whats your opinion? the newly released 9/11 vid of the plane vs. the pentagon

[noss]

i'm interested in seeing what peoples opinions are on this.. its the video just released in an attempt to stifle conspiracy theories on 9/11.. its supposed to be the plane that smashed into the pentagon. if you ask me, it just makes it worse.. i cant see anything large enough to be a plane.. if you look carefully, right on the ground on the right side of the shot, just before the explosion, you see a white object, barely big enough to be a car or small truck in a single frame.. then bang.

http://thatvideosite.com/view/2429.html

if anyone has seen some of the conspiracy theory videos and what not, there is one going around on the net at the moment that shows photos of the damage to the pentagon certainly very interesting.

edit: this is the other vid i was talking about.. it goes for 1hr 20mins but its interesting viewing and well worth it if you want to get opinions outside of what the mainstream media feeds you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

[imaspy]

one small white flash i agree, however you gotta remember that the pentagon is as tall as an aircraft hangar. so that object suddenly doesnt look so small. i still think no commercial airline wouldve hit the pentagon after watching loose change though.

[noss]

yeh i understand how big the pentagon is.. that little white flash still couldnt be a passenger aircraft.. you have to also remember how big a 757 is, they're not tiny themselves..

[imaspy]

couldnt be? The Pentagon is actually taller than most airline hangars, and is very broad to boot. Any aircraft would look like a r/c plane from most viewpoints.

http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/010914-F-8006R-002.jpg

That photo should give you some idea of the damage caused.

The Pentagon is 77ft high and each side is 440 ft long. The tail of a Boeing 757 reaches 44 ft from the ground. This is why the aircraft appears to be so small. The demolished segment of the Pentagon is the right size considering the mass that hit it.

Plus, the video camera recording these images was using a fish-eye lens, giving a distorted sense of scale.

-- not my comment, but an interesting opinion nonetheless...

[Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing]

Iv seen Loose Change is pritty convincing IMO. Its a must see.

[vector]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[noss]

meh.. i still dont find the official story overly convincing.. and i've already seen everything that snopes shows.

[NeVetS]

As they said with using mobile phones at 30000ft it can't be done with out the plane being set upto do so. I said from day one that 911 was staged and i remember being grilled about saying that in year 11, most of those people now agree with me. They way those buildings came down to the pentegon never made looked real to me... I hope loose change makes people think for them selves because some people will beleave anything they see on the 6 oclock news.

[3391]

wow i didn't realize the 9/11 attacks were such a international news event. living here in NYC and personally affect by this event, it probably would be easy to believe the conspiracy theorists nuts but i have more sense!

1. the camera that filmed that event was designed to document license plates. it is more like a still camera and is too slow to record a plane traveling at an estimated 400-550mph.
2. for those nuts that really believe the government did this........for that to be true it would have to involve A LOT OF PEOPLE.......someone would've talked!

[noss]

i wouldnt go as far as saying conspiracy theorists are nuts.. i'm also not saying the government did it.. its always good to have a few different opinions and views and what not.. i was never interested in the 9/11 stuff until recently when i stumbled across a few things, and it does make you think. or at least you'd hope it'd make you think.

[chr1S]

america planned this themselves..

even the planes that hit the twin towers wernt comemrcial jets, they were fighter planes and there was a puff of smoke before they hit.

i havn't seen that link noss put up but ive got one to show you all..


www.antrx.com/temp/pentagon.swf

have a look of that people !

[noss]

yeh the white thing they point out in the flash movie is what i was trying to point out in the video clip.. yeh i'm aware its a motion delay camera that only takes stills - i have one setup in my house for security - my point was, little white thing, that close to the ground.. 757? i dont think i can believe that. but yeh, as i said, its good to have different opinions and what not.. be rather boring if everyone agreed with each other.

edit: oh, just a note.. i do think the flash is a little overdone and designed in a way to make you go 'ack! the government are out to get us' or something or other.. thats not what i was paying attention to though

[Resin]

also the thing about the pentagon is that there are no wing marks on the building........where as on the towers there was.

also i love how the american flag has been but up almost immediately after the event in that photo

[imaspy]

yeah its a good point. i cant exactly say who i think is really responsible for all of that crap.... as a lot of the evidence appears a little ambiguous... but one thing i am convinced of more and more is that there had to be much more to it then just some terrorists crashing some planes.

