I don't care whether its a plane or a missile but how in the world pentagon didn't realize that something coming towards them? it's headquarter of United States Department of Defense!!! no warning signal at all?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
total crap...explain how FIVE light poles got knocked down...explain aircraft debis (which is cleverly edited)...explain eye-witness testimony to seeing an aircraft HIT the building...explain FAA records of a hijacked airplane......this video is total crap
I Can't Believe Anyone could even Question This One..How Much Does It Take to Get thru to Ya'll Sleepers Fluoride Diluted Brains.?? Great Posts, Keep it Up.
alrighty, but mind showing me this videos with the book on a stool? cuz every vdeo i see is from pretty far away to be seeing details that small, and a little fact for you, besides a small nuclear warhead, a plane is the most capapble of tearing a building down becuase of just how massive it is and tey were going from boston to LA so they were completely full of jet fuel which is more flammable and explosive then normal gasoline
okay, that was a book and stool in the pentagon (were in the picture, its far away from the initial crash site and had fire equipment nearby becuase its not 70 floors up so everything wasnt completely burned), you siad theres a book and stool visible in the twin towers that didnt get burned up, but apparently there isnt, proving that fire and a jet, not planted explosives, brought the twin towers down
Yeah a guy in a cave on the other side of the world w/a laptop by-passed the most sophiscated and most expensive security system in the entire world!! And what turned 220
floors of concrete into dust,impact of a jet and some jet fuel??WE'VE HEEN HAD!
WE NO LONGER HAVE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS,NOW WE HAVE STATE GIVEN PRIVLEDGES.WE WANT OUR CONSTITUTION BACK NOW!!!
There is a vid on Y-T that shows the pentagon after it had been sturck(by whatever) and in the vid,one can see the different floors of the bldg.I guess my point is ,if fire downed the T.T.'s ;how is it that we can see an open book on a stool just feet from the piont of impact?
"the fire disintergrated everyone onbrd,but not some books just feet away?
yes because a missle can zigzag hit 5 lightpoles knock them loose. sheer stree limbs off. knock a huge generator 45 degrees back leaving a gaping hole in it. and still do great damage to the pentagon. since u seem to be so smart tell me what missle can do that and not blow up before hand. also the cockpit voice recorder was completly destroyed and yes u can see pics of it. stop acting like you know whats going on when u so clearly dont.
No, I don't know what's going on because they are so many diff. "official" versions of what actually happened. But, the point is there's no evidence of any hijackers being on those planes. Now, did you know that Flight 77's FDR data shows the plane missing all light poles. I guess the plane didn't zigzag either?
watch?v=aMD2THUb87s
Then, throw in some common sense. A 100 ton plane traveling at 500+ mph strikes a light pole and the light pole is only found a few feet from it's foundation?
name more than one "official version" because unlike conspiracy theorists. the official syory is alot mroe consistent. and to say no evidence of hijackers isa lie. even ground crew for those flights announced they saw the some of the pictured men boarding the aircraft. and i will enjoy ur argument a little mroe when u can tell me what u think hit the pentagon and explain urself. ciz nothing but a plane makes sence.
I hear the plane crumbled and the landing gear punched the hole/If that's true why isn't there three punch holes!Also the fire ball should have been wider.Nothing about that day makes any sense at all.Good work on the video's.
what happened to the people on Flight 77? Its clear a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and the planes that hit the Trade Towers were too dark and didn't look commercial at all. What did they do with the people on the real planes?
Well the Arizona Dessert is pretty big... probably shut it down and buried it... In my opinion the biggest dilemma is how can all civilian and military radars lose 3 planes, and nobody notice it, for 1 hour, how can some poor trained terrorists drive the planes with no navigation, into the Pentagon, at that amazing angle, and right in the only empty part of the building... Two Towers people were expendable since they were civilians.
the plains were remotely controlled to somewhere safer in the ocean to be blown , thats y there was millions of blimps in the radar that day , they had to hide them planes , so take it to the ocean and goodbye
It is too bad we don't have enough money to build a wall in the desert somewhere - a building - the size and shape of the Pentagon and fly a plane into it on purpose. I honestly believe the wings would have sheared off, the tail would have been left outside and there would have been more damage to the entire building. And it is just a hole. Hey, remember seeing the apt fire recently - 4 stories high, flames, still standing!!
REAL airline crashes would have many tons of airplane debris. google up "pictures of real plane crashes" they are usually unbelievably messy. out of the previous four videos I have seen, none of the little debris found matches a 757.
There were tons of debris. It was inside the building. What was still outside could not have come from anything else. You have no clue what you are talking about.
I think using other plane crashes as an example is a good start. Where are the tons of debris that was inside the Pentagon? FYI, everyone has seen the pics of the rotor, landing gear, etc. that's about 1% of the plane. Got anything else?
Not much else would be identifiable from photographs, broken up into little pieces, some of them melted in the fire. A lot of the scrap metal photographed around the exit hole are still identifiable as aircraft sheet metal, but it would take a full NTSB rebuild to figure out which parts, although some appear to be avionics bays such as would be found at the front of the aircraft.
And when did this NTSB rebuild occur? When were the recovered parts identified by their serial numbers? I love how you make upcrap as you go. Very creative. I'll give you that. You should write fiction.
Well, of course there was no rebuild. There was no reason to be one, despite what dirtbags like George Nelson may tell you.
The crap you are talking about makes as much sense as trying to get out of a drunk driving charge because the cops recorded only the VIN of your upside-down, burned out vehicle after you caused a thirty-car pile-up. Try to have some clue when you address matters of this magnitude.
Why is George Nelson a dirtbag? Is it because he wants an investigation conducted normally and professionally? In a normal investigation where most of the plane has been destroyed, the serial numbers of the parts are collected and compared against the registered flight. This never happened. The FOIA requested these S/Ns and was denied. Why is this if there's nothing to hide?? You're in a world of denial and ignorance...
Of this magnitude? Yes, this is not some car crash. This was supposedly the worst attack on US soil. Every detail should be examined. And, to address your analogy. If 99% of a car and it's passengers disintegrated in a crash, then yes, they would resort to VINs, S/Ns, DNA, dental records or fingerprints.
They have the black boxes, they have reports of four aircraft gone missing, they have DNA from bodies. That is a hell of a lot of answers to every relevant question. No new answers were needed or extractable from the parts. Only in the sick mind of a failed musician, a failed film school applicant, a schizophrenic amateuer video editor , a raving lunatic journalist or a Nazi scum bag who is now a fugitive from justice are there relevant questions not answered by the material reported.
Again, talk is cheap. Have you seen/heard the information from black boxes? Nope. FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful.-Feb 25, 2002. No hijacker's voices heard. Have you seen the DNA reports? Reports of four aircraft missing is definite evidence? What planet are you living on?
The whole planes penetrated the WTC because steel will bend a bit before breaking. The perimeter columns were actually reather thin and flexible by design. Google the USS Hinsdale. Given the scale, it works the same.
Concrete either break the object that hits it or crumbles. From the engines out, the plane that hit the Pentagon shattered.from the engines in, the wall shattered.
A LOADED Global Hawk could have crashed into the Pentagon. I'm not military. The GH is supposed to be spy plane. Can't they attach a Tomahawk or something similar to do the job? The GH will mostly disintegrate because of the carbon makeup. But, they'll have to drag out the remains of the engine from the GH and the signs from the Tomahawk. The gvt. boasts that the GH is the most quietest plane ever made. Did they need to use it against us to advance their agenda? Guess so.
Global Hawk could not have survived in a sufficiently dense mass to do the punch-out after colliding with dozens of columns on the ground floor. Were it loaded with explosives, pieces of it would have been scattered all over the other side of the freeway. It would be too light to penetrate the facade. Just no proof that it could have been there.
Von Kleist is worthless for forensic purposes. There were no concrete walls along the path taken by the wreckage once it had penetrated the outer wall. It was just an open space full of columns. I actually have reason to believe that Von Kleist is not fully human. He shows a lack of ability to interpret human reactions. But that is a matter for discussion of repitloids.
patrioticamerican914, you're an asshole. How does, as you say, an alluminum plane dissolve into a steel and concrete building? Where are the wings and the engines? One piece of an engine, not big enough to be a 757, was photographed. And, why aren't there photos from the Pentagon cameras? This is the MOST protected building in the USA, with the most cameras on it. Don't be such a shill.
