Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video

[sparticus]

There is an overwhelming case that 9/11 was an inside job. Completely overwhelming IMO. Can I be arsed to go through the same tedious exchanges again with the same serial deniers? No. I see no movement from either side, so what is the point?

That said, the evidence from the pentagon is one of the last places I would start to prove 9/11 was an inside job and this site explains why

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

This overview of the pentagon evidence is also v strong IMO

http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

Take care Doctor

Ian

 

[editor]

There is an overwhelming case that 9/11 was an inside job. Completely overwhelming IMO.

So 'overwhelming' that there were more bar staff than punters at your 'UK premiere' of a film 'proving' that it was an inside job!!!

But do tell me: what do you think hit the Pentagon?

 

[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...

Seeing as he started this fucking thread it's not unreasonable to expect him to explain his claims.

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

And how come so many eye witnesses (including a pilot) say they saw a 757?
And what happened to the original plane, its passengers and crew?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I think, by his last posts, it was a mockup plane painted to look like the real plane. For some reason. Piloted by remote control presumably. Cos it's obviously much easier to do that than hijack a real plane.

(To be fair, that's a lot better than some people are suggesting, that it was a hologram.)

 

[editor]

Q, Did Concorde accelerate into a rock-solid, highly reinforced concrete structure at high speed?
A. No

Q. Will Dr J ever stop wriggling away from answering a direct question directly related to the thread he started?
A. Highly unlikely.

Q. Is there any point hosting any further DrJ conspiracy threads if he refuses to explain or support his claims?
A. None that I can think of.

 

[alphaDelta]

I've enjoyed this post, but it seems to have died. A timely demise, perhaps.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm bored of going round in circles. Go on Editor, use your sinister powers of censorship to bin this post. But don't forget:

 

[wizard61]

I think, by his last posts, it was a mockup plane painted to look like the real plane. For some reason. Piloted by remote control presumably. Cos it's obviously much easier to do that than hijack a real plane.

(To be fair, that's a lot better than some people are suggesting, that it was a hologram.)

And the other planes that were hijacked at the same time make one of the worlds all-time best cover stories!

If "they" are THAT good I am not going to f with them.

Heck, if they can do that why not build an elevator to the moon?

 

[pk]

Yeah... that Dutch sink estate was reinforced concrete built to the same specification as the Pentagon wasn't it?

I remember now - they even used steel girders to hold the walls in place to protect them against thermonuclear attack.

Get a life you idiot.

 

[Loki]

I'm bored of going round in circles.

Mate, this happens on every 9/11 conspiracy thread, and there have been dozens (mostly started by DrJazzz). They unfailingly end up in the bin after they've gone around in circles a few times.

 

[pk]

Every single issue of this supposed Pentagon missile attack has been taken apart several times before - and all Dr Jazzock can provide is links to fruitbat conspiranoid tosspots who know fuck all about it, much like his trusted Joe Vialls.

It may well be the case than in wartime the Pentagon would be protected by SAM sites and air defences, but all the time? Ak-ak on the roof?

Or At-At on the roof?

Is this the Star Wars plan Reagan was on about???



Come back with some real evidence, conspiranut bonkers fruitloop fuckwits, otherwise don't waste our time with your "Smoking Is Good For You!" type links to nachos dot com or whatever temporary hoax website you've managed to trawl up.

 

[editor]

If DrJ still refuses to answer these questions, then it's going in the bin.
It's utterly pointless starting threads if you're not prepared to answer reasonable, related questions.

Here, for the last time:

DrJ, what was it that 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 perspective-challenging 757?

 

[NuTbAr]

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

i do accept that two planes hit the wtc towers...that's about all i accept from the "official" story...that and it happened on september 11, 2001.

 

[NuTbAr]

Yeah... that Dutch sink estate was reinforced concrete built to the same specification as the Pentagon wasn't it?

I remember now - they even used steel girders to hold the walls in place to protect them against thermonuclear attack.

Get a life you idiot.

steel girders are used in every concrete tower - you're the idiot...figure it out...maybe go have a look at one being built.

t's funny how the pentagon supposedly just finished a project "reinforcing" that exact area...where the only damage is to the structure and why would that be?

because destroying the pentagon wouldn't be a good idea when one is planning a major war for oil now would it?

now go back to the fog you crawled out of...

 

[editor]

steel girders are used in every concrete tower - you're the idiot...figure it out...maybe go have a look at one being built.

t's funny how the pentagon supposedly just finished a project "reinforcing" that exact area...where the only damage is to the structure and why would that be?

What's 'funny about' that? Go on. Elaborate.