[Chadza]

but one thing i am convinced of more and more is that there had to be much more to it then just some terrorists crashing some planes.

Of course there is: Islamic terrorists who absolutely loathe the west. It was a very smart plan, one that the "fail safes" hadn't been thought of yet. I hate to say it, but a fuel laden airliner is a pretty good weapon to use.

I think anyone who argues that the WTC crashes were a fake or hoaxes must be smoking some pretty strong shit. The fact that there were so many camera angles and the actual impact markings on the buildings themselves cannot be dis-proven. The people who were flying those aircraft into the buildings also MUST have a major screw loose. No pilot in his right mind is going to just fly an aircraft into a building. Let alone two aircraft and two buildings.

Now, the Pentagon one is a bit different, but it all comes down to this- Do you REALLY think the US defense agencies stationed in the Pentagon would DELIBERATELY blow up their own building (in the process making them look pretty silly that they couldn't defend themselves) just to get whatever point across that they theoretically wanted to make??

The one thing that I reckon draws conclusively towards an aircraft crash, is the depth with which the explosion went into the building. A bomb on the outside would not have gone as deep, and a bomb on the inside would have blown the walls OUT a lot more than what occurred.

Also, Resin, the towers were built in big concrete columns that would hold together more easily even when sliced apart by a wing, than only a 5 story building that would "collapse in on itself" once it had exploded.

my thoughts.

[chr1S]

Chad,

hmm i dont know how to explain it.. you have to see it..

The planes were grey, and there was a bulge under it, not under for luggage but it was on the right side and running along the plan, before the plane hit (you can only see it in slow motion), there was a detonation of somesort  and then the plane collided inside.. The WTC fell down in the same scenario as a controlled building demolition, There was reports saying people heard multiple explosions and visually saw the explosions taking place as the building collapsed, level by level...

The plane that crashed into the ground apparently that morning too, the report was made at 10:46am i think, but police investigated the plane at 11am that same day ? - something along those lines.

If that doesn't explain enough what can ? there is alot more but i can't think of it all...

The fireproofing of the metal is bullshit, it's not that that caused the whole structure to collapse, im pretty convinced to what i saw, i've always had a question mark about sep 11, and waking up that morning on sep 12 (my birthday) to see it on tv was shit too .

but when i do think back on all the accusations made against the us government, it makes me think, if they were military planes, what ever happened to the original planes that took off from the airport ?

[nazstang]

well being a pissed off, camel jockey hating american that i am  , i've heard a million stories, and a million theories(people have nothing better to do  ).  Personal, i had a group of friends that where at the WTC and SAW the plane hit(first one) and almost got smashed by the second (luckily were running downstairs).  my friend's boyfriend was on his rookie firefighter run that day, and i can assure you, the way he's now messed up, it was very real.  no way the US would do ANYTHING to weaken themselve.  most of you guy are way over there and may have a small "feeling" for what happened, but this CHANGED life here in the states as we know it.  Since pearl harbor, we've never been attacked on our own territory, why would we do it to ourselves?   same goes with the pentagon, that huge building was damn near bombproof, the walls are so thick(i've been there before on a Marine Corp trip), trust me, that damage at 9:41 am was bigger than it may seem. 

on that snopes site, that french piece of shit that wrote that book, can suck my left nut.  i should write a book myself about him " French have nothing to do, because they are unemployed lazy fucks" , it would sell well, non-fiction is "in".  then to follow it would be"french, the best lovers in the world?..... not with that pencil dick  " .   

really guys, anyone can make a conspiracy theory about anything, ever heard the million conspiriacy theories about the Jewish holocaust  . The french and germans came up with one really quick, so apparently miliions of jews didn't die because of the nazi... they killed themselves .

here's a quick joke about the french

Q: Why is good to be French?
A: You can surrender at the beginning of the war, and US will win it for you.
 