The hub was the right size. The vanes break off when they are hit while in operation. The skin of an aircraft is very delicate. It can blow off from the slightest damage in flight. Google Aloha Airlines accidents.
It's an election year. If McCain gets voted in, we're going to go through another 911 with Iran and/or North Korea. Keep educating the 'silent' voters about the Bushes, and how they and their cohorts killed over 3,000 people on 911.
The plane was alluminum hitting a reinforced steel and concrete building, so of course there isn't going to be much left of it. Secondly recognizable debris of an airplane were found, and if it was a missile nothing would have been found. Hundreds of people saw the plane hit, and you are calling them all liars.
From close-up there are a lot of pics of aluminum scrap. Thats what happens when planes hit a solid surface. They shatter. Putting an aircraft thrrough a small hole compresses it. It's hollow with a stiff deck with the seats attached to it. The vanes break off engine rotors in a crash. Von Kleist is an ignorant putz.
Where are the aluminum scraps on the lawn in this video? There is absolutely nothing on the lawn. A 757 is nearly 100 tons of airplane??? Do you have a pic of scraps on the lawn before the outer wall collapsed? It seems things "changed" when the wall collapsed.
Yes, I have seen that clip and all the wreckage before. The problem is this wreckage is not on the lawn in the video above which is immediately after impact and before the outer wall collapsed. This causes more questions....
You notice all that white, fluffy stuff on the grass where the fire fighters are walking before they put down foam? that's aircraft insulation. It doesn't travel as far as aluminum scrap when the fuselage pops under over-pressurization.
So, the aircraft basically "exploded" when impacting the Pentagon. Then, how did the two 767s pentrate the WTCs so easily with no immediate debris or wreckage?
The deck that runs the entire length of the fuselage and the wings as far out as the engine are quite rigid enough to do the job . Global Hawk is not. There are marks consistant with wing impact even outboard of the engines. The outboard portions did little beyond knocking off facing, and contributed to the assorted scrap on the ground.
The weakest structural elements were shredded against the wall at the P-gon. The strongest, the deck, engine, landing gear and empanage were driven inside. The wing tips shattered, taking off some facing, and skin popped of as the cabin over-pressurized.
by the looks of it, where are the wings, and why is the roof still there? shoudln't the tail ripped right into that?
also the wings don't break off so easily, they could of made exsensive damage before snapping off, the planes at the time wren't picked up, no wreckage, no bodies, no major damage, no noise and you would need like 20 years of flight to control a 747 close to the ground.
its is said to be lnded on some bizzar air strip as an emergency landing...Intresting thing is that some flights that were said to hit the building and ground and the pentagon where not to be flown. there are clear records that show that these flights were flying nowhere but staing on ground.
Look at the video above. These pictures are directly after impact. Where are the wings on the lawn? If the wings partially disintegrated, where's the debris from the wings? Terrorists didn't do this. We did it to ourselves.
If you all really want to know what hit the Pentagon, it was a surplus Navy Douglas A-3 Skywarrior retrofitted with Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders (Mode 4 or Mode 5 IFF) and radio-radar-navigation systems.
90% The US is asleep. Just like wives go back to wife beating husbands, US citizens go back to Bush and his cronies that have lied to you from Day 1 of his 2 illegal elections. Bush is a murderer a traitor and will be found guilty of treason, but not before it is too late. Wake up America and do the world a big favour. Ron Paul for Freedom.
i think we can all agree that noone will ever know what actually happend on 9-11.i my self find this facts interesting but just cant belive that.yes the evidence are saying all of that,but if the US goverment planed the whole 911 thing i think they would plan it better and think about the little details like the hole in the pentagon and stuff.i also find it hard to belive that all the people in flight 77 were seecret agents working for the goverment
"16 April 2006, Source: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Moussaoui trial exhibits and documents"
So does anyone know if this is an 'official' set of photos or are the supposed pentagon bodies fake? I can't see how the plane would fit in the facade of that building, so this is puzzling me. Reply to this if you know more...
There is one question that you have not answered. You stated that I "threw away science" in response to my posts that I made two weeks from today. How do I throw away science? What do you have to back your statement up? How are those posts wrong? It is funny that this is the only question that you did not answer, it should be the easiest one. I mean, you made the statement. You see, you only make vague statements like these when you have nothing to say, and nothing to back those statements up.
It's more the scientific method of analyzing the evidence. Again, every aspect of the evidence doesn't fit the scenario that a 100 ton plane crashed here. From the Pentagon security cam, parts w/o serial numbers, lack of fire damage, no hazardous waste clean-up to the witness statements. I have listed this evidence (or lack of) already.
Please watch this video of the Pentagon CCTV slowed down. Pay close attention to the blue/gray object in front of the white vapor/smoke/contrail which is not a 757's nose. Looks like a small plane (drone) or "cruise missile with wings" to me. Great video.
low resolution 1 frame per second footage where the object in question is really blurry and a decent distance to boot is, in my opinion, a bad item to make a solid judgement off of.
Ok musicmaker, two weeks have gone by and I am still waiting for answers to my questions. I assusme that you have had enough time to think it all over. cat got your tongue?
also if you look up the diameter of a 757 it is about 12-13 feet. and look at the videos of the planes hitting the tower is there alot of debris leaving the building after the plane hit? no.
and if it was a global hawk/cruise missle how did it make such a big hole. if you look at it from every andgle not just your pov it is clear that this video is full of crap and misinformation.
This man in the video does not think that a plane crashed because the hole was too small. However, he then goes on to say that it could have been a bunker buster missile, which is specifically designed to demolish fortified structures like the Pentagon. Wouldn't that have left a larger hole than even the plane? Once again, the man only saw what he wanted to see, and paid no attention to the fact that the evidence he presented was disproving his own theory
I will now explain the lack of fire damage as seen in this video. There was an initial explosion, and anything caught in that explosion was badly burned. Then, there was a fire, and eventually this fire was stopped. many books were burned, but those we see that are not are logically at the end of the fire's reach. Also, many other things that were between the books and the fire were probably already burnt down, therefore creating a so called image of intact books in the midst of the fire
There are witness quotes that the plane supposedly entered the building and caused the C-ring exit hole some 300 ft away from the impact hole. If you belive that, this scenario should be similiar to the WTC scenario. Again, where's the heat/fire damage? Look at the security tape. There's a 3 second burst coupled with black smoke. Jet fuel???
yes, jet fuel. And you ask me again about the heat/fire damage, and I answer you once, again, look at the above post 2 weeks from now. Please tell me how a three second burst coupled with black smoke proves that a plane did not hit the pentagon, but a missle did.
You keep going back to this, but here it is again. The video posted above is here to disprove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Missiles, global hawks, even Wonder Woman and her invisible plane are only theories. Thus, the term conspiracy theory.
The video shown here says that "lack of fire damage to books and such" shows that there was no plane crash. This is a tunnel vision statement. An explosion of any kind would leave fire damage, be it a missile (as the video says), bomb, or plane. But wait? there was fire damage to other parts of the building elsewhere. So there has to be an explosion of some sort, which could therefore mean an airplane, missle, etc... Therefore this fact proves nothing and is only intended to confuse the viewers
I'm sure we can both agree that damage from a missile is completely different from damage from a plane weighing nearly 100 tons carrying more then 5000 gallons of fuel on board at impact, right?
Yes, I will agree that the damage is different. As shown in the f14 clip, planes are not designed to penetrate rienforced concrete, and as shown, it is hard for them to do so. Bunker busters, however, are specifically designed to penetrate fortified structures.(such as the pentagon) Therefore it would cause more damage than a plane, therefore youre argument that the damage was too small disproves your bunker-buster theory
that is true jonokiller, considering that even an f14 hitting a concrete wall the size of the Pentagon's wall would completley disintergrate, you can watch it for yourself on youtube muzicmaker2001. However, I don't think the terrorists go on youtube as often as we do
(cpnt.) "I want to think all this is a mistake," said a bewildered Khalid al-Mihammadi, 24, a computer programmer from Mecca who was named wrongfully in an early list of hijackers released by the U.S. Justice Department. "We are America's friends, and they do this to us. It isn't fair."
