Look at the Penagon....is that the pentagon? Is that even a plane?

OK so we have video of the pentagon strike... here it is:
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Look at the video and please explain to me what this is! Tell me how this is a plane. i see nothing that resembles a plane what so ever. We have video of the planes hitting the WTC from all angles, and no matter how you slow it down, YOU SEE A PLANE.

There have been threads arguing about this ad nauseum, but why dont we just put it all out there and talk about what you all think this is? What is hitting the pentagon?

You think its a plane? why? I see no plane at all.

You think its a missile? well I can kind of see that, yet I really dont see a missile.

Why was video hidden if there is nothing to hide?

Lets open our eyes and our minds and concentrate on what the possibilities are. There is a mountain of evidence that we can present and support without cutting throats. Lets expand on our ideas.

reply to post by Jeff Riff


For those that haven't seen this yet..

Thank you for that.

Whilst one part of my brain sees the scenario unfold with the synopsis presented in the graphic CGI, the other side (the analytical side) comes up with more questions.

a) The lamp post outside the Pentagon:
Are they aluminum? Given that they ‘snap’ off their base – (if they are, why did they not fly off further from their bases considering the velocity that they were hit!)

b) The aerodynamic surface of the leading edge of the wings:
The smashing into lamp posts would have affected their efficiency, requiring exemplarity skills to maintain control of the aircraft. (which leads to - )

c) The flying skills of the pilot:
Not to get the aircraft swung around or deviate after hitting the lamp posts and
not grounding the aircraft resulting in a high ‘bounce’, or a ‘tail over’ situation,
but to keep it level until just before impact, only inches above the ground.
Also taking into account the ‘ground cushion effect’ would normally take a very
long time in a simulator to master.

d) Aluminium vs reinforced concrete:
The tail section should have ‘given way’ to the pentagon 3rd floor structure of reinforced concrete, resulting in ‘minor damage’.

Quick question: are any of the companies involved in this CGI presentation government contractors or tenderers for government contracts?
(This is a conspiracy site after all!!)
H

One has to start at the beginning.

Prove the Pentagon exists. Remember pictures of it could[/] be disinfo. CGI at its best.

jthomas,

with all the lying, fear spreading, corruption, bad management etc etc

you still findd it odd we ask questions about the reports we get from our "official" sources?

i can hardly imagine that your government DIDN'T did do the strike, in fact, there's no doubt in my mind about that since the beginning of it all.

Haha im no dumber, there were planes at the WTC towers, not at the pentagon, atleast not a 757 as you can see in the security cam vid your "official" sources released.

In that video there is only 1 (!) frame with a sort of flying object in it. but wait there's more!!,

What we see is a object teh size of a small recreational plane and not the 757 or 747 whatever at 500 miles plus mp/h (haha c'mon guys).


Hahaha it makes me feel very low believing such a story... 500 miles mp/h?... 757?... vaporized???! hahaha, dude!

Ah well that's their american dream isn't it? Nice dream man!. I'll make up my own if you'll be allright with that..

Thanks,

PureET



[edit on 4-3-2008 by PureET]

[edit on 4-3-2008 by PureET]

haha!!!, what a joke!

after they made that picture they figured out that this didn't look like a plane crash... Thus they made it so.



Now that's more like it, isn't it..?

-PureET

[edit on 4-3-2008 by PureET]

reply to post by Jeff Riff


If you're genuinely curious I did some work on this early last year.
Video masterlist

I know it'll sound crazy, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that video. The white stuff is the plane, about the right size and proportions for a 757 fuselage, app. 600 feet from the lens, and the extra 'taillfin' behind the security box is some kind of artifact. No hidden plane. It's right there, and being gone in the next fits the official speed and one fps rate. It wouldn't show much.

Here's the field of view for both cameras - 'blocked view' is the zone blocked low behind the security box.

new window

Smoke lingering after - I agree it's from a damaged engine probably.



