonic speeds. After launch, the missile's folded wings, tail surfaces and engine inlet deploy. The AGM 86B is then able to fly complicated routes to a target through use of a terrain contour-matching guidance system. The AGM 86C uses an onboard Global Positioning System (GPS) coupled with its inertial navigation system (INS) to fly. This allows the missile to guide itself to the target with pinpoint accuracy.

AGM-86B/C missiles increase flexibility in target selection. AGM-86B missiles can be air-launched in large numbers by the bomber force. B-52H bombers carry six AGM-86B or AGM-86C missiles on each of two externally mounted pylons and eight internally on a rotary launcher, giving the B-52H a maximum capacity of 20 missiles per aircraft.

The AGM-86C CALCM differs from the AGM-86B air launched cruise missile in that it carries a conventional blast/fragmentation payload rather than a nuclear payload and employs a GPS aided INS.

An enemy force would have to counterattack each of the missiles, making defense against them costly and complicated. The enemy's defenses are further hampered by the missiles' small size and low-altitude flight capability, which makes them difficult to detect on radar. <snip>

this piece of equipment would do the job quite handily...and looks just about right...to be mistaken for a plane, a small one.

and as for eye witnesses any cop, investigator or even a security guard can tell you that only 15% of eye witness testimony is accurate, remotely even. it's been tested time and time again...so forget what so and so saw for the most part because they don't know either.

 

[Solitarian]

Credible. Fucking classic

Yes, DrJ...please quote from mainstream media sources all of which are credible, and of utmost honour and integrity.

Remember, airliners travelling at 500+ MPH, almost touching the ground, will do a few things when crashing into walls, especially walls forming a US Gov't building.

They are...

1. they'll only leave a 20ft hole in the said wall. But the wall was reinforced right? Yes, the reinforcing job managed to strengthen the original outer shell, poured many decades ago, to the point of being able to withstand 100% of the wings' and engines' impact - leaving not a trace of an outer scar where the plane hit.

2. they'll explode directly skyward, something somehow deflecting the momentum of such rapid horizontal movement of tons and tons of steel/aluminum/kerosene, leaving a precise damage pattern.(I wonder why the 2nd plane at WTC didn't blow straight up instead of blowing forward and out the sides in the path of the plane's momentum?) The rising mushroom cloud will be big and black, even though kerosene explosions don't form distinct, shape-holding mushroom clouds. Oh shit, they do in Hollywood, and at the WTC North Tower explosion.

3. In that explosion, the plane's most dense materials, along with almost everything else, will "vapourise" from the extreme heat of said explosion, leaving not much left around the impact area except some stuff for a line of FBI dudes to pick up. "I see some DNA!!" see below

4. They will be flown by evil muslim highjackers with flying experience equalling that of a...Microsoft Flight Simulator Tournament Champion, as everyone knows, it's only a 757. Just like flying a Cessna.

5. they'll contain passengers seated in such a manner so that in the resulting massive explosion, their DNA remains intact and recordable in the wreckage. Organic matter surviving when metal/aluminum/steel and other man-made bits just "vapourised" leaving nothing much behind.

6. They'll be caught on CCT cameras which litter the Pentagon surveillance grid. Unfortunately, in this case, only one camera recorded the event and darn it...the most important frames which would show the aircraft clearly, are missing or "damaged"(coffee stain). National Security may be the reason...(roll eyes out of me fecking head)

A complete surprise attack? Designed for a war with the USSR? Hahaha! It's called defense. Whoever's coming near should get shot down, low flying highjacked airliner or MiG29, buh-bye. My god, even if you can't wrap your mind around what's obvious, please, you must somewhat think the US knew it was coming. Somewhat? Not a smidgen?

You're right!! It's the terrorists!! God I'm so stupid!!

 

[Loki]

Thanks for all those copy and pasted specs NuTbAr!


You're obviously an expert on cruise missiles having glimpsed one or two in Alberta.