An "early" list of hijackers. US justice dept. has now revised this list many times, correcting any innacuracies. Also, how does this prove that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon? It doesn't. As a matter of fact, it doesn't prove anything. Please respond by telling me what you mean to accomplish by posting this and don't ignore this as you have ignored my past questions
Please direct me to or list an official reference showing an updated list of the true hijackers with explanations for the mistake. What questions did I ignore?
I did not think you would need this much direction, I mean, you know how to use the internet. Step 1: go to google, Step 2: type in: official sept. 11 hijacker list, Step 3: read it. As for the questions that you have ignored, here is my next post >
I not only asked you what "Al-Hamzi's" (a last name that appears twice in the hijacker list) quote proved. I also asked you what day it was recorded. However, you responded to this question by not providing me with any answers, but instead asking me a question. In multiple posts that I posted 3 days from today, I disproved many of your ideas in a logical manner. You responded by saying that I throw away science, and I asked you how.
To continue my unanswered questions: I asked you to look at those posts that I made 3 says ago from today, and tell me how those posts are wrong, and why. Yet you have not responded.
Al-Hamzi was identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers of Flight 77, thought to have crashed into the Pentagon. Al-Hamzi said: "I have never been to the United States and have not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years."
First of all muzicmaker2001, what do you have to say in response to my recent posts? and also, this quote by Al-Hamzi was obvioulsy said before the crash of flight 77, because there is no way he would be able to say it after. Please tell me the date that this quote was recorded. Also, One does not need to go to the United States to know where things are, there are maps andthe plane has a locater and a radar. He would have only needed to go to the USA sometime shortly before the crash.
From my references, Al-Hamzi's quote was made from a telegraph on Sep 23, 2001. I'm still waiting for a reference or link with the updated list of the real hijackers with an explanation of the mistaken identity??? Since it's so readily available for everyone to see, do me a favor and please post it here.
I would, but I have a 500 character limit. Seriously, it is not that hard. These lists are available all over the internet. It is like finding a football roster. Do you really need this baby fed to you?
"Do you really need this baby fed to you?" Yes, I would appreciate it. Again, if this is so easy to find, it should be posted here. This is my second request. Use my youtube email and send me the links. I'd love to see them.
(Mistaken Identity). I never said that Al-Hamzi was innocent. I will not rush to assumptions. If you were being convicted of something like this, you wouldn't fess up, you would provide an alibi. I also assume that the intel that the USA has isn't made by retards. If the quote was backed up by evidence then they would have also taken that into account. Al-Hamzi could be a liar or horribly mistaken.
I have news you know how oil is running low? Well guess where there still is a ton of oil where the "terrorists" are.If you still dont get my point the government is trying to gain our support by fraiming the "terrorist" only the "terrorists" know the truth time to send that message around!
Interesting facts: George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.), pointed out, NONE of the found" parts had part numbers or serial numbers on them; not at the Pentagon and not at Pennsylvania. This is not normal for a registered commercial aircraft.
Was he at the sites? Where is his report? Can other people confirm this? Were the numbers removed or was there no numbers on the produced parts? Or did the crash demolish the numbers? Are all parts numbered in a plane? Are you sure everything has a number printed onto it? Take your time...
Answer my questions. Do all parts have numbers? Were they removed prior to the crash? Were there never numbers on them? Did the crash remove them? Why would anyone remove partnumbers of a clearly identifiable part? What does it prove? What is your point?
'Answer my questions" My answer comes directly from Colonel George Nelson's paper. (USAF)"Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible."
It's not an answer. You talk about a person who claims something. I ask, why was the number erased? Who did it? When? Did they order a plane from Boeing with no numbers on all parts? Not likely. Can you prove all parts do have a number? Which parts does he refer to? You just say stuff with no answers.
"What does it prove? ?" Let's review: 757's (Specifically Flight 77) parts are all stamped with distinctive serial numbers and recorded. But, Flight 77 didn't crashed into the Pentagon. So, parts other than ones coming from Flight 77 were used. The serial numbers would be solid proof of this. Thus, there are no serial numbers on the parts. Elementary Watson. Also, the parts discovered has caused so much controversy because they are obviously not clearly identifiable as being from a 757. Get it?
I have seen pictures of the parts and they can absolutely be from a 757. Also what you fail to realize is that Boeing probably stamp every important part with numbers. Even spare parts. So they could not just put parts there from stock. If they would order parts without numbers then Boeing personel would know about it. If someone removed numbers it can be seen on the part. So, which one is it?
Deal with this. All 757 parts are stamped with S/Ns and recorded. The Pentagon parts didn't have S/N and it's impossible for a fire to destroy those numbers. End of story. There is nothing to read into here.
"The question is how did the numbers dissappear" You haven't read my posts. I think parts were used that did NOT have serial numbers on them at all because if they did, it would be proof that Flight 77 didn't not crash into the Pentagon. This is obviously a cover-up. Even automobile parts are stamped with P/Ns and S/Ns. You fail to see (denial) that every aspect of the Pentagon crash is questionable.
"I asked you "how" the numbers were removed" Dude, sink this in for the first time. My opinion is that parts were used/placed/whatever WITHOUT S/Ns, i.e.,nothing on them. Got it yet? No comprende? The S/Ns would be a limiting factor for disproving this whole mess. And, only in your mind, were all parts recovered clearly identifiable as being from a 757. Obviously, that fact added fuel to this CT. This is pointless when you're sharing a brain with someone else. Elvis, leave the building already.
"Ok, let's do it the easy way. Show me a picture of a 757 part with no number from the crashsite." Or the hard way? Show me a pic of a 757 part with a S/N.
"YOU have to prove it" YOU know that is ridiculuous, right? I could fill up the rest of this page asking YOU to prove all of YOUR statements, starting with my favorite: "Some parts went through windows, some through the hole the landing gears made." I really don't think YOU could do it, do YOU?
My evidence is already in the movies. You are the one claiming that parts did not enter. The crash site is my proof. What is yours? Blurry images that show E.T. on the wing?
If you claim something you have to prove it little boy.
I'll prove tomaselvis's statement. There are hundreds of photographed, documented pictures of plane wreckage. This disproves your "no wreckage claim". Also the momentum of the plane was going forward, it is logical that debris went through the open parts of the building such as windows or holes. Remember, he only said that SOME parts went through. Also, there is proof besides logics. Some of the pictures on the internet show debris inside of the pentagon. How else would that debris have gone in?
I will never understand this logic with debunkers. All we have to do is look above us in the video and see that there is absolutely wreckage on the lawn. The outer wall is still intact and collapsed approx 20 minutes after impact, so we can assume that this is pretty close to directly after impact. Where is the wreckage? And, why is there wreckage in photographs after this was taken??? A little fishy??
I look at the video and I see wreckage at the base of the building just as easily as I see the white powder. You expect wreckage on the lawn, but the momentum of the plane was moving away from the lawn, therefore placing the wreckage at the base of the building and inside.
For your statement about wreckage found. I didn't say there was no wreckage found. In the video above us showing photos that were taken directly after impact, there is no wreckage on the lawn. And, here's some simple reasoning. Supposedly, an engine part was found inside. But there is no damage on the outside of the building where the engine would've impact??? Again, look at the above video.
this guy repeats himself way too much. who the f cares that it hasn't collapsed. he just grinds the fact into the ground (that it hadn't collapsed before it had collapsed). seeya tomorro McJeffery
I'm done with this. This is obviously a battle that nobody can win. This could go on for weeks and none of us would change our opinion. I've seen both sides of this argument and I'm sure you have too, and nothing we say to each other is anything new to either of us. I have other things to do with my life. See Ya
Hola chaoscleaner: You wanted to know why I don't believe ALL witness accounts. Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams, a responder to the Pentagon crash, actually stated that some of the passenger's bodies were "still strapped into their seats??" But, I thought most of the plane disintegrated upon impact? Those crazy CT's, huh?
muzicmaker: Hola bacacha. I don't want to get graphic, but I'm sure he wasn't looking at a complete normal person sitting in a plane seat, if you know what I mean. However, parts were inside and outside of the Pentagon. Thanks for your thoughts.
chaoscleaner: I don't want to get too graphic also because it is disrespectful to the victims and their families. "Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats"-USA Today (09/13/01) Take a good look at that impact hole again and tell me how this is possible?
cirus101, are you talking about Shanksville? If so, my opinion is neither. I don't believe a plane crashed at Shanksville at all. See youtube videos posted, "Did Flight 93 really crash in Shanksville? (Parts One&Two)" for evidence.
