9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by WTCConspiracy Has anyone done any bit-level analysis of the original Pentagon footage released to Judicial Watch? I would like to see a bit-level analysis in order to search for footage alterations. I don't have the tools to do this, but there are ways to analyze the raw video data and determine, through various algorithms, if the footage has been edited by comparing data values that become too "similar" when footage is edited. A particular notice of mine since the videos' release has had me wondering about this as my take on the footage was that there was a prototype reaper drone (one of the Predator B series which they had recently developed to carry significant munitions) approaching the building that appeared to have launched a missile/rocket payload just prior to entering the video frame (the corkscrew smoke/steam trail that evokes much of the missile theory alongside the cordite smell). Also of note was what may have been the front of the reaper drone peaking up above the gate in one frame, and it also appeared to me that an area of the footage that appeared edited had a general outline similar to one of these prototype reaper drones. These were just my visual observations. With the missile contrail, the unedited drone dome (front of craft), drone silhouette, and the approach, it seemed a possibility that a drone fired at least one missile to impact the Pentagon immediately prior to the drone's own impact, which may explain the inner ring penetration and jetliner-like debris both being on site as the drones have a jet engine and landing gear.

Originally posted by weedwhacker Watch the video, above......

Good video. It really points out the deceitful tactics of the CIT and P4T people. I'm now convinced that the CIT people are that dense that they don't think people will question their cherrypicking and outright lying about what witnesses said. It has really moved completely into farce by this point. The urination contest between the CIT/P4T and Richard Gage and the other "Truther" clubs is some of the best entertainment on the Internet these days. It is like a bunch of 5 year olds in a sand box.

reply to post by trebor451 On the other hand, the fact you believe in the OS really shows the deceitfullness of people such as yourselves When you gonna offer some evidence that proves ANY of the official theories regarding this event ?? Oh that's right you are too busy poking holes in other people's theories, you know, the ones that try to make sense of it all.

The punch out hole explanation is absurd. Whatever caused that hole needed enough mass, density and momentum to slice through reinforced concrete. The silly little parts hanging around the outside of the hole could not have caused the hole at the same time they disintegrated into the small parts shown in the picture. Something of comparable size to the hole and more dense than reinforced concrete would be visible outside.

Originally posted by Yankee451 The punch out hole explanation is absurd. Whatever caused that hole needed enough mass, density and momentum to slice through reinforced concrete. The silly little parts hanging around the outside of the hole could not have caused the hole at the same time they disintegrated into the small parts shown in the picture.

Ya... probably a wall-breaching kit

Originally posted by Nefarious as the drones have a jet engine and landing gear.

Except thatdrones do not carry passengers strapped into seats, do not carry 757 undercarriage, wheels and Rolls Royce RB-211 engines which were all found inside the Pentagon.... and dont you think someone would have noticed a drone firing missiles?

Originally posted by dereks Except thatdrones do not carry passengers strapped into seats

Hmmm still trying to peddle this hoax huh? There are NO photos of passengers in seats, only bodies with no identification. No seats. You need to catch up with the rest of us, DEBUNKED in 2008... www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Yankee451 NO, sorry.....the "hole" you refer to is the one inside the 'C'-ring??

Whatever caused that hole needed enough mass, density and momentum to slice through reinforced concrete...

"reinforced concrete"?? Didn't you look at the photos?? It was a non-loadbearing wall, of exterior brick (small red bricks) and interior lath-and-plaster. Counter-intuitive outcomes....of real life events: ______ Video documentation weeks after 9/11....much removal of debris and re-inforcing of the compromised structure has already occurred, in preparaiton for re-construction. Obviously, the extent of the interior devastation shows it was MUCH larger than just a "missile"!!: ______ "There are 3 types of truthers. The confused, the paranoid and the profiteers." (Anon.)

reply to post by weedwhacker

"There are 3 types of truthers. The confused, the paranoid and the profiteers."

We can say the same about a few of you debunkers. The fact is you and all the debunkers on ATS cannot prove a 757 crash in the Pentagon. You can attack Truthers all day long however, that doesn’t prove the OS is true, does it.

