• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Pentagon 911 Conspiracy?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Was the pentagon REALLY hit by a plane?

A pentagon air traffic controller:

"All those years ago when I was in the Pentagon, this wouldn't have happened. ATC Radar images were (and are) available in the understructures of the Pentagon, and any commercial flight within 300 miles of DC that made an abrupt course change toward Washington, turned off their transponder, and refused to communicate with ATC, would have been intercepted at supersonic speeds within a max of 9 minutes by a Fighter out of Andrews. Period. Why these planes weren't, baffles me. If we could get fighters off the ground in 2 minutes then, we could now."

And the following website is also of interest...

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Judge for yourself.
 
interesting point mate, personally i do think the US did realise what was going to happen before they let on, and i do find it hard to believe that these planes where heading towards inportant buildings and no-one niticed till it was too late,

a point i would like to makes is, after the planes hit the WTC and then one at the pentagon, George W Bush has openly admitted he gave his permission to the army to shoot down any threatening planes, soon after another plane goes down in the middle of no-where in pensilvania ( was it pensilvania? ) that receives no where near as much media attention and has almost been forgot about. was this shot down and there was no media coverage to throw people off the scent?

( sorry about the spellings and waffle but it's late and im nearly out of beer:) )
 
mrchopper said:
a point i would like to makes is, after the planes hit the WTC and then one at the pentagon, George W Bush has openly admitted he gave his permission to the army to shoot down any threatening planes, soon after another plane goes down in the middle of no-where in pensilvania ( was it pensilvania? ) that receives no where near as much media attention and has almost been forgot about. was this shot down and there was no media coverage to throw people off the scent?
Click to expand...

Don't know about overseas, chops, but that plane got an enormous amount of attention over here. We initially thought it had been shot down (and nobody had much problem with that, considering it was supposedly targeting the White House). The probable cause of it's crash was a planned uprising on the part of several passengers. This is known because of numerous cell phone conversations between these people and their loved ones. One of the stewardesses, if I remember, had the role of flinging boiling water from a coffee pot into the face of one of the hijakers. It's now accepted that their reprisal was successful to the extent that it caused the hijakers to nose the plane straight into the ground.

As far as the Pentagon goes, I would think that the gov't would have shot down the attackers had they been sufficiently alerted (or not so complacent). This building, sadly, would have taken precedent over a civilian target. Maybe that's cynical.
 
Some intrigueing questions on that website, Adam.

It's also the first webpage I've come across that needs scrolling horizontally!
 
Nice site Adam!

I does give pause for some questions, since the later pictures (int eh time sequence of events) look cocnsistant with the impact of a plane with a building designed to withstand possible Cold War attacks, the early photos of the impact site are counter-intuitive for a plane hitting the building, although the construction of te building needs taking into account. IMHO, it looks like a rocket impact, but my civil engineering is VERY rusty. I'll run the images past a friend of mine who has more practical experience of planes hitting things and things that explode, when I see him next (before anyone gets antsy, he was a crash investigator)

8¬)
 
Re: Was the pentagon REALLY hit by a plane?

AdamRang said:
A pentagon air traffic controller:

"All those years ago when I was in the Pentagon, this wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...
So maybe they've changed the system since. Significantly, we don't learn how many years ago he's talking about - if it was twenty years ago, systems and procedures will have changed. And do we know that he was ever an ATC anyway?
 
Hmm, very interesting. If the damage wasn't caused by it, then where did the second hijacked plane go?

I would also like to raise the point of the effect of shooting a plane down in a populated area; would the damage be less if the plane were allowed to be downed intact, rather than having lots of bits of plane falling over a large area? If it were me, I'd prefer the former, and would not shoot it down.
 
Well, if you knew it was heading for the White House you'd probably do whatever it takes.

But that Pentagon thing, it seems strange if it wasn't the plane doing it. Else we got a hijacked plane nobody knows what happened to, an explosion in Pentagon that could have been a bomb(Placed in the Pentagon without anyone noticing?) or some missile hitting it(which would again require a plane) or a gas explosion(on the same day and same time as the terrorst attack?). Seems to me a plane is the most likely thing.

But I do remember I was amazed that it could happen. I thought Pentagon would have their own ground to air missiles and shoot down any airplanes coming near the area.
 