[edit on 4-3-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Havalon
Thank you for that.

Whilst one part of my brain sees the scenario unfold with the synopsis presented in the graphic CGI, the other side (the analytical side) comes up with more questions.

a) The lamp post outside the Pentagon:
Are they aluminum? Given that they ‘snap’ off their base – (if they are, why did they not fly off further from their bases considering the velocity that they were hit!)

Good Q, I dunno. Maybe the force was so sudden it didn't 'drag' them along but just spun 'em where they were.

b) The aerodynamic surface of the leading edge of the wings:
The smashing into lamp posts would have affected their efficiency, requiring exemplarity skills to maintain control of the aircraft. (which leads to - )

I'm sure they were affected. No need for great control then, however. A few hundred feet only - I'd think momentum would finish the job even without wings at all.

c) The flying skills of the pilot:
Not to get the aircraft swung around or deviate after hitting the lamp posts and
not grounding the aircraft resulting in a high ‘bounce’, or a ‘tail over’ situation,
but to keep it level until just before impact, only inches above the ground.
Also taking into account the ‘ground cushion effect’ would normally take a very
long time in a simulator to master.

Agreed this was a good pilot, and Hanjour is SAID to be a poor one. Who knows?

d) Aluminium vs reinforced concrete:
The tail section should have ‘given way’ to the pentagon 3rd floor structure of reinforced concrete, resulting in ‘minor damage’.

When the tailfin hit the wall, tell me, what else was it attached to? How much weight behind it? Basically zero... Me thinks it would bump and just fold back and barely inside leaving next to no damage above 2nd floor. Its base would enter at mid-2nd floor level, through the panel removed by the upper fuselage at 1st impact, so no resistance at all there.

Quick question: are any of the companies involved in this CGI presentation government contractors or tenderers for government contracts? (This is a conspiracy site after all!!)

Yes it is, and don't let me stand in the way of any exciting connections anyone wants to come up with. But in the real world... I would guess you're barking up the wrong tree here. Making an animation to bring together actual known evidence is not suspicious or meaning they're 'in on' some official story shenanigans. That's not to say the evidence isn't fake, but Wilson/Integrated Consultants presumably wouldn't know that and just looked at how it all lines up, like any dupe was meant to do. And dang, it does all line up... right down to the right wing damage, the realistic lack of high tailfin damage, and the gouge at the foundation's edge, plus all those inward bowed columns, and large 757 parts inside and the witnesses all being fooled into thinking that's what happened. Lots of skill sets at work!

Originally posted by PureET


haha!!!, what a joke!

Indeed, but it's on you. Dude... look at that plane outline - what source told you it impacted the 2nd floor? Look beneath that at the first floor. How did all that material there get missing? The wings and engines leave no mark on the 2nd floor but somehow remove the first floor... this indicates... the wings and engines HIT the FIRST FLOOR maybe? Where there's about 100 feet of removed panels, windows, and columns at the facade?

agreed caustic logic i have seen evidence from both sides of these arguments and i still believe it WAS a plane that struck the pentagon....i mean look at the source for that picture..911lies.org its a one sided site and thats their "smoking gun" pic? come on. BTW how can they even tell if those are "undamaged" windows..the smokes in the way and its not a high enough resolution for clarity.

If you have ANY questions whatsoever about 9/11 there is zero logic in accepting the security video as valid evidence for anything.

Why?

Because it was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect.

There is a lot of reason to believe it has been manipulated.

In search of the truth it is imperative that we seek out INDEPENDENT evidence.

This is what CIT has done and is constantly doing.

We believe the security video was put out to deliberately keep us chasing the missile disinfo meme.

We have proven there was a plane and we have proven it can not be what hit the building all with independent evidence.

If the odd "smoke plume" was really caused by a light pole entering the engine as shown in Integrated Consultant's deceptive animation and it was trailing the plane all the way from route 27 surely SOMEBODY would have seen it right?





