No doubt, many of you have probably seen this flash video (http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf), and it has left me a bit perplexed on what the facts really are behind Flight 77 and the attack upon the Pentagon. Please post your thoughts upon the validity of the video and the evidence that it presents, as well as any other insights, sources, etc. about what really happened on the attack upon the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001.

Originally posted by wassup
No doubt, many of you have probably seen this flash video (http://pages.infinit.net/noc/pentagon.swf), and it has left me a bit perplexed on what the facts really are behind Flight 77 and the attack upon the Pentagon. Please post your thoughts upon the validity of the video and the evidence that it presents, as well as any other insights, sources, etc. about what really happened on the attack upon the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001.

I liked the music.

No seriously, I am a big fan of conspiracies so I enjoyed it. It was a very well put together flash film. I never even thought about plain crashes when all of this was going on, but he is absolutely right, where in the hell is the damn plain?!?!? I often toyed with the idea that internaly, higher forces would start a war for revenge and profit, but I felt it so sick and twisted, that I never told anyone. Kind of makes you wonder though.

I never even thought about it...apparently I too am a victim of the mind control machine. ****.

That video creeps me out. It's all has such a truthful ring to it, I mean, the pictures are real, and it's hard to explain away the lack of wreckage from a freakin 757....

The thing that REALLY gets me is the video tapes that the FBI has taken and not released...

Insane.... I would say the FBI, like always, is hiding somthing, simple as that.

The movie does make some rather interesting parts, like the total lack of weckage and the confiscation of video tapes. Althought the only part I don't get is how come they used actual Boeings 757's in the WTC, but bombed the Pentagon? I still feel that there was a plane that landed into the pentagon, mostly because there isn't much plausible doubt to the contary. Besides, why would the government destroy the pentagon since what impact it would have emotionally is redudant to what the WTC had done.

Edit- A site describing why the movie's theory is false. (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm)

The first song is from Perfect Dark. Knowing that, I cannot take this seriously.

That website is a lot less convincing than the actual Theory Tyrion. It still doesn't explain the governments purpose in removing every video that had a reasonable shot of the incident from public view, nor does it explain why nobody on the highway saw a 757 flying overhead, or why the cars weren't flung off the road as a plane flew 350 mph hour over their heads. Also, if it impacted the ground first, there should have been MASSIVE ground damage in front of the pentagon, which was not the case.

That reinforced concrete crap is bull****. The American military government has missles that can punch through any material and keep going. I know, I watch the History channel's Modern Marvels.

Originally posted by Darth Groovy

I am a big fan of conspiracies so I enjoyed it.

then we have much to discuss.

Ohh yes. Now this was very interesting. It does make you wonder. But I am a bit bias towards the video, as I've never liked the FBI and there cronies very much anyway.

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, that was really weird... Almost with everything the terrorists do, there are some people who find evidence of a conspiracy set up by the fbi. Mostly, they are able to back up their stories pretty well... who should we believe?

EDIT: christ yaeb, you've even got more posts than me!

Originally posted by Doomgiver

EDIT: christ yaeb, you've even got more posts than me!

what can I say I'm a geek

and thats right, I do mean-

n./ 2 a carnival performer who bites the heads off live chickens in a performance

Yaeb, better a geek than a dork.

:D

Something to think about, where is the debris left from the 2 aircraft that hit the WTC? Those pieces weren't found either. Did those planes just up and dissappear also?

where in the hell is the damn plain?!?!?

I hope the plain is somewhere in the midwest or along the coast. The plane on the other hand disintegrated like the other 2 did and what didn't burned up the same way.

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77
Something to think about, where is the debris left from the 2 aircraft that hit the WTC? Those pieces weren't found either. Did those planes just up and dissappear also?

No, they were in the wreckage of 2 110 story buildings. Kinda hard to tell the difference between lots of building and a little plane.

I hope the plain is somewhere in the midwest or along the coast. The plane on the other hand disintegrated like the other 2 did and what didn't burned up the same way.

Then how come the black boxes from the 3 planes that DIDN'T hit the Pentagon turned up, but the black box from flight 77 is MIA?

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77
Something to think about, where is the debris left from the 2 aircraft that hit the WTC? Those pieces weren't found either. Did those planes just up and dissappear also?