Admitting to VAST ignorance when it comes to the real nuts and bolts here, but...

One issue to consider is the HEAVY air traffic - commercial air traffic - in the vicinity of the Pentagon. This was much-discussed after 9-11... the fact that one of the only ways to really safe-guard Washington, if one is not confident that hijackers can be prevented from commandeering planes shortly after takeoff from Reagan Airport, would be a HUGE reconfiguring of flight paths and the like. While conspiracy-minded and US-bashing folks on this board might think otherwise, I think most of us concede that decision to bring down a commercial flight would not be made lightly (even if only for the cynical reasons of political fallout!)... so even IF the Pentagon was equipped with some kind of missle-defense, I cannot see it being used (especially on 9-11) without a HIGH degree of confidence re the target.

Also... as has been mentioned... if it was NOT a plane that plowed into the Pentagon, we are left with a massive coverup that is, with due respect, hard to envision, given the scrutiny of the events around 9-11... what happened to that flight, the people on-board, etc?

At any rate... think that Ocham's (SP?) Razor probably applies here....often, the simplest explanation IS the best...

Shadow
 
I think the look of the damage is due to the nature of the construction of the pentagon... after all, how thick are the walls and more importantly how far does it go down?

If the plane hit at a steep angle it could well have dropped into the underground elements of the Pentagon...

If there is a 'cover-up', its most likely around what the plane hit, rather than there is a missing plane

8¬)
 
I would hazard that the plan hit at a far steeper angle than otherwise states, striking the roof rather than the ground floor.
This would account for the fire spreading over the roof, since the vast majority of an aircraft's fuel is stored in its wings.

That said there does appear to be impact damage on the ground floor, where the wings would have impacted in the official story. (Q5, right hand image). At a rough guesstimate I would hazard that those walls are some 3 meters thick. Even so what happened to the fuel, that lawn should be burnt from the aviation fuel stored in the wings.

Niles "Glad that the Penatgon kept it's shape" Calder
 
Picture the plane striking the side of the building low enough to take out the bottom of the wall, but not the top. It would have been practically on the ground already before it struck. If the plane had touched down before it struck, the loss in momentum could explain why only the outer wall is damaged.
Niles is right, Q5 does seem to show damage where the wings struck. The damage is very low down, on the ground floor, again giving the impression that the plane was pretty much on the ground before it struck. The picture in Q3 also seems to show this. HOWEVER there's no damage to the lawn in Q3. It looks pretty much pristine, not at all like a boeing just trundled across it. Very Weird.

I don't think there's any mystery about sand and gravel being spread over the turf, though. They were probably just making the terrain easier for all the rescue vehicles etc moving back and forth. Turf would quickly turn to slush with that level of traffic on it.
 
Wow! Great find.

I'm sorry but I see no plane in that video, can anyone else? :confused:
 
According to Whatreallyhappened.com...

"As can be seen by the above, there are photos which show the wreckage of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon. The claim that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon was never credible. If the plane hadn't hit the Pentagon, where had it gone? There were simply too many witnesses to the plane for it not to exist.

One of the earliest clues that this was a deliberate operation by an intelligence agency was the sheer volume of emails insisting that this issue HAD to be looked at. Sometimes the spooks betray themselves with their own heavy handedness.

So, why would anyone work so hard to try to establish such an obviously phony straw man?

The truth is that the US Government's credibility within the nation and around the world has hit an all time low. Traffic at this website has quadrupled in just the last week alone, with about 50,000 accesses per day of the main article page. The US Government has had a long history of trying to trip up critics of the government with phony planted stories, in order to discredit and embarrass them. Such certainly seems to be the case now. Government operatives have been feeding this bogus claim that there was no plane impact on the Pentagon all over the internet, while the media tries to claim that this idea is the generally accepted view of all government critics. Then, when the government hands out photos of the actual impact taken by a security camera, the same media will work hard to dismiss all critics of the government, indeed the internet community as a whole, as not worthy of serious note. Intelligence agencies call the practice "poisoning the well", and like staging fake terror attacks on ones own people to start a war, such dirty tricks have been used by governments for thousands of years. The "umbrella gun" in the House Select Committee On Assassinations was a similar operation. More recently, during open congressional hearings into public concerns about government abuse, a plant was sent in, dressed in camouflage fatigues, to scream about the secret government tornado making machines. This planted operative became the focus of the media's subsequent campaign to dismiss anyone who would be concerned over government abuse as not worthy of notice.