So why isn't there a single witness report of this alleged smoke plume?

Furthermore while everything else in the video casts a shadow the thick, odd, squiggly "smoke plume" does not:





So the security video must be completely rejected as valid evidence SOLELY due to the source.

To debate or argue it at all causes us to play right into the hands of the perpetrators.

guys why is the date wrong on videos

reply to post by strangey24


Camera thinks its a day ahead. Sometimes I have to reset my camera.

Originally posted by SteveR
For those that haven't seen this yet..

Don't get mistaken by that video. It's a bad blind work.

If it proves anything then that there was NO Plane because their animation in true shows that there is no space for such a plane behind that box.

Don't believe that? Well see self:



They simple adjusted the Box shape and the plane position to their likes.
Not the first time I post that picture.

reply to post by deltaboy


Yeah because a place like the Pentagon would not consider cameras set on the correct date, because they are sloppy and don't care about the details right?

yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

watchZEITGEISTnow

reply to post by g210b


Quite simply the cgi is FICTION. That's right, it ain't REAL. Another example of trying to trick your minds into seeing something that was never there in the 1st place. Illuminati agents would always promote such fictions. I don't buy it for a second, and either would any one over the age of 7.

watchZEITGEISTnow

6 1/2 years. And we are STILL talking about this? 3 planes were used. Two hit their targets...... Oh... lets fly the 4th plane OVER the target.. no no wait...lets shoot a missile into it. Lets fly the plane to an undetermined location and hide all the passengers and then ....we'll pay them off... no no thats not good either. Lets kill them all!! yeah yeah kill them.

"Boss? If you want to go with the flyover plan...how do we plant all the bombs with construction going on at the same time?"

"Shut up you, we will pay the civilian contractors to do it!!!"


Missile Theory.... Idiotic. (Wintesses to a missile? ZERO)

Flyover Theory... As laughable as holograms. (Witnesses to a flyover ZERO)

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Well gee who runs the Pentagon? Humans!!!

what bothers me is this....I was at Walmart recently and noticed 12 security cameras on 1/3rd of the building alone, are you seriously telling me that Walmart has more security coverage than the Pentagon. We even saw more footage of the bridge collapse in minneapolis than what is available of the Pentagon.

Originally posted by PureET
jthomas,

with all the lying, fear spreading, corruption, bad management etc etc

you still findd it odd we ask questions about the reports we get from our "official" sources?

i can hardly imagine that your government DIDN'T did do the strike, in fact, there's no doubt in my mind about that since the beginning of it all.

Haha im no dumber, there were planes at the WTC towers, not at the pentagon, atleast not a 757 as you can see in the security cam vid your "official" sources released.

In that video there is only 1 (!) frame with a sort of flying object in it. but wait there's more!!,

What we see is a object teh size of a small recreational plane and not the 757 or 747 whatever at 500 miles plus mp/h (haha c'mon guys).


Hahaha it makes me feel very low believing such a story... 500 miles mp/h?... 757?... vaporized???! hahaha, dude!

Ah well that's their american dream isn't it? Nice dream man!. I'll make up my own if you'll be allright with that..

Thanks,

PureET

I'm really sorry that you fell for the story that the evidence magically comes from the government.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the answers to your "questions" six years ago.

I'm sorry that you believe your 9/11 religious leaders so blindly.

I'm sorry that you don't understand that yes, AA77, A Boeing 757, really did crash into the Pentagon.

I am sorry that you don't understand that there are multiple lines of evidence that conclusively demonstrate AA77 hit the Pentagon.

I am sorry that you think one lousy video that shows nothing discernible is the ONLY evidence there is.

I am sorry that you don't yet realize that the 9/11 Truth Movement has never been able to refute the evidence of what happened on 9/11.

I am most sorry that you have chosen to be a victim of the 9/11 Truth Movement rather than to think. You are just the kind of recruit they want That's how cults are formed.

Good luck.