Dude there's like plenty of video evidence...We've seen enough videos of the planes crashing into the towers for no one to doubt it.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Dude there's like plenty of video evidence...We've seen enough videos of the planes crashing into the towers for no one to doubt it.

Oh, yea. THAT. I forgot to mention THAT...

...stating the obvious rules!

yeah, very wierd. But just for arguments sake, couldn't the planes have disentigrated just like the ones that hit the twin towers?

Originally posted by Feanaro
yeah, very wierd. But just for arguments sake, couldn't the planes have disentigrated just like the ones that hit the twin towers?

Possibly, though one would expect the kind of explosion that would have been enough to actually disintigrate the airplane would have been enough to cause a LOT more structural and ground damage to the Pentagon than what actually occured.

Doesn't it seem logical, that if there were no plane, that the terrorists would say "Hey, look at the Bush administration! They're lying! We didn't do that one!" just to make a point of pointing out how they lie? That's just my thoughts...

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Doesn't it seem logical, that if there were no plane, that the terrorists would say "Hey, look at the Bush administration! They're lying! We didn't do that one!" just to make a point of pointing out how they lie? That's just my thoughts...

Would anyone really believe the 'bad guys' in all of this?

Originally posted by Kain
Would anyone really believe the 'bad guys' in all of this?

I see your point, but I think they'd be pretty quick to not take credit for that, since they're so quick to take credit for the things they do. Maybe I'm wrong.

Although they were also probably eager enough to take credit for what they DIDN'T do. I mean, if they didn't do it they probably assumed that it was some OTHER group of terrorists, but if they take credit it makes them seem more powerful, being able to make a direct attack on the Pentagon.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
Although they were also probably eager enough to take credit for what they DIDN'T do. I mean, if they didn't do it they probably assumed that it was some OTHER group of terrorists, but if they take credit it makes them seem more powerful, being able to make a direct attack on the Pentagon.

Right, but if they didn't do it, and denounced it instead, it would certainly make great fodder for making the Bush administration look bad/worse. I think that would be far more damaging than saying "oh, that got blown up too? Well hell no, it's not coincidence! We did it!"

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Right, but if they didn't do it, and denounced it instead, it would certainly make great fodder for making the Bush administration look bad/worse. I think that would be far more damaging than saying "oh, that got blown up too? Well hell no, it's not coincidence! We did it!"

But their entire intent is to frighten us. As such, if they can make us think that they hit one of the hardest targets in the nation with little or no effort, then that'd definently make us think that they're indeed as strong as they'd lead us to believe.

I'll say what I've said in other forums on the same topic: the evidence presented by that site/video is interesting and compelling... but where is the plane and all of the people? If they destroyed it and them to hide the conspiracy, why not just crash the flight into the Pentagon to begin with?

I'm assuming the plane was abducted by aliens of course :D

Originally posted by ET Warrior
I'm assuming the plane was abducted by aliens of course :D

Oh, well of course! This debate is over folks. It's been solved, nothing to see here, move along.

I'll say what I've said in other forums on the same topic: the evidence presented by that site/video is interesting and compelling... but where is the plane and all of the people? If they destroyed it and them to hide the conspiracy, why not just crash the flight into the Pentagon to begin with?
True, i don't think you could make up all those people and the flight. So if it wasn't a plane what was it that hit the pentagon? And was it by our means or terrorists.............my head hurts.

Anyone see the "9/11 Conspiracies" documentary on Channel 4 (uk tv) last night?

They went into several and debunked most of them. From what i remember:

Theory 1: There was a standdown order to stop the planes being shot down
Evidence - 67 times that year jets had been scrambled to intercept planes that deviated from their flight plan, but on 9/11 most of them had crashed before the jets even took off.
Conclusion - No evidence, mainly just a massively disorganised mess.

Theory 2: It was a missile that hit the pentagon
Evidence - See that site
Conclusion - They had interviews with eyewitnesses (inc a reporter who saw the crash), experts, firemen, the sister of the pilot, they had the flight data. Load of rubbish. (damn good flying though)

Theory 3: Israeli agents knew about the attack before hand
Evidence - group of israeli "students" seen filming and celebrating as the crashes happened. Later arrested and held and questioned for 6 months. Multiple passports, lots of cash, one had worked in israeli army anti-terrorist group, company working for was suspected mossad front.
Conclusion: Mixed. Sources claim they had no prior info. Company may have been spy front, but also employed many israeli students on working holidays. They were all willing to be interviewed, which made you suspect them less.