[chr1S]

i dunno about that one...

it sets america up perfectly to give them right to attack countries that are in conjuction with oil friends.

naz, it may have effected you guys alot because you didnt know it would happen, surely if the harbour bridge was run into by a plane and we accused the lebanese with proof im sure we wouldn't take a second to think back and think only if it was really a lebo or our own government ?

george bush was very calm that day, he was at a school that day, his admiral of defense of whateva told him something and he nodded....

at the funeral service, why did george bush shake hands with the leader guy of the defense across his wife ?

meehh just still ponders to me 

it's little planned games like these that america could plan and persue on themselves to put them selves in the position to attack anothe rcountry, nowdays it's about economical domination, it's not like olden days were it was through brute force.. it's too thought-through now..

[imaspy]

it was very real.  no way the US would do ANYTHING to weaken themselve.  most of you guy are way over there and may have a small "feeling" for what happened, but this CHANGED life here in the states as we know it.  Since pearl harbor, we've never been attacked on our own territory, why would we do it to ourselves?

dude youve just said it yourself. i am not saying this is the rock solid truth... but it presents itself as a damn distinct possibility... arguably, america has only become stronger after these attacks. to open another can of worms, another 'pearl harbor' is exactly what america would have needed (and WANTED... see george bush quoting it!) to feed their military industrial complex. every cent of money is closely scrutinised and limited when it comes to government spending. but the military budget is virtually unlimited. add to that that america, next year, will spend more on military than the rest of the world combined. wtf?! its insanity. every couple of dxdecades, america (foremostly) needs to flex its' muscle to ensure technology and spending can keep ticking over... more money in the pockets of defense copanies.... it all seems a bit like a private club to me..... hora >>>

Shortly before the current Bush administration took office, a document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses was published by an organization called the Project for the New American Century,[44] founding members of which included Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. This document focused primarily on getting more tax money allocated for the technological transformation of the US military, with the centerpiece of this technological transformation being the US Space Command’s project to weaponize and thereby control space. Because this transformation of the US military will be very expensive, the document said, it will probably proceed very slowly--unless America suffers “some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."[45] It is interesting that on the night of 9/11, President Bush reportedly wrote in his diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today.”[46]

In any case, earlier that evening, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was on message. We might assume that he would have been disoriented by the fact that the Pentagon had just, on his watch, suffered an unprecedented attack. Instead, he was ready to use the attacks to obtain more money for the US Space Command. In front of television cameras, Rumsfeld berated Senator Carl Levin, then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying:

Senator Levin, you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense. . . . Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending . . . ?[47]

This strategy worked. Congress immediately appropriated an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon. Since then, furthermore, the president has gotten every additional appropriation he has sought for the so-called war on terror.

quote taken from http://911review.com/articles/griffin/madison.html#nineeleven

yeah ok, maybe this guy is a conspiracy theorist, but how much is he distorting those very simple, very plain facts?

just makes you think.

[eurisko]

Of course there is: Islamic terrorists who absolutely loathe the west.

Now, the Pentagon one is a bit different, but it all comes down to this- Do you REALLY think the US defense agencies stationed in the Pentagon would DELIBERATELY blow up their own building (in the process making them look pretty silly that they couldn't defend themselves) just to get whatever point across that they theoretically wanted to make??

The unfortunate thing is that this is the idea that has being constantly perpetuated by the government to completely disguise what really is going on.

That is all scenery. The who, the where, the when... all scenery. Look deeper. Qui Bono? Who benifits? What is the purpose for it all?