Just curious, for those proposing a missile hit the Pentagon...Exactly what missile in the US Air Force inventory could it have been? I mean, Cruise Missiles are 20~ feet long. Are truthers proposing that eyewitnesses were really mistaking these as Airliners? Or is the claim that the Pentagon was attacked by some special 'Airliner Cruise Missile'?

reply to post by weedwhacker Note the reinforcing bars in the below picture, and how they're imbedded in what looks like an interior wall. Also note the pipe to the left. Note the brick wall and the outer cladding wall are broken in a circular fashion, yet the hole doesn't punch all the way through to the interior. Now, also note that the rebar is forced outward, and that the bar on the right side of the unbroken pipe is bent outward past the edge of the broken inner wall. If something solid had bent that piece of rebar, it would have broken the wall it was reinforcing as it passed through the wall. Only explosives can explain this; that the shock wave blew a circular hole in the wall, dislodging the weaker bricks on the outside but wasn't enough to cut all of the rebar reinforced inner wall, hence a circular, scorched hole that doesn't go all the way through and with no evidence of any debris large enough to account for it. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/973656435d12.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a58caa041bd6.jpg[/atsimg]

Having looked through the original post - from 2004 all I can say is that everything he presented screamed A NORMAL PLANE DID NOT HIT THIS BUILDING. The evidence points to ye something hit the building. Fine. I will never be convinced until all the footage is released.That simple.

Originally posted by Yankee451 The punch out hole explanation is absurd. Whatever caused that hole needed enough mass, density and momentum to slice through reinforced concrete. The silly little parts hanging around the outside of the hole could not have caused the hole at the same time they disintegrated into the small parts shown in the picture. Something of comparable size to the hole and more dense than reinforced concrete would be visible outside.

If you think the first 3 different OS punch out explanations were absurd, you should see the "oh it was AIR PRESSURE that caused it" explanation.

So how does this prove that terrorists were behind this? You reference that this proves that terrorists brought this plane down, but what proof shows that? Yes, you do have really good evidence about a plane hitting the pentagon, but it doesn't prove or disprove the government's involvement. I personally am taking no side. I am just trying to find out the scientific facts and not someone's opinion disguised as a "fact"

And your telling me that the plane did not cause any damage to the grass surrounding the pentagon? I believe a plane hit it but your angles can't be correct. There is no way a plane touching the ground at that speed would not tear up the grass.

reply to post by CatHerder Take a look at this video. www.pentagonstrike.co.uk... First, planes do not carry cordite, which is a a military propellant that was used to replace gunpowder. Cordite was said to of been smelled right after the explosion by more than the one witness displayed in this video. Also, the few people that really did see a plane claimed it was a small twin engine commuter jet. The government has been capable of flying full passenger jets via remote control since the 1970's, thus a smaller plane must certainly be compatible to holographic technology. So for the government to turn a plane into a remote control drone is rather old news. So, since when to planes carry cordite? Second, The pentagon is under 24/7 surveillance by hundreds of cameras, covering nearly every square inch of the premises, which are capable of far better visual quality than the single distorted video that was released by the FBI. There is no question that many of these cameras would of caught a visual of the "plane", hitting the pentagon. In fact, Its certain that they did capture the video, but coincidently, all recorded video surveillance was confiscated by the FBI within minutes after the impact. Not to mention the surrounding hotels and businesses that also caught the "attack" on their security cameras, which had their recordings confiscated immediately. In conclusion, why didn't the pentagon release more footage of the impact? The answer is obvious. Third, Boeing 757's aren't physically capable of puncturing perfect multiple perfectly symmetric holes all the way through 6 layers of double reinforced concrete walls, no matter how fast they may be flying. Show the REAL evidence to any physicist, and they will only laugh at you when you tell them a 757 hit the pentagon. How could a plane cause this kind of damage? Science proves that they cant. There are many flaws in this presentation. Primarily the lack testimonies by witnesses. If a real 757 would of hit the pentagon, hundreds of of people would of watched the entire impact from start to finish because the speed of the airplane wouldn't of been nearly Mach 1, allowing people to actually visualize the "plane".