Theory 4: Stock market scandal
Evidence - Days before 9/11 saw heaviest selling of stock of airlines involved for years.
Conclusion: Some say yes, some say no. Probably not true. However now that the idea is out there most terrorist attacks can now be "self financing" as they can use their prior knowledge f event to buy and sell stock and make money for the next attack.

They looked a bit into the Bush 4 bin laden claims (like in Farenheight 9/11) but didn't really give any conclusions... except that the Saudi Envoy has more access, power and influence than any other foreign politician, including tony blair and putin. :D

*sigh* it crashed. look at the pictures and you will see...besides, if you think that one of the most important military installations in the US is not protected by such stuff as was described in the rebuttal, well...i almost feel sorry for you...but i dont.

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon
*sigh* it crashed. look at the pictures and you will see...besides, if you think that one of the most important military installations in the US is not protected by such stuff as was described in the rebuttal, well...i almost feel sorry for you...but i dont.

I looked at the pictures, yet saw no airplane in them. And I don't understand your second point. We obviously would assume that a building as important as the pentagon would be protected, so how is it that an airplane managed to ram it?

Note, I'm really not sure where I stand on this, but you have to admit, the whole thing is very sketchy, especially with the FBI seizing the tapes of the cameras that would have shown the crash

Hopefully the investigations will uncover the facts and dispell some of the rumors.

I'm always leary of conspiracy theories, and have mixed feelings about them.

On the one hand, it's good to question the "official story" especially when it can be demonstrated that there is a bias from the source and agenda.

On the other hand conspiracy theories are often so convoluted or "dogmatic" that no amount of evidence will convine the conspiracy believer that they might be wrong. And the wilder conspiracies simply turn people off, thus destroying any chance of genuine inquiry into something.

As to the video, it was obviously designed to give an emotional reaction (the spooky music, the quick cutting, like a music video). It cuts so quickly you really don't have time to verify any of the information (such as if it were a site you could navigate through). I couldn't tell you the names of the people it listed, if they were real people or if their comments could be tracked down and checked (for context, crediability, etc). They don't give you much time to examine the "Facts" they present at all.

So, while it's good to question about these things, this alone doesn't "prove" that there is a cover-up in progress.

Everytime there is a major disaster there is ALWAYS someone claiming there is a conspiracy. When that airline blew up some people claimed it was shot by a missile. When the Shuttle disasters happened there were claims that it was a terrorist attack or sabotage of some kind. When 9-11 happened somebody claimed to see a "missile" hitting the towers. I even read one person say that the planes were "remote controlled" or something.

Granted, these may be just idle speculation or there may be some gap in the facts that lends some credability to those things.

I'll keep an open mind. I will agree that the fact that our governments are run by human beings who HAVE lied to us in the past is perfect fodder for conspiracy theorists.

If we can't trust 'em with (whatever), how can we trust 'em with (the other thing)?

So I can't say I agree (until all the facts are in) but I can understand their doubts.

On the Video Itself: Notice they don't make an official "position" as to WHY they think this happened.

So I'm left with two "theories" as to their "evidence" (assuming it's 100% factual).


1) They want us to conclude that the Pentagon attack was done by our own government, on purpose. That would beg the question as to why...

2) They want us to conclude that the terrorists somehow obtained a "missile" to use against the Pentagon, and the government is trying to cover up that fact. Again, why?

What would cause the government to, during a crisis, attack itself, and then lie about it?

Then again, the vid doesn't talk about the other two planes, so are they hoping we'll assume they TOO were "planned" and "used against ourselves" (by the government?). If so, why would we do that? If it was an excuse to go to war (I've heard this before) why did we need to do so much? We've attacked other nations for less (examples too numerous to mention).

Also, if the evidence was all phoney, why didn't the government go the extra mile and just fabricate the evidence. Why didn't we create fake evidence that Iraq was behind 9-11, use a real plane to hit the pentagon, etc. Or why didn't we just say that terrorists stole a missile and fired it at us?

