No Plane At Pentagon...

[somebigguy]

Here's a reporter that was there:

http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/files/documents/Cnn.Pentagon.Jamie.Mcintyre.swf

[Good Doctor HST]

I think the scenario that best fits from everything I've seen would be Eric Hufschmid's (sp) hypothesis of that weird type of plane (remote-controlled?) instead of a 757. There are people who saw a plane... but no large pieces of a plane found.

[Gold9472]

I think the scenario that best fits from everything I've seen would be Eric Hufschmid's (sp) hypothesis of that weird type of plane (remote-controlled?) instead of a 757. There are people who saw a plane... but no large pieces of a plane found.

If you can show me proof it was a remoted controlled airplane, I can show you proof it was a 757.

[princesskittypoo]

I think the scenario that best fits from everything I've seen would be Eric Hufschmid's (sp) hypothesis of that weird type of plane (remote-controlled?) instead of a 757. There are people who saw a plane... but no large pieces of a plane found.
could the fire have been hot enough to descenegrate (sp) all remains of the plane?

[Good Doctor HST]

Fire has never been known to disintegrate steel. Well, not until September 11, 2001, when fire disintegrated steel in the WTC buildings and the plane that hit the Pentagon.

Was it because of the large amount of jet fuel in the planes that created such an intense fire that made the buildings collapse (the twin towers)? Both sides of the issue make their case on the internet, so you have to read them and decide.

[somebigguy]

Fire and jet fuel did amazing things that day, things they have never done before or since.

A plane probably probably hit the Pentagon, but it wasn't 77 and it probably wasn't a boeing. It was probably a little drone like HST says.

Gold, if you have proof of a boeing, let us see it. Eyewitness accounts don't count, there is just as many witnesses who say it was a small commuter jet. Half the witnesses are either wrong or lying.

[somebigguy]

From the February 2005 Idaho Observer:

Life-long Republican believes only piece of Flight 77 wreckage was planted at Pentagon on 9/11

by Greg Szymanski



Right wing conservatives would probably say "it’ll be a cold day in hell" before one of their own portrayed President Bush as a fascist and a bold-faced liar about the 9/11 attacks and his motives behind the Iraq war.

But that’s just what Jim Hanson of Columbus, Ohio, a longtime Republican and former district campaign manager for Richard Nixon, thinks of our bible-toting, gun slinging President.

To prove his point, the 70-year-old retired attorney recently spent $9,000 to place a ½ page ad in the Columbus Dispatch, denouncing the Bush administration specifically concerning one photo of the Pentagon crash, which he claims will prove government complicity in 9/11.

A registered Republican for more than 50 years, Hanson claims he has no "axe to grind" with the GOP, but after spending three years researching the events surrounding 9/11, he is convinced the government is either complicit in the attacks or had prior knowledge.

"They needed something big, something to instill fear into the American people," said Hanson. "The WTC attacks was their Pearl Harbor and I’m positive it didn’t occur the way the Bush administration claims. I’ve concluded the story lacks credibility and makes little sense.

"After researching 9/11, I finally felt obligated to come forward, especially about a military photo taken of a piece of wreckage off Flight 77. After blowing up the photo and matching rivets to those of the 757 that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, I found there wasn’t a match. This piece of wreckage was from a different plane.

"If it can be proved that this piece didn’t come from Flight 77, it would open the door, exposing the rest of the government conspiracy."

The key photo of a four-foot section of the plane’s body was snapped by Army Times staff photographer, Mark D. Faram right after the crash. It was then quickly distributed to the media and remains the only piece of wreckage of Flight 77 ever made public.

After thoroughly investigating the matter, Hanson said the plane that hit the Pentagon wasn’t Flight 77, yet the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to keep hidden any trace of Flight 77.

"Not only didn’t the rivets match in the photo I blew up, but also there was a curious piece of wood or what I have determined to be a liana vine, imbedded into the aluminum piece of wreckage," said Hanson, who has gone to great pains to study this aspect of the photo.

"Why would there be vines or branches imbedded into the aluminum when the plane hit a brick wall? Logically, it must the piece must have come from another 757. I then found out that another 757 went down in the South American jungle in 1995, where liana vines (similar to wicker) grow abundantly."

