http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm#Main

 

Some of the points seem fairly interesting, though not important in the overal scheme. Others points I have no idea on how to interpret considering I am not an engineer and don't know how many things will behave physically given certain exream situations (ie. what happens when a plane hits a large building at 500=mph), but I must admit many points brought up do raise some interesting questions. I would really like to see some of those videos that are missing or not released. My questions is this, what are they implying? If not a 757, then what, and by whome? Nice find Dre.

-Chris

 

whoa... I just watched that clip, and I have heard conversations about this in the past.

The one shot of the hole in the building is incredible. There is no way that was caused by a plane of any size.... a cessna would have done more damage

 

an UAV would be along the lines of what they are suggestiong i think... possibly with a war head or pre platned explosives.. i honest dont know i just thought it was interesting the points it rasied, and it did so in a creative way...

 

Link isn't working at the moment.

 

The link isn't working... can someone explain the theory, por fa'please?

 

in a nutshell...

there was no actual evidence that a 747 crashed into the pentagon.

the damage done to the building and the surrounding "crash site" is not in line with the damage that would have been done by a large airplane

it also mentions that video footage captured from different sources (local gas stations, highway video cameras, etc...) was confiscated by the FBI. the video would have indeed shown the path of an incoming 747

it infers that the attack was a missile, and quotes eyewitnesses who said that "it sounded like a missile" with a whooshing sound and not like an airplane. it also estimated the path of trajectory. the plane would have to fly 2 ft off the ground on its approach (and the supposed Saudi pilot was listed as an incompetent pilot by the flight school he attended in the US)

it was an interesting piece to say the least

 

This is an interesting point for those of you that've frequented the Pentagon area off interstate 395. The edge of the freeway is literally milliseconds away from any plane going 200+mph on a crash approach. You could literally toss a baseball at the side of the building that got hit with a plane from the freeway.

I don't know why it would be such a big deal to hide a missile either? We all know it's possible for a terrorist to walk into downtown Manhattan with a nuclear weapon so why would this be a shocker? The FBI took the videos as evidence and intelligence to capture the terrorists, not to hide this lame conspiracy theory.

I'm calling bull**** on the missile theory too. Even if a terrorist took a pop shot with a missile from interstate 395 (or further) there's no chance in hell they could generate as much power as it did to clip the face off the building. The only missiles capable of that would cost a multi-million dollars and would require multi-million dollars worth of guidance equipment.

If that was the case, why not save a little more and buy a nuclear weapon to get all the federal buildings in one shot -or- use a civilian aircraft (like they did) free of charge? Honestly, I think it would have a LOT better for our economy and the reputation of intelligence agencies if it was a missile. There wouldn't be anyone to blame for security at airports, airlines wouldn't have suffered with the loss of thousands of customers and employees, people wouldn't have felt as vulnerable etc, etc, etc.

 

Yeah, i've seen that too, and is interesting and weird. The blast area and cleanlyness of the cut certainly looks like a missle, but salty is right - to get something with that size and potency, it would have costs millions. However, the fact that there is NO airplane wreckage is weird, aircrashes almost always look like someone blew up a confetti truck, or the tail almost always either breaks off or doesnt burn. But, if it wasnt a plane, where did the other go? Was it shot down over the ocean? Who knows, I'm sure i never will, as much fun as conspiracy theories are, there is also the conspiracy theory blueballs that i get from never really knowing the truth and thats frustrating.
Anyways, pretty interesting.
* que X-files music*

 

pentagon took it down...

hahaha

 

hahaha, good one guys. I lived in Washington DC, literally within sight of the pentagon, the day this plane went down. I know at least three people personally who actually saw the plane come out of the sky and ram into the pentagon. All this "no wreckage" and other theories I've seen (especially funny is one that mentions the condition of the grass outside the building) are pure bull. There were pieces of building and plane all over that site. As for the large parts of the plane...are we saying that missiles hit the WTC too, because there are no huge tail or fuselage sections left over from those impacts?

My two cents plus several eyewitness accounts. I see absolutely no reasonable way to doubt that an airplane is what hit the pentagon.

 

I am chalking that up with the term "**** block" as one of the most hilarious things said evar!!

I cant stop laughing and am starting to get stared at by my office-mates

 

He's not joking... I actually called him and my Wife to make sure they were okay shortly after.

I was waiting for your response, Dave

Consider this Myth BUSTED!

 

Don't steal bandwith! It leads to the host posting ****.

 

case closed.
Man, we are an efficient team of super sleuths!