Nonetheless, back to the main point, Yes, i am certain the US is capable of blowing up their own building in an attempt to prove their point. They are capable of sending thousands of soldiers to Iraq in a war that has nothing to do with the war on terror. Why wouldnt they send a drone, or a missle to destroy a section of the pentagon that is still under renovation?

Now check this out, the US was clearly aware, both the cia, and the fbi of all activities of bin laden and his group. The president was handed a document labled "Bin Laden to use Commercial Aircraft as misslies against US targets" 2 years before 9/11. Nothing was done.

Nothing but a series of "internal errors", "red-tape" and "mis-communications" between federal and international agencies, and the president.

This sounds strangely familiar to the re-routing of JFK's route in dallas, and the unheard of decision of making the secret service stand down... leaving the president vunerable.

As for the explosion... no-one is debating wether or not bombs were set off or planes were used in the pentagon. It is obvious something struck the building. A plane? Maybe. A 757? Never. A missle? Perhaps. A Drone? Perhaps... the possibilities are endless.

I know ull question why i say a 757 couldnt have collided.

Simple.

No debris. No fragments of plane. Nothing. It simply dissintergrated.

And that is impossible. And ill tell you why.

Jet turbine engines work by forcing air through the turbines, where they enter a compression chamber (a smaller tube), mixed with fuel, and ignited.

Turbine engines are made with materials like titanium, nickle-superalloys, and carbon-steel alloys. All of these materials are specifically designed to withstand thousands of degrees. Nickel superalloys can withstand more than 1K degrees celcius. This is more than any temperature that can be reached by simply burning fuel. (Jet fuel burns at about 500 degrees... half what the maximum reccomended operating temperature is of nickle superalloys, let alone melting points)

Not just that, parts like landing gears and leading edges experience huge forces and temperatures, and are designed to withstand as much.

These components always survive crashes and explosions.

Yet none were found. Not one trace.

Sound suspicious?


 
As for nazstang, its may also surprise you to discover that Pearl Harbour attack was decoded by military intelligence days before the attack, and the government allowed it to occur because it gave the US a justification to enter the war.

The attacks didnt weaken the US... thats the cover fed to everyone. What really happened? Its called The Patriot Act. The ability for the government to arrest anyone who mentions the govenrnment and bin laden, and who opposes the newly established facist state. Because thats what it really is.

You may look at me and say "this guy has no idea because he doesnt live here" or "he has nothing better to do than to think about conspiracies"...

Try this out. When ur country, is run by a dictatorship, funded and backed by the US government, which, by the way, has been found guilty of war crimes against it, for 50 years, killing ur family members, destroying ur homes, and everything you hold dear... think about this. Do you think your life has really changed? My family and I had to leave our home, our own country, because of an american backed civil war.

Pick up a history book my friend... and discover what kind of government you really support.

And thats the real point. People dont hate america.... just the sick motherfuckers that run it.

[chr1S]

haha love the punch line euro

"sick of the motherfuckers that run it"

[Jono]

I'm finding it very interesting reading these replies, I quite frankly don't care one way or the other if 9/11 was a terrorist attack or something else. But it is a very intriguing subject of discussion.

The Pentagon hit looks very suspicious due to the lack of wreckage, as do the twin towers collapsing in the way they did, that day my dad and I were watching the news coverage saying how it looked like a controlled demolition.

And the whole event was advantageous to the US military and economy in that they were able to liberate the people oil of Iraq, while covering up the whole fiasco by saying that Bin Laden was hiding in the mountains of the middle-east.

I really don't have anything useful to add so carry on with the discussion people.

[[JET-20T]]

i second eurisko....

the pentagon is defo hit by a missile not a 757..