What are you saying - that they purposely weakened the structure so that they could fly an invisible missile into it, create a flying hologram to fool all the eye witnesses and magically make a large passenger plane vanish (and fake phone calls too)?

Make sense of your vague claims please. Oh, and be sure to back them up with some credible, relevant proof (so don't bother posting up any more pictures of completely irrelevant crashes please).

 

[sparticus]

This is why the location of the crash raises eyebrows/questions, as well you know. It's funny as in funny strange not funny ha ha.

http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/location.html

 

[tarannau]

This is why the location of the crash raises eyebrows/questions, as well you know. It's funny as in funny strange not funny ha ha.

http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/location.html

What's funny about a major construction project on a public building running behind schedule? Perfectly normal in the real world. Apparently the Pentagon's improvements were meant to be completed in 2000

Strangely enough, once you check what Danielle O'Brien actually said - see the ABC site or CNN and a different story emerges. Unlike the (highly objective) 911 Review site, which talks bizarrely of 270 degree turns and suspiciously adept pilot maneuvers and targeting, it seems the actual source (Danielle O'Brien) of this speculation sees things very differently:

O'Brien went to the Pentagon to see what happened for herself, making her ever more certain that the Pentagon was a secondary target, and that the hijackers overshot or missed the White House.

Selective quoting, cherry picking of facts and misrepresentation of witness statements on a conspiracock site - how surprising.


The worrying thing for me is that despite all the conspiracy fans being so cynical about conventional news sources, they'll swallow any nonsense from a 2-bit conspiracy website without any similar sense of cynicism. How about checking the actual sources of these eye witness statements before you start reciting second hand information from a dubious website as the 'truth.'..

 

[alphaDelta]

I recall that at the time, respectable news sources said the White House was thought to be the original aim but the position of the morning sun rendered it indistinguishable to the hijackers. Ergo, the Pentagon became an opportunistic target.

Anyway, we digress once more...

 

[editor]

This is why the location of the crash raises eyebrows/questions, as well you know.

So do you think it was the AA 757 flight that hit the Pentagon and that DrJ's claims of an invisible missile, an missile firing invisible fighter jet and a pint-size perspective-challenging mini-757 are a pile of steaming conspiraloon bollocks?

(I'm still waiting for DrJ to FINALLY clarify his claims about what he thinks supposedly hit the Pentagon. His continuing silence is rather surprising since he started the thread on this very topic)

 

[sparticus]

Personally regarding what hit the pentagon I'm undecided, like quite a few 9/11 truth seekers. My views are fairly close to those expressed in the links I posted from www.911review.com.

 

[editor]

Personally regarding what hit the pentagon I'm undecided, like quite a few 9/11 truth seekers.

"Truth seekers"? WTF?!

So if you're "undecided" what else could it have been apart from the 757 aircraft seen by so many independent eye witnesses? And if it wasn't the 757, where did the original plane go, what happened to its passengers and crew and how could the passenger's phone calls possibly be faked from the plane?

What answers do the (guffaw!) 'truth seekers' have for the above?

 

[Pickman's model]

congratulations on yr 15,000!

i wonder when the bermuda triangle will be brought into this.

perhaps over the years it's shifted to the northeastern united states due to changes in the earth's magnetick field caused by years of nuclear testing.

or perhaps not.

 

[wizard61]

"Truth seekers"? WTF?!

The implication is everyone else pursues an agenda instead of the truth, a rather simplistic attempt to claim the higher moral ground. I don't think it ever works except on very small minds.

 

[hipipol]

Not an A3 at all!!!

Look ay the pic carefully
It is in fact Donald Campbell Bluebird jet boat, the one the "they" say crashed on Coniston Water back in 68. In fact a secret CIA time machine fired it forward in time and thousand of miles in space to crash into the Pentagon!!!!
You have been told

 

[Jazzz]

I think, by his last posts, it was a mockup plane painted to look like the real plane. For some reason. Piloted by remote control presumably. Cos it's obviously much easier to do that than hijack a real plane.

(To be fair, that's a lot better than some people are suggesting, that it was a hologram.)

Well done Fridge, you have been able to read something that I have posted up many, many times over the years...

 

[editor]

Well done Fridge, you have been able to read something that I have posted up many, many times over the years...

Right. So how come so many independent eye witnesses say that they clearly saw a 757 plane (not your "mini me" version) and if it was a 'mock up plane', how was it flown, where did it fly from, what happened to the original passenger aircraft and passengers and how the chuffin' heck did they fake the phone calls off the plane?