And you also seem to think you're an authority on eyewitness accounts, even better than several respected journos who witnessed the event with their very own eyes!

Tell us what your professional experience is on such matters!?

 

[Loki]

God I'm so stupid!!

er, well ye... um no comment.

 

[NuTbAr]

Ah! An expert on the impact of 757s into reinforced concrete structures! What are you basing your claim on? What research have you seen into this kind of incident? Please share it.

And did you not watch that video of the fighter jet being smashed into zillions of tiny little pieces when it hit a concrete structure at high speed? Was that 'inconsistent' too?

And how about the University study into the impact? What was 'inconsistent' about their findings?

What damage do you think would be 'consistent' with a 757 hitting the Pentagon? A Tom and Jerry-style outline of the jet stamped into the structure?

And, err, how do you explain all the eye witness reports of a 757 passenger jet? And what happened to the original plane and its passengers? Where did it go? Any ideas? Any evidence?

Anything?!

This El Al Boeing 747 cargo plane crashed in Holland, killing all 4 crew members and 47 people on the ground.


here's a picture of the pentagon shortly after being hit:

supposedly by a 757 - a much bigger plane that leaves a smaller hole than a much smaller plane - 747 also impacting a large, concrete rebar reinforced building. hmmn, interesting.

here's a picture of what happens to a 757 when it hits a mountain:

sure it's no building however, the force would be greater on impact therefore there should be less debris...now here's a photo of the pentagon right after impact - with a huge 757:

hmmn, interesting no big airplane bits anywhere and the impact hole ain't big enough for that huge so-called vaporizing explosion that "occured" either...


Delta Airlines, Lockheed-1011 touched down 6,000 feet short of the runway at Dallas/Ft. Worth Texas, crossed a highway and crashed into two 2 million gallon water tanks after encountering windshear. One-hundred-thirty-four of 163 people aboard were killed. (August 2, 1985)

no i don't know the exact specs and you can look 'em up if you want but i figure the above plane is roughly as big as a 757 - probably smaller if anything. look at what is left after smashing into a huge solid object...so where's the 757?

i have a friend that works for transport canada - her job is to file slides and do reporting on aviation crash sites. i've seen pictures that they do not print in papers or put on the news. there are always pieces - of everything, including body parts and guts. and some times a crash site will leave debris scattered for miles around - usually actually.

so there you have it, i'm no expert...i can google and click just like anyone else...the difference is i'm not blind to the obvious...i am smart enough to realize that there is just no way the official story is true. i don't know what is the whole truth and nothing but however i do know that 9/11 is the biggest political scam going. period.

 

[NuTbAr]

Thanks for all those copy and pasted specs NuTbAr!


You're obviously an expert on cruise missiles having glimpsed one or two in Alberta.

And you also seem to think you're an authority on eyewitness accounts, even better than several respected journos who witnessed the event with their very own eyes!

Tell us what your professional experience is on such matters!?

well since it seems you all are to lazy to read or even do a simple google i figured i'd just help you along. then there's no excuse for the bullshit back and forth.

since i've had extensive security training and have taken part in those said exercises in proving the unreliabilty of eye witness accounts, then yes i actually do have a huge clue as to what i'm talking about. it was necessary to know how to be one of the 15%...

and as for "respected journos" speak for yourself - i don't respect them other than their humanity. any corporate mainstream media hack has very little = NO ability to print anything but the "official story". they are paid to tow the line, if they don't they have no more job in corporate mainstream journalism...and being the jack of all trades that i am, i have worked within the news industry in varying degrees and i know very well, all to well, how it all works.

 

[Jazzz]

nice posting NuTbAr.

 

[alphaDelta]

here's a picture of the pentagon shortly after being hit:

supposedly by a 757 - a much bigger plane that leaves a smaller hole than a much smaller plane - 747 also impacting a large, concrete rebar reinforced building. hmmn, interesting.