I'm sorry. I cannot argument with a person who won't read my answers and does not answer my questions. You go ahead and think conspiracy eventhough physics state otherwise. Have a nice life.
tomaselvis. He does it with everyone. He's like a broken record. Poor thing. Oh, and I heard he's legally blind which might account for the fact he doesn't see plane parts.
" he's legally blind which might account for the fact he doesn't see plane parts" chaoscleaner, good to see you again. You mean the 100 tons of plane parts on the lawn in the above video? Where? Yes, I guess I am blind.
tomaselvis, I thought you retired. Unfortunately, I have to repeat myself over and over again because you can't seem to comprehend logic the first time around.
It's interesting that some of you point to the F4 Phantom disitegrating upon impact as an illustration of what could've happened to Flight 77. Big problem here. If most of the plane supposedly disintgrated, how is it possible that officials managed to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers of Flight 77? Someone help me out here. Draw me a chart or something? Ok, that's all.
"Define remains" See my reply to chaoscleaner. Honestly, does it matter? The majority of the plane disintegrated upon impact like your F4 Phantom example, right? Engines, wings, cockpit, luggage, BODIES, SEATS??? What's your theory now?
I think I can define "remains" by these photos (inside the Pentagon) rense. com/general32/phot.htm. My theory is the same as it was before. A plane. A plane that happened to be carrying two people I knew.
There are windows on the pentagon walls. The Phantom crashed against a complete wall. On the Pentagon some parts went through the windows which are not made out of concrete! Also some parts went through the hole made by the landing gear.
Do you understand english? Read my answer, think and then answer me.
"There are windows on the pentagon walls."Ok, I read your answer, thought about it and here's my reply. This story gets better every time. So, all parts recovered went through the Pentagon windows? The entire passenger carriage that remained virtually intact and bodies (official story)went through the windows? I guess the plane was positioned just perfectly to allow this, huh?
You will have to make your mind up. Either there are NO planeparts as you said earlier or there ARE planeparts. I cannot talk to you if you change your story all the time.
Huh? I haven't changed my mind yet. There are basically two scenarios here. 1. The majority of the plane disintegrated upon impact. Questions: Impact hole (or windows) not big enough for the many parts recovered inside the Pentagon. What determined what enters the building and what was disintegrated? Mass? Densities? Ability to fit through windows? 2. The majority of the plane did not disintegrated upon impact. Question: Obviously, where is the majority of the plane?
For parts to "follow" the landing gear, the landing gear would've had to entered the building first....in a split second. I don't know what to say anymore.
A plane has nose gear, in the front of the plane. And it has main gear in the middle of the fuselage. If the nose gear punches a hole first things can follow. Why would that be strange?
"Why would that be strange?" So many questions. Where is this hole that the nose gear supposedly created? If the nose gear penetrated the Pentagon, why didn't the engines? The 9-ton engines are missing (disintegrated), but fragile human bodies were found strapped to their seats? Also, an intact seat was discovered from the plane's cockpit??
The nose gear maybe only did a hole, The main carriage made it bigger and stuff behind the main gear could enter the building. People and softer mtrl. Voilá! No mystery.
The engines crashed into the walls just at the base. Where the wall is strongest. Also the gears made multiple impacts on the same spot.
Interesting quotes: "And it went in through three rings. I'm told the nose is—is still in there,
very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away." Mr. RUMSFELD- Good Morning America (09/13/01) The nose went through 9ft of concrete the C-rings. I thought it was the landing gear?? The nose is one of the weakest parts of the plane but it pierced three rings of the Pentagon, but the engines are missing?
It can not be the nose. The nose cannot cope with the stress of the impact. Maybe he was refering to the nose section which contains the nose gear. I don't know. But the nose would not survive.
"Maybe he was refering to the nose section which contains the nose gear." Is it logically possible that the nose or nose gear could've blasted through 9 ft of concrete when the majority of the plane didn't make it past the outer wall? This is not logical. But, two different "witnesses" claim it was the nose and Rumsfield stated it was still intact. Just feeding the public more lies.
I don't think it's logically impossible for some parts to be intact. The pentagon has windows. And it's not impossible for people to just misinterpret given info. Our Swedish king once held a speach to the wrong city. Shit happens.
The majority of the plane is made out of thin aluminun. The stronger parts of thicker aluminum. The landing gear contains stainless steel parts thus making it more strong and heavy.
(Cont) Interesting quotes: "The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft."
-DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation (9/15/01) It's official. The nose created the C-ring hole, not the landing gear. Weird how the nose usually is damaged just by hitting an object, but not at the Pentagon?? Do any sides of the official story actually match?
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't care whether its a plane or a missile but how in the world pentagon didn't realize that something coming towards them? it's headquarter of United States Department of Defense!!! no warning signal at all?
akkifans 1 week ago
where the fuck is the plane?????????
Flavio12034 1 year ago
Anyone with an open mind can see the official story has so many holes in it its untrue.
zenoist2 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
total crap...explain how FIVE light poles got knocked down...explain aircraft debis (which is cleverly edited)...explain eye-witness testimony to seeing an aircraft HIT the building...explain FAA records of a hijacked airplane......this video is total crap
chasing91a 2 years ago
I Can't Believe Anyone could even Question This One..How Much Does It Take to Get thru to Ya'll Sleepers Fluoride Diluted Brains.?? Great Posts, Keep it Up.
Mindcrime1994 2 years ago 6
Dumb ass Americans. Your government has
been screwing you dry, and manipulating since 1950-ies.
Too dumb to see it
quovadis1952 2 years ago 9
watch:DECONSTRUCTING THE PENTAGON ATTACK.you will have answers...........
aligoulou 2 years ago
I'm not tryin to argue w/you JeffyBigH just asking some questions?...thx &God Bless
jiwbink 2 years ago
alrighty, but mind showing me this videos with the book on a stool? cuz every vdeo i see is from pretty far away to be seeing details that small, and a little fact for you, besides a small nuclear warhead, a plane is the most capapble of tearing a building down becuase of just how massive it is and tey were going from boston to LA so they were completely full of jet fuel which is more flammable and explosive then normal gasoline
JeffyBigH 2 years ago
Book and stool: (frame 1:15)
watch?v=BWNpWZBTgDk
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
okay, that was a book and stool in the pentagon (were in the picture, its far away from the initial crash site and had fire equipment nearby becuase its not 70 floors up so everything wasnt completely burned), you siad theres a book and stool visible in the twin towers that didnt get burned up, but apparently there isnt, proving that fire and a jet, not planted explosives, brought the twin towers down
JeffyBigH 2 years ago
Yeah a guy in a cave on the other side of the world w/a laptop by-passed the most sophiscated and most expensive security system in the entire world!! And what turned 220
floors of concrete into dust,impact of a jet and some jet fuel??WE'VE HEEN HAD!
WE NO LONGER HAVE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS,NOW WE HAVE STATE GIVEN PRIVLEDGES.WE WANT OUR CONSTITUTION BACK NOW!!!
jiwbink 2 years ago 3
And what turned 220
floors of concrete into dust,impact of a jet and some jet fuel??
hahahah, yes, planes are pretty big and fuel is pretty flammable u know,
JeffyBigH 2 years ago
Not to be a smart ass,just a observation here.
There is a vid on Y-T that shows the pentagon after it had been sturck(by whatever) and in the vid,one can see the different floors of the bldg.I guess my point is ,if fire downed the T.T.'s ;how is it that we can see an open book on a stool just feet from the piont of impact?
"the fire disintergrated everyone onbrd,but not some books just feet away?
jiwbink 2 years ago
quite bizarre yellow graffiti down at 6:50 to the left...
what is that?
thedayitriedtodie 2 years ago
Please check out
´New Documentary - The Pentagon Witnesses´
9 parts
VERY IMPORTANT
onesliceshort 2 years ago
mmmmm
redn40 2 years ago
That's one hell of a missile
BareFacedBullshit 2 years ago 2
yes because a missle can zigzag hit 5 lightpoles knock them loose. sheer stree limbs off. knock a huge generator 45 degrees back leaving a gaping hole in it. and still do great damage to the pentagon. since u seem to be so smart tell me what missle can do that and not blow up before hand. also the cockpit voice recorder was completly destroyed and yes u can see pics of it. stop acting like you know whats going on when u so clearly dont.