Face it: you haven't got a single molecule of proof to support your laughable 'mock up' plane theory.

And how do you answer this simple question: if 'they' were prepared to risk 'faking' this attack, wouldn't it have been about a zillion times easier to have used a hijacked plane instead?

What possible benefit would there be in involving hundreds - if not thousands - of aeronautic engineers, computer experts, aircraft construction workers, CIA Mike Yarwoods, perspective-altering artists, jet propulsion experts, missile experts, 757 vanishing experts, mass killers to murder the original passengers, plane disposal experts, remote control experts, liars, cheats and media manipulators, if 'they' could have had exactly the same impact with a plane already reported as hijacked?

Why would they run the extra risk of hiring masses of people and swearing them to secrecy, disposing of the original plane, slaughtering all the passengers and crew and spending a fortune manufacturing a cunning 'pretend' Dinky toy 757 missile when there was absolutely no need whatsoever?

 

[Jazzz]

You know something editor? I hardly bother reading your posts anymore

 

[editor]

You know something editor? I hardly bother reading your posts anymore

You know something, DrJ? I'm inclined to shove all your bullshit, fact-free fantasies straight in the bin from now on.

If you're not prepared to debate your loonspud claims, then maybe you should stick to posting on those traffic-free conspiracy sites you find so inspirational.

Maybe your 'credible source' buddy Joe Vialls will start up a board soon...

 

[NuTbAr]

What's 'funny about' that? Go on. Elaborate.

What are you saying - that they purposely weakened the structure so that they could fly an invisible missile into it, create a flying hologram to fool all the eye witnesses and magically make a large passenger plane vanish (and fake phone calls too)?

Make sense of your vague claims please. Oh, and be sure to back them up with some credible, relevant proof (so don't bother posting up any more pictures of completely irrelevant crashes please).

i'm saying what a "coincidence" and just how likely is it that the intent was to ensure that this area was the only part of the pentagon damaged first of all.

i don't think the missile was invisible...i'm thinking that if you don't know an event of this nature is occuring you aren't exactly paying any mind to the details...which is why most eye-witness evidence is wrong and not credible.
also it is not difficult to have "paid" eye-witnesses that are plants in these days of espionage and corporate spying...and again, who is presenting the so-called witnesses and their testimony...the same guys that later said that iraq and it's weapons of mass destruction were an immediate threat to the us...and were involved in 9/11...which we all know now was a big fucking lie.

and for fake phone calls..who's telling you there were calls in the first place? the same folks that told you saddam had all these weapons of mass destruction...even the mainstream media now calls these folks liars. in the age of digital and modern technology it's pretty damned simple to make fake phone recordings...who would ever EVER be granted access to verify whether or not the calls were real and hmmn, why was a random cell call recorded in the first place that just happened to be on a hi-jacked plane that not a lot of people knew about at the time remember...because otherwise who would have been surprised when the pentagon was "supposedly" struck by the "supposedly" hi-jacked 757 which just happened to have a mysterious cell phone call made and even recorded by some weird circumstance.

have you ever seen any evidence first hand yourself? no. you believe in the authors that write what you consider to be true. you have never contacted the supposed family member called by the person with the cell on the plane to verify that yes, they got the call. so how do you know any more than any body else? because you believe a group of people that are telling you their side of a story. you've never called up the "supposed" eye-witnesses to verify that they are actual people and that they did see a 757 hit the pentagon. you weren't at the pentagon any more than i was so your opinion is just a valid as mine and to me just as crazy as you think mine is. we will never see eye to eye on this. period.

i don't believe their side of the story...i've read so many other sides from many credible people imho and i've researched and explored because so many things are lies and so many things obviously don't fit. you want to believe the "official story"...go right ahead...i simply choose otherwise and should be able to discuss that with other folks of similar belief without being slagged and harassed. no where have you shown any proof for the "truth" you espouse...not one iota...just "they" say..."the official story"...the great and mysterious "they"...how about you find me some credible relevant proof...to back up your claims for a change...

 

[Loki]

and for fake phone calls..who's telling you there were calls in the first place?

erm, it was the relatives who released the details of the phone calls. Do you think they're all in this "plot" as well?

who would ever EVER be granted access to verify whether or not the calls were real and hmmn, why was a random cell call recorded in the first place that just happened to be on a hi-jacked plane

Who says they were recorded? The many relatives who recieved distressed phone calls spoke about them and they were absolutely convinced they were from their loved one. And many of the flight bookings were last-minute, so there's no possibility some secret organisation could have faked their voices - they couldn't know who was on the planes until minutes before they took off.