What really happened at the pentagon? Flash movie

http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

A rather well done flash movie I must say. First time I have seen any of those pictures.

I am a beleiver. There's no way a 747 would only make a hole that small and well shaped.

 

i saw that , it was on ebaums, but those narrowminded americans asked the guy to take it off... i hate narrowminded mofos...

 

Very interesting, and it makes some great, intelligent, and believable points.

 

:smt043 :smt043

The funny thing is, my neighbor saw the crash, he worked there until 2003 when he retired. Yes it was a 747, they look small when going 600mph 3 feet above the ground.

IMO is that it was a plane. Just find out what happens when you heat aluminum up to 1000degrees faren.

Oh and read these:

http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=347140&page=1&pp=40
http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=347367
http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=348292&highlight=Pentagon

 

I find all this Pentagon conspiracy very dodgy. I mean, we all know that if a plane crashes in to a building it's going to make more damage than a hole in the 1st floor no matter how precise the crash was. The wings for a start would make an impact of some sort at least. Even the world trade towers noticeably had an impact from the wings but why not the Pentagon. There are always more bits of evidence against what the US Government says than there is for. It's always like this. Could that be because the whole world including Americans are out to get the US government or is it that they are full of shit? Who knows the truth except the people behind it all. Another thing, was there ever and information about the people who were on that bowing?

Take a look at this site. I'm not expert but I know that these pictures clearly don't show the impact of a boeing 757. I don't care how you try to explain it, there is no evidence what so ever of a 757 hitting it. http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm I did read that there was a hole punched in the 2nd ring of the Pentagon by one of the planes engines. If that is so then how the hell did it pass through the first wall without even marking it? Like I said, the whole story smells of B.S.

Yakumo

 

i do not think it was a boing 757 i think it was something very armor piercing that went throgh

and what about the fuel ???

caboom is my word for that

it would have been an ocean of flames

and not just a "little" fire

well it is so typical in USA that they try to cover up but Denmark is not better sometimes so i am not dissing the americans i just think it is too typical the coverup.

what was it ? a hot airbaloon in Rosswell ?

or what about Groomlake ?

the moderators are allowed to correct my spelling.

 

Ah finally flash being to put to good use for a change :smt023
It does indeed make some good points... the "eye withness" statements aren't terribly convincing though...

 

For those of you put off by the (at times) slightly amateurish feel of the flash, take a look at this page: http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13

It pretty much dispelled any doubts I had about whatever hit the Pentagon - I can't say I know what it was, but I am convinced it WAS NOT a Boeing 757 or anything remotely that size.

 

Guys, you have got to see this site. Missle fired at the 2nd tower ? First time I've heard of this.
http://www.911uncovered.com/tower2.html

yakumo

 

You can't really compare the damage done to the WTC to what was done to the Pentagon. The structures are just too different. The structure of the WTC was radically different than most other buildings because it had no interior support beams. The only thing holding it up was the exterior walls made of steel and glass. This was the Achilles heel that brought the towers down so fast. If they had hit just about any other skyscraper in New York then the building would have taken much longer to fall if at all.

The Pentagon took much less damage because it was made of steel reinforced concrete (not to mention any other reinforcements due to it being a military instillation). A plane compose primarily of aluminum and mostly hollow internally would crumple on impact. Like stomping a soda can under your foot.

As for the jet fuel I'd imagine that since the plane couldn't really penetrate the building like it did the WTC then most of it would have been outside. Also since the firetrucks could reach the fire unlike the WTC it could be brought under control quickly.

Finally, What reason would they have to lie about what type of plane it was? There was simply no reason to.

 

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf

 

You guys are so easily.... taken over by fiction. It was a 747. Why? The guy who flew the plane was a friend of my good friend(who was recently arrested by Scotland Yard for smuggling weapons for the IRA). Did I help them? No! Did I know him? YES!

That's all I can say.

The people who say it wasn't don't know about missles and planes; don't know about the structure of the Pentagon (it was made to withstand a bombing run but not equivilant to that of a plane coming at it at 600mph and weighing 80tons).

 

so your neighbour saw it... you knew someone who knew the guy who was flying it....

Anyways


How do you people explain the fact that a 757 went missing and all the passengers were dead?

 

sure thing dude no worries about that and one of the others who captured another plane

was in Denmark shortly before the whole eeeky thing but it doesn´t show any proof that there was a plane give me the pictures of the bullding and the plane in the building and we can talk schematics and the likes because i do not see any plane there

and for me if i could see a plane then i would maybe believe you but i don´t because where the fuck would that plane be ?

and that is a fact from my point of view.

and the whole disaster is sad no doubt about it but open the eyes instead of walking with them closed do you see a plane ?

 

Yeh I'm having fun with you all :smt043

Seriously. Tell the wife of the pilot who was in that flight that it wasn't a plane, it was all a government conspiracy and a missile did it.

 

Riddle me this. Why would they say it was a plane if it wasn't? What possible benefit would they get by lying about it? The answer is none whatsoever. This isn't some grand conspiracy. There wasn't some shadowy government agent that said "Terrorists have just hit the WTC but I don't think that will convince the public we need to act. Quick, go get some C4 and we'll blow up part of The Pentagon too. That will be the cherry on top to convince the masses." If anyone can tell me one reason why The Pentagon would lie about this that actually makes sense I'd love to hear it.

 

well

if you google around a bit, you can find some decent theories that run along the lines of, after the plane's beacons were turned off, they landed and all the passengers of "all four" planes were transferred onto the one plane that was shot down over pennsylvania.


and just to add more fuel to the fire, btw, cell phone calls from moving jets are essentially impossible.. make of that what you will.

 

re

My opinion is that some people have too much time on their hands.

I don't really know if a 747 crashed into the Pentagon or not. My question is, if a 747 didn't, what did? I just don't see the purpose of trying to fake a 747 flying into the Pentagon. *shrugs*

 

Re: well

Why would that be? as long as you are in range of a cell i wouldnt see anyproblem with it. Apart from the time it takes to move from one cell to another however at a low level flight im not sure how bad it would be and if you werent able to make small few second calls.

 

Re: re

indeed!