But a 757 is smaller than the 747, with a wingspan some 22m less (60 compared to 38) as I've already pointed out yet the hole in the tower block is of comparable size. Not only that but what's going to make more of a mess; a big tall tower block or a low flat structure on the ground?

I take great interest in air accidents - my relatives work in aviation including bird and lightning strike - and I can understand that there are lots of different types of crash with different effects and debris patterns.

Where are the distinguishable bits of debris in the 747 crash? Where are they in the two WTC crashes? You do accept that those were planes, right? Luckily we don't have too many of these type of collisions

 

[editor]

Of course the Pentagon has automated missile defence systems you wazzock. It's the most heavily protected building in the world...
Well here's John Judge

And what the fuck does he know about it?

And - once again - the source is a fruitloop bonkers nuitcase site for X Files fans and weirdos. I asked for a credible source for this 'automated' defence system. Can you provide one?

 

[alphaDelta]

Even if the wazzock was right, and his son was sat on the missile, how does having a SAM launcher make it automated?

 

[editor]

since i've had extensive security training and have taken part in those said exercises in proving the unreliabilty of eye witness accounts, then yes i actually do have a huge clue as to what i'm talking about. it was necessary to know how to be one of the 15%...

Right. So every single person - and there's lots of them (including a pilot) - who says that they clearly saw an American Airlines 757 were all mistaken? All of them?

So how come not a living soul on this planet saw a missile hitting the Pentagon? Why is that exactly?

Your 'argument' that all of the eye witnesses must have suffered some sort of mass delusion and mistook a plane for a missile is ridiculous, based entirely on your desperate belief to prove a wild conspiracy theory.

You have not a molecule of proof to support your bonkers theory. Nothing.

And seeing as you have such disdain for journalists, could you tell what sources you're using and why you trust them instead?

 

[alphaDelta]

It's inherently ridiculous. Suppose it was a missile. Where then for the crew, passengers and aircraft? Why not buy a 757, paint it in AA livery and crash that into the Pentagon? Or hijack the real one yourself? Where is the logic? Ahhh...

 

[editor]

. i don't know what is the whole truth and nothing but however i do know that 9/11 is the biggest political scam going. period.

Why have you wasted our time with a load of utterly irrelevant 'comparisons'?

Have you seen the video of the test plane hitting the concrete block? That will tell you all you need to know about the dynamics of a jet hitting a solid object at high speed.

But if you're insisting that you know better, how about you serve up a critique of the academic study undertaken into the Pentagon crash but - please - no more off-topic cut and paste odysseys and random images.

the difference is i'm not blind to the obvious...i am smart enough to realize that there is just no way the official story is true.

Gosh. How wonderful it must be to be soooooooo clever and so wise amongst a sea of fools, especially when you're basing your superior knowledge on "googling and clicking" like everyone else.

 

[editor]

so where's the 757?

So where's Concorde in this picture, Sherlock?

There's barely anything left of the plane, yet it hit soft ground and a small annex building, and didn't accelerate into a rock-solid, highly reinforced concrete structure at high speed.

Maybe it was a missile instead?

 

[alphaDelta]

Or you must remember this?

http://aviation-safety.net/pictures/accidents/20011112-0-C-d-5-500.jpg

Incidentally that's what it'd probably look like if you shot it down. In fact it's the November 2001 Airbus. The tail fell off and landed in the water (which is why you can find pictures of it) and the rest of the plane subsequently fell on Queens, New York.

You can see the rest of the damage pictures here at http://aviation-safety.net/pictures/displayphoto.php?id=20011112-0&vnr=5&kind=C but ask yourself this: even now, where it's light and outside, can you pick out specific aeroplane parts? No. The whole disaster area looks like a scrapyard. Personally I can only identify the engines, which I've already written about.

 

[fubert]

It does fucking list 4 fucking engines doesn't it?

it lists the four different type of engine that the plane is can be delivered with.