911letsroll 2 years ago
No, I don't know what's going on because they are so many diff. "official" versions of what actually happened. But, the point is there's no evidence of any hijackers being on those planes. Now, did you know that Flight 77's FDR data shows the plane missing all light poles. I guess the plane didn't zigzag either?
watch?v=aMD2THUb87s
Then, throw in some common sense. A 100 ton plane traveling at 500+ mph strikes a light pole and the light pole is only found a few feet from it's foundation?
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
name more than one "official version" because unlike conspiracy theorists. the official syory is alot mroe consistent. and to say no evidence of hijackers isa lie. even ground crew for those flights announced they saw the some of the pictured men boarding the aircraft. and i will enjoy ur argument a little mroe when u can tell me what u think hit the pentagon and explain urself. ciz nothing but a plane makes sence.
911letsroll 2 years ago
u are very stupid, man
ground crews.... u believe what they say? they need their work.....
can u tell me a few secs on this video where we can see aeroplane debris?
thedayitriedtodie 2 years ago
You can't really be this dense. Open your eyes!!!
seeknthetruth 2 years ago 2
@911letsroll its a cover up jackass the goverment is the illuminati they will cover it up with every risk....
bubles806 6 months ago
I hear the plane crumbled and the landing gear punched the hole/If that's true why isn't there three punch holes!Also the fire ball should have been wider.Nothing about that day makes any sense at all.Good work on the video's.
1oct1 3 years ago 2
what happened to the people on Flight 77? Its clear a plane didn't hit the Pentagon and the planes that hit the Trade Towers were too dark and didn't look commercial at all. What did they do with the people on the real planes?
beautifulprincessM 3 years ago
Well the Arizona Dessert is pretty big... probably shut it down and buried it... In my opinion the biggest dilemma is how can all civilian and military radars lose 3 planes, and nobody notice it, for 1 hour, how can some poor trained terrorists drive the planes with no navigation, into the Pentagon, at that amazing angle, and right in the only empty part of the building... Two Towers people were expendable since they were civilians.
HachimitsuBoy85 3 years ago
the plains were remotely controlled to somewhere safer in the ocean to be blown , thats y there was millions of blimps in the radar that day , they had to hide them planes , so take it to the ocean and goodbye
schottolo 3 years ago
It is too bad we don't have enough money to build a wall in the desert somewhere - a building - the size and shape of the Pentagon and fly a plane into it on purpose. I honestly believe the wings would have sheared off, the tail would have been left outside and there would have been more damage to the entire building. And it is just a hole. Hey, remember seeing the apt fire recently - 4 stories high, flames, still standing!!
okiedragonlady2 3 years ago
REAL airline crashes would have many tons of airplane debris. google up "pictures of real plane crashes" they are usually unbelievably messy. out of the previous four videos I have seen, none of the little debris found matches a 757.
zonezonezone123456 3 years ago
There were tons of debris. It was inside the building. What was still outside could not have come from anything else. You have no clue what you are talking about.
leftysergeant 3 years ago 2
I think using other plane crashes as an example is a good start. Where are the tons of debris that was inside the Pentagon? FYI, everyone has seen the pics of the rotor, landing gear, etc. that's about 1% of the plane. Got anything else?
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Not much else would be identifiable from photographs, broken up into little pieces, some of them melted in the fire. A lot of the scrap metal photographed around the exit hole are still identifiable as aircraft sheet metal, but it would take a full NTSB rebuild to figure out which parts, although some appear to be avionics bays such as would be found at the front of the aircraft.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
And when did this NTSB rebuild occur? When were the recovered parts identified by their serial numbers? I love how you make upcrap as you go. Very creative. I'll give you that. You should write fiction.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Well, of course there was no rebuild. There was no reason to be one, despite what dirtbags like George Nelson may tell you.
The crap you are talking about makes as much sense as trying to get out of a drunk driving charge because the cops recorded only the VIN of your upside-down, burned out vehicle after you caused a thirty-car pile-up. Try to have some clue when you address matters of this magnitude.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Why is George Nelson a dirtbag? Is it because he wants an investigation conducted normally and professionally? In a normal investigation where most of the plane has been destroyed, the serial numbers of the parts are collected and compared against the registered flight. This never happened. The FOIA requested these S/Ns and was denied. Why is this if there's nothing to hide?? You're in a world of denial and ignorance...
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Of this magnitude? Yes, this is not some car crash. This was supposedly the worst attack on US soil. Every detail should be examined. And, to address your analogy. If 99% of a car and it's passengers disintegrated in a crash, then yes, they would resort to VINs, S/Ns, DNA, dental records or fingerprints.
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
They have the black boxes, they have reports of four aircraft gone missing, they have DNA from bodies. That is a hell of a lot of answers to every relevant question. No new answers were needed or extractable from the parts. Only in the sick mind of a failed musician, a failed film school applicant, a schizophrenic amateuer video editor , a raving lunatic journalist or a Nazi scum bag who is now a fugitive from justice are there relevant questions not answered by the material reported.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Again, talk is cheap. Have you seen/heard the information from black boxes? Nope. FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful.-Feb 25, 2002. No hijacker's voices heard. Have you seen the DNA reports? Reports of four aircraft missing is definite evidence? What planet are you living on?
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
Bushkill.."everyone sitting at home just like you, while other people lose their lives on Iraq.".
You fuck head! Tell that to my 23 yr.old son-in-law who is a gunner on a Hum-V and got shot in the neck by a sniper 2 weeks ago!!
He can't talk or walk right now and is in ICU at Walter Reed Medical center!!
He may never walk again or be able to take care of himself because he was fighting for your right to post Anti-American bullshit!
And you say.."boo, hoo"
Ungrateful bastard!
marksman500 4 years ago
The whole planes penetrated the WTC because steel will bend a bit before breaking. The perimeter columns were actually reather thin and flexible by design. Google the USS Hinsdale. Given the scale, it works the same.
Concrete either break the object that hits it or crumbles. From the engines out, the plane that hit the Pentagon shattered.from the engines in, the wall shattered.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
The fragility of commercial planes explained:
youtube*com/watch?v=F4KGVKUuTJQ
muzicmaker2001 3 years ago
A LOADED Global Hawk could have crashed into the Pentagon. I'm not military. The GH is supposed to be spy plane. Can't they attach a Tomahawk or something similar to do the job? The GH will mostly disintegrate because of the carbon makeup. But, they'll have to drag out the remains of the engine from the GH and the signs from the Tomahawk. The gvt. boasts that the GH is the most quietest plane ever made. Did they need to use it against us to advance their agenda? Guess so.
tubewishes123 4 years ago
What causes a hole 16 feet round? Search the statistics on the Global Hawk. Dimensions are reported to be 15.2 feet round. Coincidence?
tubewishes123 4 years ago
Global Hawk could not have survived in a sufficiently dense mass to do the punch-out after colliding with dozens of columns on the ground floor. Were it loaded with explosives, pieces of it would have been scattered all over the other side of the freeway. It would be too light to penetrate the facade. Just no proof that it could have been there.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
Von Kleist is worthless for forensic purposes. There were no concrete walls along the path taken by the wreckage once it had penetrated the outer wall. It was just an open space full of columns. I actually have reason to believe that Von Kleist is not fully human. He shows a lack of ability to interpret human reactions. But that is a matter for discussion of repitloids.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
patrioticamerican914, you're an asshole. How does, as you say, an alluminum plane dissolve into a steel and concrete building? Where are the wings and the engines? One piece of an engine, not big enough to be a 757, was photographed. And, why aren't there photos from the Pentagon cameras? This is the MOST protected building in the USA, with the most cameras on it. Don't be such a shill.
tubewishes123 4 years ago
The hub was the right size. The vanes break off when they are hit while in operation. The skin of an aircraft is very delicate. It can blow off from the slightest damage in flight. Google Aloha Airlines accidents.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
"The skin of an aircraft is very delicate."