I cant belive this thread is still alive. Banter away.

Originally posted by darkbluesky I cant belive this thread is still alive. Banter away.

As long as it's this thread and not a "no plane hit the pentagon" thread. I can't believe there are still MORONS who believe anything besides a plane hit the Pentagon. Those morons have to dismiss evidence to make others believe their stories. They say the eyewitness accounts and debris are fake and the plane could've been disposed of in the ocean. Well, if I was the evil plotter behind the Pentagon attack, faking debris and eyewitness testimony and crashing a plane in the ocean is a lot of work... It would be easier to CRASH THE PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON. Morons gonna be morons. Unless they're government shills trying to discredit the truth movement.

reply to post by CatHerder Don't be ignorant for the sake of expending mental energy. -Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint. It was not hit by a plane. Fire did not melt the steel. -You can not use cell phones in flight and have reception. I.E.- flight 93 LETS ROLL -There is NO plane wreckage @ the Pentagon or at Shanksville. GOOGLE AWAY. NO SEATS, LUGGAGE, TAIL,WINGS, TWO TON TITANIUM ENGINES, WINDOW PORTALS -Bush family controlled the security at WTC and the one of the airlines -Rumsfeld changed the procedure for hijackings right before the attack. -STAND DOWN ORDERS ISSUED BY CHENEY. -NO VIDEO FOOTAGE AT PENTAGON. 3 frames?! Last i checked there was hundreds of cameras. -Office of Naval Investigation destroyed at the Pentagon. Convenient during a coup. -SEC destroyed at building 7. -Thousands of PUTS placed on American Airlines on the NYSE the days preceeding the attacks. Convenient, no? Thank god building 7 was taken down. And last but certainly not least.....just google Prescott Bush coup. Learn something about this criminal family. This aint the first attempt to take over America. Oh but what did they achieve?! Stop it with your imbecile fluoride induced responses- LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST TODAY. LOOK AT THE AMERICAN DOLLAR. LOOK AT THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

I think it probably was a plane that hit the Pentagon... however that does not prove that it was terrorists or solely terrorists that were behind it... I think planes were definitely involved in 911 however something is fishie... they were flown quite well for amateur pilots... at seemly impossible speeds and or angles to hit their targets... I suspect that the planes that were involved in 911 may have been remote controlled and one may have actually been shot down... I think planes were involved though... perhaps some were substituted for with other planes other than the alleged ones or the actual ones were remote controlled somehow and I believe that there were definitely explosives involved in all the WTC buildings... regardless we will probably never know exactly what happened on 911... at best we can speculate unless one takes the official story as truth. Some say the explosives were built into the twin towers from the time they were built so that when they became obsolete they could be brought down easily. An Excerpt from the statement of Robert L. Parish Sr. On day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?" He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor. I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract. He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations. So, that when the first charges are set-off at the top floors, they will take that floor down to the next. And the charges at that floor will take it down to the next floor. This will continue all the way down. The Twin Towers will come straight down like a stack of pancakes. When the buildings get old and no longer useful or profitable to have and maintain, all it will take is a phone call to take them down. 1. Christopher A Brown has demonstrated that the core columns of the twin towers were infact made of concrete. As a safety measure the designers had hermetically sealed explosives strategically sealed into the concrete. This was top secret. An Excerpt from the statement of Robert L. Parish Sr. On day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?" He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor. I knew that we had to certify these commutators to be able to operate continuously for 50 years without service or repair as our part of the contract. He explained that as the buildings are being built, explosive charges are being incorporated into the structures at key floor joint locations. So, that when the first charges are set-off at the top floors, they will take that floor down to the next. And the charges at that floor will take it down to the next floor. This will continue all the way down. The Twin Towers will come straight down like a stack of pancakes. When the buildings get old and no longer useful or profitable to have and maintain, all it will take is a phone call to take them down. Here is a link to a different explanation of how the twin towers were designed that differs from what we have been told in the official story of what happened on 911. www.youtube.com...