 

[WouldBe]

DrJazzz - if the Pentagon has a fully automated always on missile defence system how does anything manage to land / take off from Reagan Airport, which is located just across the river from the Pentagon and sandwiched between 2 restricted airspaces for the Pentagon and the Capitol / White house, without getting shot down?

Cruise missiles have an 8.5-foot (2.61-meter) wingspan......

no one considers that there are other cruise missiles, with different specs....

Wingspan: 12 feet (3.65 meters)

Right so if there is only one spec for a cruise missile then what is it's wingspan supposed to be?


Wasn't the 757 aimed at and crashed through the doors of the Pentagon? As a result the aircraft wouldn't have hit solid concrete reinforced walls but a bit of wood so you wouldn't have got loads of debris bouncing off the walls onto the lawn, most of it would have gone through the door into the Pentagon.

 

[Loki]

and as for "respected journos" speak for yourself - i don't respect them other than their humanity. any corporate mainstream media hack has very little = NO ability to print anything but the "official story". they are paid to tow the line, if they don't they have no more job in corporate mainstream journalism...and being the jack of all trades that i am, i have worked within the news industry in varying degrees and i know very well, all to well, how it all works.

And that would include mainstream news organisation implacably opposed to the Bush administration, such as Aljazeera? They would love to see Bush impeached yet they're not publishing these conspiracy theories. Is that (a) because they can see the "evidence" just doesn't add up, or (b) they and every news organisation in every country that is opposed to Bush is somehow in his pay to keep schtum? I think I'll plump for (a).

 

[editor]

I'm still waiting for DrJ to FINALLY tell me what it was he thinks hit the Pentagon if it wasn't Flight 77...

Was it an invisible missile? Was it an invisible fighter jet firing invisible missiles? Or was it the incredible shrinking 757?

 

[Stigmata]

Nice plane crash photos Nutbar. How much fuel was on those planes that crashed? The one that crashed upon landing must have had very little, as airlines as a rule don't carry more fuel than they need for a trip. It weighs down the aircraft.

What i'm surprised that no-one here has asked is why would the evil American/Jewish/Reptile/Freemason masterminds of September 11 create one elaborate fake plane crash at the Pentagon while creating two undisputed REAL plane crashes in New York?

That would be like strangling two people and infecting a third person with a complex artificial space-virus that EXACTLY simulates strangulation. You would of course infect this third person by inventing an invisibility cloak, injecting them and then paying eyewitnesses to say they saw you strangle your victim. What's the point?

 

[alphaDelta]

What i'm surprised that no-one here has asked is why would the evil American/Jewish/Reptile/Freemason masterminds of September 11 create one elaborate fake plane crash at the Pentagon while creating two undisputed REAL plane crashes in New York?

It's inherently ridiculous. Suppose it was a missile. Where then for the crew, passengers and aircraft? Why not buy a 757, paint it in AA livery and crash that into the Pentagon? Or hijack the real one yourself? Where is the logic? Ahhh...

We're still waiting for an answer. It's a lengthy queue. I WON'T TELL YOU AGAIN*: cybernetic killer horses! It's the long predicted apocalypse, I tell you! and their equestrian masters have been overthrown by their assorted steeds! And then eaten, by slugs.

*This is a lie.

 

[wizard61]

Is there anything like this in pyschology?

Pose a series of clearly false possibilities of assorted types. Have the patient pick out ones they feel might be true. See if different types of people fall for different types of lies. Maybe you could better prescribe assorted treatments using the patterns.

The story on this thread for me is noting that certain types of people really go for certain types of nonsense. Kinda like ink blots...

I should talk, though- I still think there is more to the JFK assasination than Oswald acting alone.

 

[Jazzz]

So where's Concorde in this picture, Sherlock?

There's barely anything left of the plane, yet it hit soft ground and a small annex building, and didn't accelerate into a rock-solid, highly reinforced concrete structure at high speed.

Maybe it was a missile instead?

 

[alphaDelta]

And that's more obviously aeroplane than anything in the Pentagon pictures, is it?