It's just the LOGIC of the thing is questionable. Maybe they did, who knows, sometimes people do stupid and crazy things. But what would be their motivation?

It's like those who claim the moon landings were fake. It would see more expensive and difficult to FAKE the landings than to do them for real. And if it was impossible, why even bother? Our enemies would be quick to point out our lies.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
where in the hell is the damn plain?!?!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I hope the plain is somewhere in the midwest or along the coast.

I believe that the word here is touchй.

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Doesn't it seem logical, that if there were no plane, that the terrorists would say "Hey, look at the Bush administration! They're lying! We didn't do that one!" just to make a point of pointing out how they lie? That's just my thoughts...

Although they were also probably eager enough to take credit for what they DIDN'T do. I mean, if they didn't do it they probably assumed that it was some OTHER group of terrorists, but if they take credit it makes them seem more powerful, being able to make a direct attack on the Pentagon.

ET makes an excellent point as he so often does... My thoughts exactly.

Right, but if they didn't do it, and denounced it instead, it would certainly make great fodder for making the Bush administration look bad/worse. I think that would be far more damaging than saying "oh, that got blown up too? Well hell no, it's not coincidence! We did it!"

That's inconsistent with the way Al Q. has acted since then. They've taken credit for anything and everything that had even remotely to do with muslims attacking the US.

I'll say what I've said in other forums on the same topic: the evidence presented by that site/video is interesting and compelling... but where is the plane and all of the people? If they destroyed it and them to hide the conspiracy, why not just crash the flight into the Pentagon to begin with?

Skin, you have a way of stealing my lines... And closing the debate with tiresome displays of logic and factual knowledge :D

Now obviously all terrorist groups are not identical, but there are examples of groups disavowing certain actions.

For example Hamas (I think) denied certain attacks that happened in Israel over the past year. But they claimed credit for other ones.

Granted, the fear of retaliation may factor in, etc. But still, terrorists have denied responsibility for certain actions before, so it's not impossible.

As to Al Qaeda, have they ever admitted to anything? Up until that video came out where Osama Bin Laden was rambling on about how happy he was that the WTC blew up, we had people denying that Al Qaeda had anything to do with the attacks.

A member of the NEA (a teacher) even (inarticulately said) "Unless reliable authority presents evidence, we shouldn't say that Osama Bin Laden was behind the September 11th attacks."

Even in the video he never outright says "and we, Al Qaeda, take responsiblity for the success of these attacks!" so....

That said, I have little doubt they did do it (unlike say Iraq, where the "evidence" was found to be bogus and was in serious doubt up until that point).

But honestly, if anyone has the sources, I have NOT heard any statements from Al Qaeda operatives in the news saying "we did this" or "we did that" or "we didn't do this."

Rather you usually hear something like "well, I'm sure glad America is suffering" or celebration in the streets. But we can't assume that everyone who burns an American flag or says "ha, take that uncle sam" when something bad happens was one of the planners of said attack.

If anyone has some links or info please post 'em (I'm seriously asking here, not assuming none exists):

Though I do have a suspicion that (and especially after 9-11 but in the year leading up to it when Osama was often in the news) there is a tendency to place the blame on Al Qaeda or at least assume they are connected with every action that "muslims" commit against us. Just like how I said there is always some conspiracy theory when somebody blows up or crashes these days. "Maybe it was terrorists...." etc.

Why does that website not show this?

Debris at Pentagon (http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/010911-N-6157F-001.jpg)

Why does that website not report this?

"I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter. "There is billowing black smoke."

or this:

"One witness told CNN she saw a commercial jet flying "too fast, too low" and then she saw an explosion at the building."

What about the countless others who saw the plane hit. That video from the camera is a time lapse, thus not taking a picture every second.

Black boxes aren't invincible. They are made of materials that can burn, get crushed etc.

Just for comparison, this is a plane crashing into a wall too:


Disappear (http://www.sandia.gov/media/images/jpg/f4_image2.jpg)

i think you posted your link wrong, but i just copied it into the adress bar...so that's where all those decomissioned F4 Phantoms went? :D j/k

Yeah I fixed my links after I tried to open one up to make sure it was posted right.

