Pentagon - Overview

[Nat]

wow, that camera cover must have had some kind of pyrotechnically fired (and utterly pointless) zooming feature on it...

someone really wants this thing to cause controversy, but in a discreet way, the cover and/or camera lens locations just do not match

there's no way an atmospheric shockwave could have reached the camera location that fast

there's no way same shockwave could have left the cones unnaffected in the process

they may as well have had someone pulling a moonie for the camera in frame two, 'cos they are really taking the piss with this stuff

surely this is just another 'miracle passport' ?

[elbowdeep]

Comment: In respect to the "pilons", or "cones" mentioned above... I wouldn't put too much on those, I've seen them many a time FIXED to the ground, either on a short post, or with the four corners nailed down. (This became apparent when I went to kick one of them while visiting at a GM plant, so I've payed attention to that peculiarity from then on... but that's another story). Since we don't know if they are or aren't fixed to the ground, I wouldn't put much into the fact that they don't "blow" over.

(I cross posted, as the following is more appropriate here... I will attemp to delete the old post)

This is a page that I came across years ago, but has never left my mind...

Has this been disproven?

Because every time I see the originally released "frames", I see that deltoid piece of black debris (i.e. "tailpiece"?) fly over the building (in photo labelled #1) on the following site...
http://membres.lycos.fr/applemacintosh2/Pentagon2.htm

To me, this makes a lot of sense. As the blast (upon impact) would be blasting back away from the building (fireball we can see, is obvious) causing anything (like tail) which is moving at high velocity toward the building, to be redirected upward, over the building. (Imagine an "airbag" going off in at the nose of the aircraft during collision, and the tails trajectory being changed to "upward".

NOTE: The video I am referring to is NOT the one from Judicial watch that was recently made available from the FOI request. I am referring to the ORIGINAL frames, which I am having a hell of a time finding, because the new Judicial Watch video has "bumped" it out of existance!. If you find it/have it, please post the link here.

Could they have done this to send the original with the clearer shot of the "tail section" down the memory hole?

[Nat]

hi elbowdeep

done the exact same thing myself, thought i was going to kick a cone, found it to be bolted down

i didn't explain/phrase that last so well, what i mean is that the scratched/dirty clear plastic or glass 'sneeze guard' clearly makes an instantaneous move in relation to the camera lens, this 'must' have occurred at explosive velocity, and yet, the top of the cone does not even so much as jiggle, so either the cones are full of concrete, or something there does not tally

[urbanspaceman]

People on the thread here seldom mention the eyewitness accounts. Back to that in a second.

One of the main websites I keep returning to is on the Pentagon thing is http://911research.wtc7.net/ . It's detailed look at the crash convinced me it WAS flight 77.

But let me go over Rumpl's unanswered questions quickly:

[Rumpl4skn]

Just so you know - those are not my comments on that picture, they were added by the guy who did the editing. I took that from another message board, because it was the best, clearest photo I could find of the pre-collapse Pentagon.

I should have made that clear or covered-up those text boxes.

[urbanspaceman]

My apologies, Rumpl. I assumed you labled the picture yourself.

[marpaujac]

Why make things complicated.


I’m agreeing with urbanspaceman that if you should do a Pentagon attack, the simplest way is to take remote control of the flight, and let it slam into the Pentagon building.

Why complicate things?

The only motive I can imagine not to let the Boing plane crash into Pentagon, is if Pentagon has an automatic defense system, which would have shot the plane down.


If we assume there was no Boing flying into the building, we have to explain how to fake the lamp poles, which were brought down.


See following link:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html




Anyway:

Whether it was a Boing, Drone or planted explosives in Pentagon it not crucial whether It was an inside job or not. An inside job could be done in any way. Our problem is just that we don’t really understand the details.

[hawkwind]

Just in time for the elections ...

[Rumpl4skn]

Actually, it'll be 2 days late. Otherwise, I might think it may show something interesting.

But obviously if it's coming out, then it does not show anything that can be proven to not be Flight 77. It'll be either a blurry frame of nothingness, or another suspicious-looking blob that almost looks like a 767. Or maybe a waiters head, right in line with something that's emitting a trail of vapor-smoke-vortex that almost looks kinda like some kind of jet-missile-plane-bomb-A3-cargo-tanker-flying device.

I hereby claim "suspicious blob" in the office pool.

But the 9/11 blogs have been slow lately, and they really need to get the debate ramped up again, or... everyone will..... start to.... lose....zzzzzZZZZZZZ......

[stallion4]

[Rumpl4skn]

Damn.... all that waiting for nothing. Again.

Well, this proves 2 things - (1) the government truly has "nothing to hide"... :roll: and (2) in the future, when they actively suppress, manipulate or destroy any kind of crime scene evidence, it was probably nothing important. And now we can all just chill out and take comfort that there are no such things as govt conspiracies, just like they've been telling us, over and over.

I feel much safer now.

http://damall.com/mp3/PRESIDNT.WAV

[Rumpl4skn]

The Doubletree camera video. Shows an explosion but no airplane.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1507751455

Now I understand why the release of this damning 'evidence' would have seriously compromised national security.

[Caustic Logic]

Hey y'all! Brand new here and it looks like the threads asleep so... BEEP BEEP BEEP!
I just read most of the thread so far - Jerry Fletcher - enjoying your posts so far. Some good discussion that spurred several responses in me brain but now I forget what they were and I need to refreshen my coffee...

I've been looking into the Pentagon case for a couple years now off and on, and have my insights to share, worked in over at my blog site
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/

What I'd like to share for this, yet another independent inquiry into 9/11 of dubious usefulness (but worth another and smarter try):
There is psyop going on, and just as much foot-self-shooting.
The evidence is consistent with a 757:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/12/physical-evidence-masterlist.html
(If you're familiar with Jim hoffman and Russell Pickering class evidence, not much new here)

That doesn't necessarily mean it was a 757, but Occam's Razor and the fact that the official story says that and that the Pentagon is a smaller and cleaner crime scene than NY, there's not too much room to hide such a massive absence. I'm wih Fintan 100% on the basic concept of the set-up. And the HTB people have run with it, primarily because they think the simpler case works in THEIR favor and offers the easiest route to proof.

If a 757 was the attack plane, that doesn't necessarily mean Hani Hanjour was flying it. Remote control is easy enough. Calls can be faked. That's all they'd need on the day of. The rest could be assembled later according to the list of Patsies pre-selected via Able Danger or whatever.

But - and this is the agnostic in me talking - just because all these are possible doesn't mean Hani WASN'T flying and I know it sounds crazy but what if... he was an ace pilot, Saudi Air Force, American trained, etc and was just FAKING to be a bad pilot for his American witnesses - and what if gov. comes out w/evidence of this, and then we're all playing into the hijackers' pre-arranged psy-op 9/11 follow up attack to turn us against each other.

The most effective disinfo is 90% correct. the Pentagon story and the 9/11 myth are disinfo I think we all know, and they're highly effective.
Could they actually be roughly 90% correct? Is this really only a LIHOP scenario? Do we really have to make the case most opposite the official story?

I guess that's a more general question I should post elsewehre...

[Jerry Fletcher]

Hello Caustic, welcome to the forum.

[Caustic Logic]