Then, how did two 767s penetrate the WTCs so easily? You can't have it both ways.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
The momentum of everything INSIDE the aircraft perhaps?
travelsonic 3 years ago
It's an election year. If McCain gets voted in, we're going to go through another 911 with Iran and/or North Korea. Keep educating the 'silent' voters about the Bushes, and how they and their cohorts killed over 3,000 people on 911.
tubewishes123 4 years ago
The plane was alluminum hitting a reinforced steel and concrete building, so of course there isn't going to be much left of it. Secondly recognizable debris of an airplane were found, and if it was a missile nothing would have been found. Hundreds of people saw the plane hit, and you are calling them all liars.
patrioticamerican914 4 years ago
From close-up there are a lot of pics of aluminum scrap. Thats what happens when planes hit a solid surface. They shatter. Putting an aircraft thrrough a small hole compresses it. It's hollow with a stiff deck with the seats attached to it. The vanes break off engine rotors in a crash. Von Kleist is an ignorant putz.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
Where are the aluminum scraps on the lawn in this video? There is absolutely nothing on the lawn. A 757 is nearly 100 tons of airplane??? Do you have a pic of scraps on the lawn before the outer wall collapsed? It seems things "changed" when the wall collapsed.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
watch this watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk
patrioticamerican914 4 years ago
9/11 Debunked: Pentagon Flight 77 Photo Evidence
patrioticamerican914 4 years ago
Yes, I have seen that clip and all the wreckage before. The problem is this wreckage is not on the lawn in the video above which is immediately after impact and before the outer wall collapsed. This causes more questions....
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
You notice all that white, fluffy stuff on the grass where the fire fighters are walking before they put down foam? that's aircraft insulation. It doesn't travel as far as aluminum scrap when the fuselage pops under over-pressurization.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
So, the aircraft basically "exploded" when impacting the Pentagon. Then, how did the two 767s pentrate the WTCs so easily with no immediate debris or wreckage?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
The deck that runs the entire length of the fuselage and the wings as far out as the engine are quite rigid enough to do the job . Global Hawk is not. There are marks consistant with wing impact even outboard of the engines. The outboard portions did little beyond knocking off facing, and contributed to the assorted scrap on the ground.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
The weakest structural elements were shredded against the wall at the P-gon. The strongest, the deck, engine, landing gear and empanage were driven inside. The wing tips shattered, taking off some facing, and skin popped of as the cabin over-pressurized.
leftysergeant 4 years ago
by the looks of it, where are the wings, and why is the roof still there? shoudln't the tail ripped right into that?
also the wings don't break off so easily, they could of made exsensive damage before snapping off, the planes at the time wren't picked up, no wreckage, no bodies, no major damage, no noise and you would need like 20 years of flight to control a 747 close to the ground.
viperxeon 4 years ago
The real question is, where did the real plane go ? If we know it did not hit the Pentagon, what happened to it ?
blaqfather 4 years ago
its is said to be lnded on some bizzar air strip as an emergency landing...Intresting thing is that some flights that were said to hit the building and ground and the pentagon where not to be flown. there are clear records that show that these flights were flying nowhere but staing on ground.
dya230 4 years ago
Where is the 757 wing ? Did they find it ? ( Show me the " wing " they found. )
blaqfather 4 years ago
dude why didnt they find any evidence of the wing then?
peterdeng54 4 years ago
Where are the wings then ? No wreckage at all ?
blaqfather 4 years ago
the reason why the 757 can fit through that whole is symply because the wings break off on impact.....dont be so stupid!
i hate the terroriests for ruining peoples lifes and i hope they all rot in hell-fire!
leboy101 4 years ago
Look at the video above. These pictures are directly after impact. Where are the wings on the lawn? If the wings partially disintegrated, where's the debris from the wings? Terrorists didn't do this. We did it to ourselves.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you all really want to know what hit the Pentagon, it was a surplus Navy Douglas A-3 Skywarrior retrofitted with Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders (Mode 4 or Mode 5 IFF) and radio-radar-navigation systems.
OperationMockingbird 4 years ago
90% The US is asleep. Just like wives go back to wife beating husbands, US citizens go back to Bush and his cronies that have lied to you from Day 1 of his 2 illegal elections. Bush is a murderer a traitor and will be found guilty of treason, but not before it is too late. Wake up America and do the world a big favour. Ron Paul for Freedom.
acolbran 4 years ago 2
i think we can all agree that noone will ever know what actually happend on 9-11.i my self find this facts interesting but just cant belive that.yes the evidence are saying all of that,but if the US goverment planed the whole 911 thing i think they would plan it better and think about the little details like the hole in the pentagon and stuff.i also find it hard to belive that all the people in flight 77 were seecret agents working for the goverment
Dinamo988 4 years ago
cryptome[DOT]org/911/911-kill[DOT]htm0
"16 April 2006, Source: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Moussaoui trial exhibits and documents"
So does anyone know if this is an 'official' set of photos or are the supposed pentagon bodies fake? I can't see how the plane would fit in the facade of that building, so this is puzzling me. Reply to this if you know more...
bigotryofhistory 4 years ago
There is one question that you have not answered. You stated that I "threw away science" in response to my posts that I made two weeks from today. How do I throw away science? What do you have to back your statement up? How are those posts wrong? It is funny that this is the only question that you did not answer, it should be the easiest one. I mean, you made the statement. You see, you only make vague statements like these when you have nothing to say, and nothing to back those statements up.
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
It's more the scientific method of analyzing the evidence. Again, every aspect of the evidence doesn't fit the scenario that a 100 ton plane crashed here. From the Pentagon security cam, parts w/o serial numbers, lack of fire damage, no hazardous waste clean-up to the witness statements. I have listed this evidence (or lack of) already.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
Please watch this video of the Pentagon CCTV slowed down. Pay close attention to the blue/gray object in front of the white vapor/smoke/contrail which is not a 757's nose. Looks like a small plane (drone) or "cruise missile with wings" to me. Great video.
Replace [dot] with a period:
youtube[dot]com/watch?v=0Om9_Lbco6A
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
low resolution 1 frame per second footage where the object in question is really blurry and a decent distance to boot is, in my opinion, a bad item to make a solid judgement off of.
travelsonic 3 years ago
Ok musicmaker, two weeks have gone by and I am still waiting for answers to my questions. I assusme that you have had enough time to think it all over. cat got your tongue?
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
also if you look up the diameter of a 757 it is about 12-13 feet. and look at the videos of the planes hitting the tower is there alot of debris leaving the building after the plane hit? no.
and if it was a global hawk/cruise missle how did it make such a big hole. if you look at it from every andgle not just your pov it is clear that this video is full of crap and misinformation.
jonokiller 4 years ago
This man in the video does not think that a plane crashed because the hole was too small. However, he then goes on to say that it could have been a bunker buster missile, which is specifically designed to demolish fortified structures like the Pentagon. Wouldn't that have left a larger hole than even the plane? Once again, the man only saw what he wanted to see, and paid no attention to the fact that the evidence he presented was disproving his own theory
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
I will now explain the lack of fire damage as seen in this video. There was an initial explosion, and anything caught in that explosion was badly burned. Then, there was a fire, and eventually this fire was stopped. many books were burned, but those we see that are not are logically at the end of the fire's reach. Also, many other things that were between the books and the fire were probably already burnt down, therefore creating a so called image of intact books in the midst of the fire
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
There are witness quotes that the plane supposedly entered the building and caused the C-ring exit hole some 300 ft away from the impact hole. If you belive that, this scenario should be similiar to the WTC scenario. Again, where's the heat/fire damage? Look at the security tape. There's a 3 second burst coupled with black smoke. Jet fuel???
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
yes, jet fuel. And you ask me again about the heat/fire damage, and I answer you once, again, look at the above post 2 weeks from now. Please tell me how a three second burst coupled with black smoke proves that a plane did not hit the pentagon, but a missle did.
