the hole in the pentagon..is the big hole in the 911 story

Originally posted by litterbaux
Sorry if this video has already been mentioned. I'm going to believe first hand accounts, right after it happened. Its been almost 10 years, there are thousands of "experts" that seem to know everything. I think this reporter hit the nail on the head considering he was right there on the scene right after it happened.

This video was very telling!!

Thanks for posting this!

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


You mentioned dna evidence, but I challenge that dna proves anything, and according to the following:
www.nytimes.com...
DNA evidence can be faked. So how does DNA even prove anything?

reply to post by daynight42


I just wanted to let you know that I am currently watching this vid you posted (National Security Alert) and had to stop a minute to star this post!!!

Ok...back to the vid

Originally posted by Believer101
You know, it's pretty curious how all of you guys posting seemed to have missed this pretty big post right here. Just keep ignoring facts put straight in front of your faces.

Well, I'd have to say that April has some credibility issues to overcome.

1 - She declined the victim's assitance payment that was offered her - curious.
2 - She's been involved in at least 4, if not 5 lawsuits over this incident.
a - 2x against American Airlines regarding lack of security against terrorism (she got an out of court settlement on one),
b - one against a bank (funding terrorists I think - no decision I've heard of),
c - and one against Rumsfeld and Cheney for perpetrating a terrorist act. (this was dismissed with the warning that if filed again she'd be fined for filing a "frivolous lawsuit"

Now the problem I have with that on the one hand she's saying there were definitely terrorists and they crashed an AA plane on her and took the money and ran - then she says there really wasn't any terrorist hijacked plane (clearly implied in video) and that the suit suggests that the terrorists were really Rumsfeld and Cheney and it was all a Gov't directed program.

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator
reply to post by userid1

 

True, its most pronounced, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist in larger aircraft. It also says its linked to things like wing surface area, wingspan, etc and these planes are HUGE. It also mentions the effect comes into play at 1 to 1.5 times the wingspan of the craft. These craft wingspans are 124 ft 10 in... and this plane crashed into the first and second floor. Additionally I dont think Boeing is willing to test the ground effect in one of its jets, let alone a test pilot.

While I agree the ground effect is severely diminished, I would have to think that there is still some effect. Actually maybe the ground effect confirms that it was a plane. The pilot would have been aiming at the lawn, and ground effect forced it to stay aloft, albiet very low

Most here are misunderstanding what ground effect is. In short aircraft wings are designed with a small amount of dihedral so as they fly the boundary lair travels from the wingroot towards the tip which means the wing stalls at the ailerons last,

As the turbulent air spills off the wingtips, vortices are created which decrease the efficiency of the airfoil due to parasitic drag.

The reason is related to the purpose of the small, upturned "winglets" utilized by some aircraft. The winglets prevent wingtip vortices and their associated parasitic drag from forming and increase the aircrafts fuel economy a few percent.

In the case of ground effect, at a given point the wing is low enough so that drag inducing vortices are prevented from developing by the proximity of the ground. Ground effect might allow an aircraft a control a couple of knots slower at a slightly warmer ambient temp but it doesn't turn the airplane into a hovercraft.

There is no "magic" cushion of air forcing the aircraft away from terra firma, on the contrary, if ground effect prevented aircraft from impacting with the ground, there would be far fewer airplane crashes, would there not?

Hope this helps...

reply to post by dilapidated


1. That is not a picture of the Pentagon on your first link.
2. Don't believe me? Go to the source it says " www.pentagonresearch.com... "
There you will find a fake/spam website and it's a 404 picture.
3. Get some credible sources rather than # Tube and a site that links fake pictures and no evidence what-so-ever.
4. Thanks for the waste of time.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
This video was very telling!!

Thanks for posting this!

It was also addressed back on page #7 I believe.

Originally posted by TheLastStand
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

DNA evidence can be faked. So how does DNA even prove anything?

What a weak argument, almost anything in life can be faked but the people that know what they are doing can tell the difference. There is a chain of command so if one person tries forgery the next people up will detect it, and unless they are all in on the conspiracy (lol) that wouldn't happen.

Originally posted by TheLastStand
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever

 

You mentioned dna evidence, but I challenge that dna proves anything, and according to the following:
www.nytimes.com...
DNA evidence can be faked. So how does DNA even prove anything?

Well, that didn't take long...

"There's DNA evidence to prove the victims were who they were supposed to be."
Truther - "Who says? The Gov't - please!"

(page #11)

So, are you suggesting it's more plausible that the FBI, the National Guard (providing security), the emergency responders, and the Military Mortuary headquarters in Dover, DE. were ALL lying to cover something up, rather than the results just being the truth?




BTW - your article was dated 2009 - was this known to be done back in 2001 or 2002?

reply to post by dilapidated


The hole was actually smaller than the one that was plastered all over the news.