[nazstang]

small pic, it's a big building!

meehh just still ponders to me 

i can't blame you for it.  when it comes down to the matter of fact of the crashes tho, if someone has any architectural background, the crashes make perfect sense, and the collapse of the WTC is rookie level obvious.

 i'm honestly not a "God bless america!" kind of guy.  my parents aren't from here, i'm probably not gonna stay here, basically you won't find a US flag tattoo on my ass . honestly, i don't believe or trust in governments, and i have a very keen sense for when something is off key.  I had no such feeling that day, or any after that. politics here is like football , you've got your side(team), and you'll do whatever to win. if the person hates republicans, or bush, they'll say and do whatever to make him(them) the badguy, at all costs.  i'm on no side, i am a student of what is going on, and even more important, what HAS gone on. 
my major is in history, and that's in portuguese spanish and american study (so i didn't learn what is "US taught").  i'll put this in simple terms,  Bin Laden is a terrorist... he came at us, with our gloves down... "we" took the first hit, but came back strong.... he's still loose, but his operations are 90% destroyed.....sadaam had mutual agreement with bin laden.... US knows sadaam is crazy ....US gives him an alternate, he declined, now we're stuck with war.     now thanks to my "obsession" with history, the future is easier to read.  though iraq almost took over iran a while back, their hate for the US is a clear similar intrest, so iran might have the balls to come get some. the ayatollah (sp) is an evil man at heart, with no other vision than for power.  think about it, there has been non-stop fighting in the middle-east for literally thousands of years, it is part of normal life, your born knowing war may come to you at any given time, so for many people, war - conflict is all they know.  i hope not, but i think there might be a war with iran involving the US and maybe some other countries. they've got twisted mind.
i think the US is all but innocent, i know they are mischevous and often wrong.  but even though the oil theory for all of this may seem apparent, i think it's toward the end of the list of the priorities.  cheap oil is worthless if you are dead.

for you guys who are stuck on consiracy's and idea of the US taking hits just to go to war.... wake-up, if i want to fight someone, i'm not gonna wait to get stabbed to hit them . that's just a retarded idea. we are talking about the US, we have enough troops, weapons, intel, and know-how to destroy countries at will.  again.... i tell you this from a neutal view, i am the last guy to stick his head out for the US, but facts are facts.  some information is valid, other is worthless, you need to filter out the junk and see what's what.

fact is... Many and i mean Many , hate the US, hate it's prosperity, hate the oportunity, and hate it's way of life. i don't understand why, but that's the way it is.  Alot of times the US puts out a dumb image of being supreme and life is peaches and cream... but it's not(and it's wrong to put out that image). life here is like anywhere else. we have good things and bad things. customs and traditions, one diffence we may have, is the diversity of those customs n traditions(i absolutly love the cultural meshing). For those who choose to go against the US, they are fighting for no good reason, often times, they are fighting the hand that's fed them  not a wise idea.

you can pick up a book and "learn", just remember , one book , one point of view.

"sick of the motherfuckers that run it"

  ha! i love it. cheers for that one

[eurisko]

And FoxNews rears its ugly head....

[Jono]

for you guys who are stuck on consiracy's and idea of the US taking hits just to go to war.... wake-up, if i want to fight someone, i'm not gonna wait to get stabbed to hit them .

Who's to say it wasn't the US Government/etc conspiring to hit itself, then blame it on someone else? a'la a Dirty Harry movie where a guy pays to be beaten up then blames it on Harry, so in turn he is favoured over Harry. (If you've seen the movie you'll know what I mean)

we are talking about the US, we have enough troops, weapons, intel, and know-how to destroy countries at will.

And what they did in Iraq proves it.

i tell you this from a neutal view, i am the last guy to stick his head out for the US...

No-one's view is neutral, I'm probably a little anti-US but I can't help it, from the info I've gathered the various US government and its agencies have extremely immoral backgrounds.

facts are facts.  some information is valid, other is worthless, you need to filter out the junk and see what's what.

Agreed.