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
You keep going back to this, but here it is again. The video posted above is here to disprove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Missiles, global hawks, even Wonder Woman and her invisible plane are only theories. Thus, the term conspiracy theory.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
The video shown here says that "lack of fire damage to books and such" shows that there was no plane crash. This is a tunnel vision statement. An explosion of any kind would leave fire damage, be it a missile (as the video says), bomb, or plane. But wait? there was fire damage to other parts of the building elsewhere. So there has to be an explosion of some sort, which could therefore mean an airplane, missle, etc... Therefore this fact proves nothing and is only intended to confuse the viewers
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
I'm sure we can both agree that damage from a missile is completely different from damage from a plane weighing nearly 100 tons carrying more then 5000 gallons of fuel on board at impact, right?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
Yes, I will agree that the damage is different. As shown in the f14 clip, planes are not designed to penetrate rienforced concrete, and as shown, it is hard for them to do so. Bunker busters, however, are specifically designed to penetrate fortified structures.(such as the pentagon) Therefore it would cause more damage than a plane, therefore youre argument that the damage was too small disproves your bunker-buster theory
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
lol such a light aircraft (global hawk) would not be able to do any real dmage.
and by doing these stupid conspiracy things you make terrorist's happy because that makes you distrust your goverment.
jonokiller 4 years ago
that is true jonokiller, considering that even an f14 hitting a concrete wall the size of the Pentagon's wall would completley disintergrate, you can watch it for yourself on youtube muzicmaker2001. However, I don't think the terrorists go on youtube as often as we do
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
(cpnt.) "I want to think all this is a mistake," said a bewildered Khalid al-Mihammadi, 24, a computer programmer from Mecca who was named wrongfully in an early list of hijackers released by the U.S. Justice Department. "We are America's friends, and they do this to us. It isn't fair."
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
An "early" list of hijackers. US justice dept. has now revised this list many times, correcting any innacuracies. Also, how does this prove that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon? It doesn't. As a matter of fact, it doesn't prove anything. Please respond by telling me what you mean to accomplish by posting this and don't ignore this as you have ignored my past questions
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
Please direct me to or list an official reference showing an updated list of the true hijackers with explanations for the mistake. What questions did I ignore?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
I did not think you would need this much direction, I mean, you know how to use the internet. Step 1: go to google, Step 2: type in: official sept. 11 hijacker list, Step 3: read it. As for the questions that you have ignored, here is my next post >
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
I not only asked you what "Al-Hamzi's" (a last name that appears twice in the hijacker list) quote proved. I also asked you what day it was recorded. However, you responded to this question by not providing me with any answers, but instead asking me a question. In multiple posts that I posted 3 days from today, I disproved many of your ideas in a logical manner. You responded by saying that I throw away science, and I asked you how.
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
To continue my unanswered questions: I asked you to look at those posts that I made 3 says ago from today, and tell me how those posts are wrong, and why. Yet you have not responded.
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
Let's talk hijackers for a sec:
Al-Hamzi was identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers of Flight 77, thought to have crashed into the Pentagon. Al-Hamzi said: "I have never been to the United States and have not been out of Saudi Arabia in the past two years."
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
First of all muzicmaker2001, what do you have to say in response to my recent posts? and also, this quote by Al-Hamzi was obvioulsy said before the crash of flight 77, because there is no way he would be able to say it after. Please tell me the date that this quote was recorded. Also, One does not need to go to the United States to know where things are, there are maps andthe plane has a locater and a radar. He would have only needed to go to the USA sometime shortly before the crash.
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
From my references, Al-Hamzi's quote was made from a telegraph on Sep 23, 2001. I'm still waiting for a reference or link with the updated list of the real hijackers with an explanation of the mistaken identity??? Since it's so readily available for everyone to see, do me a favor and please post it here.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
I would, but I have a 500 character limit. Seriously, it is not that hard. These lists are available all over the internet. It is like finding a football roster. Do you really need this baby fed to you?
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
"Do you really need this baby fed to you?" Yes, I would appreciate it. Again, if this is so easy to find, it should be posted here. This is my second request. Use my youtube email and send me the links. I'd love to see them.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
(Mistaken Identity). I never said that Al-Hamzi was innocent. I will not rush to assumptions. If you were being convicted of something like this, you wouldn't fess up, you would provide an alibi. I also assume that the intel that the USA has isn't made by retards. If the quote was backed up by evidence then they would have also taken that into account. Al-Hamzi could be a liar or horribly mistaken.
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
my uncle was working there that day send me a message to know what he told me
DirtTrackRacer43 4 years ago
I have news you know how oil is running low? Well guess where there still is a ton of oil where the "terrorists" are.If you still dont get my point the government is trying to gain our support by fraiming the "terrorist" only the "terrorists" know the truth time to send that message around!
finestour3 4 years ago
Interesting facts: George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.), pointed out, NONE of the found" parts had part numbers or serial numbers on them; not at the Pentagon and not at Pennsylvania. This is not normal for a registered commercial aircraft.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
Was he at the sites? Where is his report? Can other people confirm this? Were the numbers removed or was there no numbers on the produced parts? Or did the crash demolish the numbers? Are all parts numbered in a plane? Are you sure everything has a number printed onto it? Take your time...
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"Where is his report?" Right here: Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle
Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity-by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.) Check it out. Booya.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
Answer my questions. Do all parts have numbers? Were they removed prior to the crash? Were there never numbers on them? Did the crash remove them? Why would anyone remove partnumbers of a clearly identifiable part? What does it prove? What is your point?
tomaselvis 4 years ago
'Answer my questions" My answer comes directly from Colonel George Nelson's paper. (USAF)"Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible."
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
It's not an answer. You talk about a person who claims something. I ask, why was the number erased? Who did it? When? Did they order a plane from Boeing with no numbers on all parts? Not likely. Can you prove all parts do have a number? Which parts does he refer to? You just say stuff with no answers.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"What does it prove? ?" Let's review: 757's (Specifically Flight 77) parts are all stamped with distinctive serial numbers and recorded. But, Flight 77 didn't crashed into the Pentagon. So, parts other than ones coming from Flight 77 were used. The serial numbers would be solid proof of this. Thus, there are no serial numbers on the parts. Elementary Watson. Also, the parts discovered has caused so much controversy because they are obviously not clearly identifiable as being from a 757. Get it?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
I have seen pictures of the parts and they can absolutely be from a 757. Also what you fail to realize is that Boeing probably stamp every important part with numbers. Even spare parts. So they could not just put parts there from stock. If they would order parts without numbers then Boeing personel would know about it. If someone removed numbers it can be seen on the part. So, which one is it?
tomaselvis 4 years ago
Deal with this. All 757 parts are stamped with S/Ns and recorded. The Pentagon parts didn't have S/N and it's impossible for a fire to destroy those numbers. End of story. There is nothing to read into here.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
The question is how did the numbers dissappear (if they did)? Please read my questions! What is your theory regarding the so called missing numbers?
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"The question is how did the numbers dissappear" You haven't read my posts. I think parts were used that did NOT have serial numbers on them at all because if they did, it would be proof that Flight 77 didn't not crash into the Pentagon. This is obviously a cover-up. Even automobile parts are stamped with P/Ns and S/Ns. You fail to see (denial) that every aspect of the Pentagon crash is questionable.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
Dear child!
I asked you "how" the numbers were removed. How.
Read my earlier post and answer.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"I asked you "how" the numbers were removed" Dude, sink this in for the first time. My opinion is that parts were used/placed/whatever WITHOUT S/Ns, i.e.,nothing on them. Got it yet? No comprende? The S/Ns would be a limiting factor for disproving this whole mess. And, only in your mind, were all parts recovered clearly identifiable as being from a 757. Obviously, that fact added fuel to this CT. This is pointless when you're sharing a brain with someone else. Elvis, leave the building already.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
Ok, let's do it the easy way. Show me a picture of a 757 part with no number from the crashsite.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"Ok, let's do it the easy way. Show me a picture of a 757 part with no number from the crashsite." Or the hard way? Show me a pic of a 757 part with a S/N.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
No, if YOU state something. YOU have to prove it. Burden of evidence is on YOU!
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"YOU have to prove it" YOU know that is ridiculuous, right? I could fill up the rest of this page asking YOU to prove all of YOUR statements, starting with my favorite: "Some parts went through windows, some through the hole the landing gears made." I really don't think YOU could do it, do YOU?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
My evidence is already in the movies. You are the one claiming that parts did not enter. The crash site is my proof. What is yours? Blurry images that show E.T. on the wing?
If you claim something you have to prove it little boy.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
I'll prove tomaselvis's statement. There are hundreds of photographed, documented pictures of plane wreckage. This disproves your "no wreckage claim". Also the momentum of the plane was going forward, it is logical that debris went through the open parts of the building such as windows or holes. Remember, he only said that SOME parts went through. Also, there is proof besides logics. Some of the pictures on the internet show debris inside of the pentagon. How else would that debris have gone in?