The hole they showed on the news was after it collapsed.Here's what it look like before,and testimonies from people who were actually at the pentagon that day.!

Originally posted by Believer101

Originally posted by morder1
Ok so were talking about the hole in the pentagon...

A hole which April Gallop and her INFANT son, walked through shortly after it exploded... Hmmmm yeah guess thats normal, nothing to see there eh?

You know, it's pretty curious how all of you guys posting seemed to have missed this pretty big post right here. Just keep ignoring facts put straight in front of your faces.

I watched this vid...Star!!

This woman, her infant son, and other workers at the pentagon did not walk away from that scene with jet fuel...thus no damage from a crashed jet.

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
reply to post by dilapidated

 

The hole was actually smaller than the one that was plastered all over the news.

Sorry, but the pics here tell me a different story www.oilempire.us...

Originally posted by ButterCookie
I watched this vid...Star!!

This woman, her infant son, and other workers at the pentagon did not walk away from that scene with jet fuel...thus no damage from a crashed jet.

Then how come she sued AA 2x for failure to protect/prevent a terrorist hijacking?

"Although, like the District Court, we do not reach the question of whether judicial estoppel bars Gallop's complaint, we note that the complaint is facially irreconcilable with factual allegations made by Gallop in other actions. See Gallop v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 1016, Order of Final Judgment at 2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2007) (dismissing with prejudice Gallop's complaint against various defendants alleging that American Airlines Flight 77 did crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001); Vadhan v. Riggs Nat'l Corp., No. 04 Civ. 7281, Amended Complaint ¶ 2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2005) (alleging that defendants “ultimately facilitated ․ the terrorists being able to complete their terrorist deeds on September 11, 2001 by crashing four United States passenger airlines into the New York World Trade Center buildings, the United States Pentagon, and into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania”); Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment, No. 03 Civ. 5738, Complaint ¶ 9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2003) (alleging that “on September 11, 2001, al Qaeda co-conspirators ․ hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 ․ and crashed it into the Pentagon”).

caselaw.findlaw.com...

reply to post by regularbonj


At the speed a plane travels there could be no wreckage outside. It's called intertia. The same thing happened to the planes that hit the tower. Anyone see any wreckage drop off the building on the side the planes hit? No!
Thats what I mean.

Anyone remember the plane that hit the Bank of America building in Tampa? Look it up. There is evidence with the plane still stuck in the building. Anyone see wing damage on the building? No! But you'd think there would be wouldn't you?

There are countless animations made to disprove this but 95% of the people are right, there was no plane.

The little engines found simply are not big enough compared to the ones in a plane of that size.

With an engine that size it would be very very very hard for it to get flight, you would need about 400 of them to lift a commercial plane.

Thats my theory anyway.

reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever


i see nothing in your video.. they can be pictures of any plane crash from the past 10 years. show me those same pictures with obvious wreckage from the pentagon while they are in there.. sorry. your pictures are just pictures of the deceased with no context.

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
There are countless animations made to disprove this but 95% of the people are right, there was no plane.

The little engines found simply are not big enough compared to the ones in a plane of that size.

With an engine that size it would be very very very hard for it to get flight, you would need about 400 of them to lift a commercial plane.

Thats my theory anyway.

That may be your theory but it is not the opinion of aerospace engineers :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

I have no videos, measurements, arguments or theory's to bring to this thread.

I only have my statement of what I saw that day as I was heading out from a building on army navy drive ( I am a service technician that performs warranty work on servers) to my next call in DC.

It was a plane that hit the pentagon. Nothing else. The scariest damn thing I have ever witnessed.

Originally posted by eagleeye2
reply to post by spoor

 

Yep and it does say that "it doesnt APPEAR to be evidence"

Did they even watch the video? Because the FBI took second to confiscate.
10 years since and no1 ever saw the footage, then why protect it?
Also it prooved UserID to be badly informed. Since there is videos that wasn't gave back.
So plz dont post the second judicial watch video that is dated from 2003.

edit on 20-6-2011 by eagleeye2 because: (no reason given)

Just to clarify lest anyone get the wrong idea - all I did was ask a question. I didn't make a statement.

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by eagleeye2
The more logical explanation i found 6 years ago is this www.fas.org...

Now for me, i'm 100%sure this is the thing who hit the pentagon

Then how do you explain the 757 engine, seats, wheels and undercarriage etc and bodies coming from flight 77?

I would post the video of the burned bodies but that is way too graphic and disrespectful, most of them were identified and were confirmed passengers on flight 77. To think anything else but flight 77 hit the Pentagon is laughable at best.

edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)

That's funny. Didn't you just say in your own thread a day or so ago that Flight 77 "liquified" when it struck and entered the Pentagon? Now you're saying that although it "liquified" when it entered, lots of the stuff that was liquified got reconstituted once inside? Sort of like that liquid metal terminator robot in the last Arnold Schwartzeneger Terminator movie. Interesting theory indeed!