Have no doubt; right now there is a war being waged for the minds of America, and the internet is the high ground. The government always plays dirty, because anyone who still plays fair will be at an automatic disadvantage.

This story that the plane did not hit the Pentagon was obviously flawed, primarily because it did not account for where the uncrashed plane went off to. So, think about all the people who tried to sell you this lemon (in my case, many of the return email addresses were fakes), and recognize that they are either idiots or government stooges.

And note the timing of the phony story, appearing just at the right moment to distract attention away from the Israeli spy scandal."
 
Hmmm...

In my opinion, the notion that the US Govt's intelligence services floated the rumor that no plane hit the Pentagon, KNOWING that rumor to be false, so that they could subsequently squash the rumor (or have the press do so), to bolster their OWN credibility and/or to "smear" the Internet crowd is too complicated by half, at least...

Isn't it just so much simpler to assert that the Internet IS often a breeding ground for half-baked but seductive conspiracy theories?:p

A couple of things, at least, trouble me with the previous theory...

(1) The notion that the US Govt's credibility was at an all-time low is a questionable one, it seems to me. There are those inclined to believe the US Govt regardless, and those inclined to DISbelieve regardless, and then there is a sizeable chunk in the middle (as I see it). Frankly, post-9/11, I think most Americans were inclined to feel a bit protective and even "affectionate" towards their govt (witness Bush's approval ratings) and I would guess their inclination to trust the government has actually been running fairly high. Abroad? Harder to say, but putting aside the two aforementioned groups, I would venture that skepticism was no greater in the "middle" group than was previously the case.

(2) It seems to assume that "the Internet" is given a lot of credence by "average folk". Again, I would say this was a shaky suggestion, at best...frankly, I think the unreliability of "the Internet" has been well documented (granting that to characterize "THE Internet" as ANY one thing is ridiculous!!!!), given the speed with which rumor travels, etc, and I would wager the average person did not need much help in taking much that appears there with a grain of salt.

Guess my feeling here is that sometimes, the simplest explanations are the most likely...

Shadow
 
Let me start by saying that I for one don’t really trust the US Government that much. I AM suspicious of their motives and of the truth of what they tell the public on several issues. However, this is no different form any other Government. Governments always keep secrets on delicate matters from their people. That’s almost a given. At first, I must say that after looking at the first website given by Adam I was almost convinced. However after looking at more evidence and a lengthy discussion with my friend I don’t think that this holds much ground.

One of the main issues for me if the Pentagon wasn’t hit is “Where is the plane?” If it didn’t hit the Pentagon where did it go?

The website asks on Question No 3 “Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?” Well in all honesty in THAT particular picture no you can’t see any trace of debris but if you check This picture, which is incidentally the large version of the bottom picture of Question No 1 (sorry about the size), you can clearly see evidence of the debris. There are men in white overalls standing around a large pile of metallic debris to the left and in the bottom left there is a red container with more of the metallic debris within.

Question No 5 asks, “Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?” Look closely at the picture with the RED 757 imposed on it. The left hand side does show a triangular area of damage that looks about the same size of that of the wing. I’m not pretending to be an expert in this sort of field but it looks to me as if a wing did hit it. On this one I agree with the points that harlequin made. We don’t know how far down the Pentagon goes. And, to me the damage does look like what I would expect if you take into mind that the pentagon would have been designed to withstand abuse. I don’t think the US would have done a quick bodge job on such an important building. In my view what happened was that the plane struck the side and then continued down into the depths of the building.
 
Edge: The big pile of debris, and its location by the door, means that it looks more like furniture damaged in the fire more than anything else. Filing cabinets, desks, that sort of thing.

As for the contents of the red container, I'd be more prone to go with it being wreckage of the plane, but I imagine that most of it would be under the fallen roof of the penatgon itself.