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
I will never understand this logic with debunkers. All we have to do is look above us in the video and see that there is absolutely wreckage on the lawn. The outer wall is still intact and collapsed approx 20 minutes after impact, so we can assume that this is pretty close to directly after impact. Where is the wreckage? And, why is there wreckage in photographs after this was taken??? A little fishy??
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
I look at the video and I see wreckage at the base of the building just as easily as I see the white powder. You expect wreckage on the lawn, but the momentum of the plane was moving away from the lawn, therefore placing the wreckage at the base of the building and inside.
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
For your statement about wreckage found. I didn't say there was no wreckage found. In the video above us showing photos that were taken directly after impact, there is no wreckage on the lawn. And, here's some simple reasoning. Supposedly, an engine part was found inside. But there is no damage on the outside of the building where the engine would've impact??? Again, look at the above video.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
this guy repeats himself way too much. who the f cares that it hasn't collapsed. he just grinds the fact into the ground (that it hadn't collapsed before it had collapsed). seeya tomorro McJeffery
upsideDowNwaffLE 4 years ago
I'm done with this. This is obviously a battle that nobody can win. This could go on for weeks and none of us would change our opinion. I've seen both sides of this argument and I'm sure you have too, and nothing we say to each other is anything new to either of us. I have other things to do with my life. See Ya
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
FattyMc: May I say it was a pleasure "reading yo" Percise, logical, and you didn't keep "repeating" yourself. [g] Thanks.
chaoscleaner 4 years ago
Thanks, I appreciate the support
FattyMcJeffery 4 years ago
Hola chaoscleaner: You wanted to know why I don't believe ALL witness accounts. Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams, a responder to the Pentagon crash, actually stated that some of the passenger's bodies were "still strapped into their seats??" But, I thought most of the plane disintegrated upon impact? Those crazy CT's, huh?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
muzicmaker: Hola bacacha. I don't want to get graphic, but I'm sure he wasn't looking at a complete normal person sitting in a plane seat, if you know what I mean. However, parts were inside and outside of the Pentagon. Thanks for your thoughts.
chaoscleaner 4 years ago
chaoscleaner: I don't want to get too graphic also because it is disrespectful to the victims and their families. "Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats"-USA Today (09/13/01) Take a good look at that impact hole again and tell me how this is possible?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
ya like study 4 finoes.. way to shut up fatty
upsideDowNwaffLE 4 years ago
muzikmaker,u think the plane that went down in the field was shot down or u agree that passengers helped to bring it down?
cirus101 4 years ago
cirus101, are you talking about Shanksville? If so, my opinion is neither. I don't believe a plane crashed at Shanksville at all. See youtube videos posted, "Did Flight 93 really crash in Shanksville? (Parts One&Two)" for evidence.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
I'm sorry. I cannot argument with a person who won't read my answers and does not answer my questions. You go ahead and think conspiracy eventhough physics state otherwise. Have a nice life.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
Ok, I know what you mean. How big was the impact hole again? Take care. Keep the faith.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
IT WAS THE SAME SIZE AS THOSE 2 757's AND PASSENGERS YOU CANT ACCOUNT FOR!
marksman500 4 years ago
Huh?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
tomaselvis. He does it with everyone. He's like a broken record. Poor thing. Oh, and I heard he's legally blind which might account for the fact he doesn't see plane parts.
chaoscleaner 4 years ago
" he's legally blind which might account for the fact he doesn't see plane parts" chaoscleaner, good to see you again. You mean the 100 tons of plane parts on the lawn in the above video? Where? Yes, I guess I am blind.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
muicmaker. You are the ONLY one talking about tons. (Five times.)
Maybe that's your problem, you keep looking for TONS. I'm outta here too. I sincerely hope you get over your "ton" issues.
chaoscleaner 4 years ago
huh?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
I kinda gave up when he didn't even believe his own eyes. I really think he is a broken record!
tomaselvis 4 years ago
tomaselvis, I thought you retired. Unfortunately, I have to repeat myself over and over again because you can't seem to comprehend logic the first time around.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
You don't know what logic is I'm afraid. Do not use that word unless you fully understand it.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
It's interesting that some of you point to the F4 Phantom disitegrating upon impact as an illustration of what could've happened to Flight 77. Big problem here. If most of the plane supposedly disintgrated, how is it possible that officials managed to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers of Flight 77? Someone help me out here. Draw me a chart or something? Ok, that's all.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
Define remains.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"Define remains" See my reply to chaoscleaner. Honestly, does it matter? The majority of the plane disintegrated upon impact like your F4 Phantom example, right? Engines, wings, cockpit, luggage, BODIES, SEATS??? What's your theory now?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
I think I can define "remains" by these photos (inside the Pentagon) rense. com/general32/phot.htm. My theory is the same as it was before. A plane. A plane that happened to be carrying two people I knew.
chaoscleaner 4 years ago
There are windows on the pentagon walls. The Phantom crashed against a complete wall. On the Pentagon some parts went through the windows which are not made out of concrete! Also some parts went through the hole made by the landing gear.
Do you understand english? Read my answer, think and then answer me.
Also to discuss remains is not disrespectful.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"There are windows on the pentagon walls."Ok, I read your answer, thought about it and here's my reply. This story gets better every time. So, all parts recovered went through the Pentagon windows? The entire passenger carriage that remained virtually intact and bodies (official story)went through the windows? I guess the plane was positioned just perfectly to allow this, huh?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
You will have to make your mind up. Either there are NO planeparts as you said earlier or there ARE planeparts. I cannot talk to you if you change your story all the time.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
Huh? I haven't changed my mind yet. There are basically two scenarios here. 1. The majority of the plane disintegrated upon impact. Questions: Impact hole (or windows) not big enough for the many parts recovered inside the Pentagon. What determined what enters the building and what was disintegrated? Mass? Densities? Ability to fit through windows? 2. The majority of the plane did not disintegrated upon impact. Question: Obviously, where is the majority of the plane?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
Show me the part you're talking about. I will not use your words as truth. Give me pics or links.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
For parts to "follow" the landing gear, the landing gear would've had to entered the building first....in a split second. I don't know what to say anymore.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
A plane has nose gear, in the front of the plane. And it has main gear in the middle of the fuselage. If the nose gear punches a hole first things can follow. Why would that be strange?
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"Why would that be strange?" So many questions. Where is this hole that the nose gear supposedly created? If the nose gear penetrated the Pentagon, why didn't the engines? The 9-ton engines are missing (disintegrated), but fragile human bodies were found strapped to their seats? Also, an intact seat was discovered from the plane's cockpit??
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
The nose gear maybe only did a hole, The main carriage made it bigger and stuff behind the main gear could enter the building. People and softer mtrl. Voilá! No mystery.
The engines crashed into the walls just at the base. Where the wall is strongest. Also the gears made multiple impacts on the same spot.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
Interesting quotes: "And it went in through three rings. I'm told the nose is—is still in there,
very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away." Mr. RUMSFELD- Good Morning America (09/13/01) The nose went through 9ft of concrete the C-rings. I thought it was the landing gear?? The nose is one of the weakest parts of the plane but it pierced three rings of the Pentagon, but the engines are missing?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
It can not be the nose. The nose cannot cope with the stress of the impact. Maybe he was refering to the nose section which contains the nose gear. I don't know. But the nose would not survive.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
"Maybe he was refering to the nose section which contains the nose gear." Is it logically possible that the nose or nose gear could've blasted through 9 ft of concrete when the majority of the plane didn't make it past the outer wall? This is not logical. But, two different "witnesses" claim it was the nose and Rumsfield stated it was still intact. Just feeding the public more lies.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
I don't think it's logically impossible for some parts to be intact. The pentagon has windows. And it's not impossible for people to just misinterpret given info. Our Swedish king once held a speach to the wrong city. Shit happens.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
The majority of the plane is made out of thin aluminun. The stronger parts of thicker aluminum. The landing gear contains stainless steel parts thus making it more strong and heavy.
tomaselvis 4 years ago
(Cont) Interesting quotes: "The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft."
-DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation (9/15/01) It's official. The nose created the C-ring hole, not the landing gear. Weird how the nose usually is damaged just by hitting an object, but not at the Pentagon?? Do any sides of the official story actually match?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
It's only what people think. Just because the goverment can't identify the parts correctly doesn't mean it's a cover up operation.
tomaselvis 4 years ago