On the testing note, many old aircraft become drones for air to air combat and missle engagements, others are crashed to learn more about structural requirements needed for building crash resistant military buildings.

I was making light of the situation. I know about the usefulness of decomissioned aircraft in structural testing, amongst other things.

I read the urban legends site link. So basically they're saying that there WERE debris from the planes and those were photographed, this was merely left out of the video (either through ignorance or desire to make a stronger point through selective evidence), and basically the argument goes that the wings folded into the plane rather than being torn off and tossed to the sides (as the video seems to be saying they should have), plus the Pentagon is just a tough, tough little building, and the plane lost a lot of momentum from "bouncing" as it hit.

That and the photographs of the outside wall don't show you the damage that is INSIDE the building where the craft penetrated, etc.

While not a complete debunking it certainly takes some wind out of the sails of the first conspiracy argument. The fact that FBI records are "withheld" (what about the 9-11 Commission, did they have access to these documents/videos? will they be released soon?) isn't surprising. After all it was an issue of national security (military installation attacked by terrorists). Granted, people get suspicious when you hide something, even if it may be standard procedure or for a good reason, but still.

@Kurgan regarding whether or not Al Qaida claimed responsiblity for 9/11.

I might be mistaken, so don't hold me to it. But in the video that surfaced where Bin Laden was doing all the rambling, didn't he say something to the effect of "we knew it could melt the structure because of the ammount of fuel" and "it was a success"? I'm sure those aren't exact quotes, but I seem to recall him having said something along those lines. It made it seem to me like they were caliming responsibility.

this theory is a load of rubbish. I've seen interviews with at least one reporter who was nearby and saw the plane. There are 100s of other witnesses too.
The firemen who arrived almost immediately and none of the other witnesses happened to notice all these guys laying out all the bits of plane?
The radar data tracks the plane almost to that spot. Did it then get stealth tech and sneak away?
THe sister and kids of the pilots think they are dead... all the crew and passengers would have to be being held against their will somewhere? huh?
The wall was highly reenforced, but even so it demolished an entire side of the building. Either that or the builders did it while "pretending" to rebuild... i'd have thought someone would have noticed.
Anyone remember the footage of the planes hitting the towers? Come on, you must have seen it. Anyone see any "plane sticking out" or "wings falling off" or even a really big hole? Nope? Odd that... They must have been missiles inside fake cardboard planes...
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Dude there's like plenty of video evidence...We've seen enough videos of the planes crashing into the towers for no one to doubt it.

What about the many eyewitnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon as been said previously. Did they make up the story?

Fact, thousands of gallons of jet fuel will not explode, the vapors will. JP5 along with JP8 (even moreso) is hard to ignite. Once lit though burns intensely. JP8 is so hard to light (it was used in the SR-71 Blackbird before being used through out the military and now in civilian aviation) that for engine testing, they had to use a J-79 (jet engine from an F-4 Phantom II) to preheat the air in order to get it ignited.

The towers fell due to the intense heat from fires that the plane crashes into them caused. What little debris from them was left burned up just like the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. There was debris found in Washington, that conspiracy site (which for some strange reason isn't up anymore), neglects to inform anyone of that.

And the reason you're using my post is....?

You keep asking why would America do this to its own people....
Have you ever read a little known book entitles 1984? War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength and all that? That book is perhaps the most relevant in terms of today than any other literature (and it was written over 55 years ago)


The advantages for an American led 'War on Terror' far outweigh the disadvantages.

This (http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles3/worldtradecenter.html) site has some pretty compelling evidence regarding 9/11, as well as a lot of other key events (especially those of congress being 2/3 zionist decent and the eladers of Britain, Russia, France, America and Germany (including Hitler) being of direct decent from the Rothschild family).

The site doesnt dispute whether a plane hit a building.
It disputes who did it and the reasons why they did it.


***
Sorry, artilce was also written before invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and their obvious arms contracts, reconstruction contracts, oil fields etc etc.

i know these conspiracies are always fun (and personally i'd believe almost anythng negative about the bush administration) but the likelyhood of them ORGANISING this sort of stuff in miniscule. (and we know for 100% sure that the plane hit).

Whether they allowed others to do it (possible, but probably not) or used it to their own ends (definate IMHO) is another matter.

But the fact reamins that the plane did hit the pentagon.