Niles "holding judgement" Calder
 
Having spoken at length to a friend of mine who has investigated plane crashes for HM Forces:-

A 737 hitting anything solid at speeds much over its stall speed will shred. The Nose will probably survive, but the rest will be reduced to small pieces, since you have, relatively speaking, a tin-foil tube decellerating, into a 'nuclear hard' building, along its length. The wings are a little bit more robust and will fold back and get pulled into the hole, where the AVGAS then explodes, thus wiping out the wings. The high level heat generated is then increased as office furnishings combust, pumping out cyanide gas and other goodies a colateral of he combustion. His only comment that there was anything unusual about the Pentagon strike, was that moving that fast that close to the ground, he was '...bloody lucky...' to hit the target that low, although the PEntagon is, he believed on an area of raised ground relative to the rest of the locale. Can anyone confirm the local topography?

8¬)
 
Shadow,

AS an example of Byzantine plots, look at some of the stuff the the UK Gov did to confuse Germany during the last war:-

Allowed the bombing of Coventry to hide Enigma

Operation Double Cross - turn every german agent in the British Isles, which to everyone's suprise they did, but they didnt know they had until after the war

The Man Who Never Was - Inventing a non existant officer, with a fictive past, to get false plans into Nazi hands

An internet disinformation campaign, comparitively speaking, pretty low energy. You have a large and gullible audience, who are prepared to beleieve anything, and those who are sceptical may have a seed of doubt, then disprove it on prime time TV. End of potential problem,then, if something true that you don't want published gets out, who'll believe it? Good, low energy, pre-emptive control of information. The 'Cry Wolf' method. Most governments have used it. Bear in mind. They may have nothing much to hide, but any good spook is paranoid, I refer you to John Jesus Angleton as a case study.


8¬)
 
Also the ephemeral nature of internet pages, the ease of getting pages turned off and/or hacking low-key ISPs all mean that it's very easy to do these things suggested - you don't neccessarily have to control the information at all, it's enough to descredit enquiry just to have loads of competing 'expert views' and 'first hand witness statements'.

PS shadow - I don't agree with the Occam's Razor concept neccessarily, and you seem too easily convinced by simple explainations. How about the HOlmsism 'once you've discounted the impossible, whatevers left, however improbable, must be true' (or something like that!).
 
Of course, if it were to happen, the ideal sites to spread this disinformation would be sites such as the FT Message Board.

Oh My God!!!!

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of a government disinformation program?...";)
 
When the reports of the casualities at the Pentagon impact came out they seemed very low. Later reports said that that was becaise that particular part of the Pentagon was being refurbished and so there were fewer people working there. Hmm, I thought, this will give the conspiracy nuts something to think about.

By the way I thought that the surface buildings of the Pentagon are not nuclear hardened just the surface parts.

By the by has anyone noted the building in front of the pentagon in the picture accompanying picture 3? I don't know about anyone else but to me it looks like a control tower for the helicopter pad (see these images) . BUt I've got a problem it is not visible in the satelite images and it looks to be in the way of an aircraft on the way to the ground floor of the Pentagon

Someone please prove me wrong
 
intaglio said:
...By the way I thought that the surface buildings of the Pentagon are not nuclear hardened just the surface parts...
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by 'surface parts'? It outer shell of the builiding, the part of the building above ground or something else? :)

8¬)
 
intaglio said:
...By the by has anyone noted the building in front of the pentagon in the picture accompanying picture 3? I don't know about anyone else but to me it looks like a control tower for the helicopter pad (see these images) . BUt I've got a problem it is not visible in the satelite images and it looks to be in the way of an aircraft on the way to the ground floor of the Pentagon
Click to expand...

If you look here there is a better shot of the Control Tower type thingy...
 
Thanks for the pic Edge, the parallax from the other pictures was really confusing. The Helipad has obviously been enlarged since your photo but there is a nice guideline that seems to show that control tower should have been hit by the very tip of an aircraft wing. Can I see some other opinions tho. Still can't see the place on the satellite shots.

Sorry harlequin I missed a sub before the second "surface"
 
Wouldn't surprise me.

They're always up to something.
But what the hell DID hit it?
Something,that's for sure.
I'd like to know what, exactly.
 
So, if the Pentagon wasn't hit by a hijacked plane - what happened to the plane?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top