Nothing personal, this is just what I was thinking as I read that paragraph

[imaspy]

thanks jono, you saved me some time. i was too lazy to write that lol

[nazstang]

Who's to say it wasn't the US Government/etc conspiring to hit itself, then blame it on someone else? a'la a Dirty Harry movie where a guy pays to be beaten up then blames it on Harry, so in turn he is favoured over Harry. (If you've seen the movie you'll know what I mean)

let me get this straight, are you saying the US bombed pearl harbor itself?

And FoxNews rears its ugly head....

i don't get it?

No-one's view is neutral, I'm probably a little anti-US but I can't help it

you can't help it buddy

and yes i am totally neutral, i live in the US, but i'm not a fan of it's current state at all. i always take a look at everything from both sides(my girlfriend hates that ).

for the record, i am against them going to war in iraq (it was premature, maybe they'd eventually have to ).  the attack on alkida in afgan was the absolute right decision.  no matter what though,  DO YOU want Bin Laden free to do his terror acts? Do you want sadaam to be making nuecular weapons(he's crazy enough to use them)? 

and now i'm afraid iran might be even worse, the ayatollah keeps growing his army and atomic bomb plants way too fast. the Basiji(sect of soldiers) seem to growing fast as ever, and those soldiers were and are brought up since 6 years old, to learn to kill and die without fear, it is a sick way to live.  on top of this all, 2 days before the UN visited iran to talk about the atomic bombs, he threatened the US(and Allies) that if he is put under any version of an attack, quote "The Iranian nation will respond to any blow with double the intensity" .

my veiw is, how about we all squash all the fighting.  it will take all sides agreeing for it to be successful, and i just don't see them wanting to. 

a quick history lesson :  US helped iraq a while ago(with $), iran was being hostile to them(they wanted the persian gulf).  iraq was 1 day away from invading big-time, but they put down arms.  in return iran attacked(with nominal success) so the iran - iraq war began.  US backed iraq previously, so they would have a safe passage for shipping, so iran responded with an attack on a quite a few US owned and bound commercial ships. naturally the US came back... my neighbor was a pilot there, they launched an attack on iran which crippled 70% of all there planes, tanks, missle silo's ... all in 22 hours. then the US backed off.
iraq ended up losing the war(too many volenteered irany soldiers(plus ussr had their back)).

then ofcourse there was the gulf war which iraq lost to iran, so headed south to kuwuit to take over that country(they owed them over 14 billion). the UN was in an outrage, and canada and the US invaded, took them out, and it was over in a short time.  the issue was that sadaam was humiliated, and outraged by the US, so right away, intel showed weird military movement, and the construction of plants and a "super canon" . then there was speculation and rumors about their neucular program, and now, somehow war again . can't we all just get along!

[SSS]

Just getting back to the whole conspiracy theory thing, didn't the first and failed attempt by terrorists to demolish the world trade centre end up being linked back to the cia?

also chad, the reason why the twin towers came down like they did, was because the central core of the towers weren't concrete. when they were being built, the mafia had dominant control of the concrete industry, so the architects building the twin towers didn't use it and went with a steel frame work instead.
had concrete been used, they probably would have been still standing.

[nazstang]

didn't the first and failed attempt by terrorists to demolish the world trade centre end up being linked back to the cia?

:Dthat was a theory for a short time, but they actually caught the guys really quick(well caught one who gave info on the others) and 10 in all were charged. they were given 240 years in prison each(why 240 ) .

the reason why the twin towers came down like they did, was because the central core of the towers weren't concrete. ....had concrete been used, they probably would have been still standing.

i see we've got an engineer or architect on our hands . jackpot, the interior of the building was "non-skeletal" with the central core holding most the weight( in the middle), and the other load bearing walls being on the outside(which didn't hold much) , the stress was too much.  it collapsed right there, in the elevator shafts.  the concrete to steel ratio was like 4 to 6.  another building of it's stature should be atleast 6 to 4.  like you said, maybe it would still be standing right now