Hanson then called the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and was told the wreckage of the 757 that crashed in the jungle was being held in a military disposal site for investigation. The specific location of the wreckage site, however, was unknown.

"I think the military substituted this piece of wreckage in an attempt to deceive the public, in an attempt to make them believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon when it didn’t.

"If it can be proven that the piece of wreckage in the photo came from another plane, the only piece of hard evidence that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon can be refuted," added Hanson. Why hasn’t the photographer been questioned or why didn’t Farem testify before the 9/11 Commission?"

Attempts for several weeks to reach Farem have been unsuccessful by telephone or email.

Critics from the outset have doubted the government story that Flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon. Independent investigators found the lack of physical evidence, contradictory eyewitness testimony as well as size and point of impact

discrepancies have indicated a smaller type of military plane or missile crashed into the Pentagon, not a 757.

"I think this one mistake regarding the military photo, could bring down the house of cards and expose the entire conspiracy," said Hanson, who said he is continuing his investigation until the truth is discovered. "I am no longer affiliating myself with the Republican Party considering the outrageous acts that have been perpetrated on the American people. This is beyond politics. This is outright fascism."

As other 9/11 conspiracy advocates contend, Hanson also believes the Bush administration used the attacks as a way to frighten and convince Americans that the pre-emptive war in Iraq was justified under the name of terrorism.

"One day the truth will be told and it will show the deception of the Bush administration. The WTC attacks, the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act are all apart of this administration’s scheme to radically change our foreign and domestic policies, which will have grave consequences for years to come.

"I believe we must continue to investigate and demand questions about 9/11 since the Bush White House is built like a house of cards. One day, when the truth be told, it will all come crumbling down."

[Scimitar]

Here's a reporter that was there:

http://www.911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/files/documents/Cnn.Pentagon.Jamie.Mcintyre.swf

Verbatim from the reporter in the video: "From my close-up inspection."

Smoke, rescuers, debris. Exactly how "close-up" was your inspection? As close as you are in the video?

"There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon....<snip>.....the only pieces left that you can see...."

What pieces left? If no evidence of a plane are discernable to this reporter, why does he then describe pieces of an aircraft? It seems to me that the reporter is, at best, making running commentary in the very confusing and relatively early moments where his reporting seems to be mere speculation.

"....which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the Pentagon."

So what is this reporting expositing? That there was no evidence that an airplane crashed into the Pentagon, or that there was no evidence that a "whole" airplane crashed into the pentagon? Considering the preliminary nature of his report, I'd say it is dubious at best.

[Scimitar]

Eyewitness accounts don't count,

Your requisite criterea for evidence is indeed high if you discount everything from eyewitness and below.


<snip>but it wasn't 77<snip> Half the witnesses are either wrong or lying.


Believing this, how can you make an emphatic statement regarding anything?

[Gold9472]

Your requisite criterea for evidence is indeed high if you discount everything from eyewitness and below.



Believing this, how can you make an emphatic statement regarding anything?

Are there any other aspects of 9/11 that intererest you, or just the plane/missle/Pentagon thing?

[911=inside job]

gold do you think that 77 hit the pentagon???

[Scimitar]

Are there any other aspects of 9/11 that intererest you, or just the plane/missle/Pentagon thing?


Pretty much all of it, actually. But, honestly, the alternate theories are voluminess and relatively new to me. It will take a bit to assess. Please understand, I am not officially adopting a position. What I am doing is viewing the proposed evidence, assesing it in what I hope is a neutral fashion, and trying to report, support and defend my interpretation. But I certainly hold no manifest claim to correctness, expertise or authority. I just happen to find the linked video report very unreliable, especially given that is was produced in the relatively early momemts when the confusion index must have been pretty high. I wouldn't think the reporter would be allowed close access to the accident site for safety and security purposes. And I'll wager witnesses and experts were very thin due to the rescue effort and early chaos. My only expertise is a Bachelor's degree in Aviation Electronics with 4 years experience. And, well, that's not much expertise at all given the topic. But I do savor the opportunity to hear other opinions and evidence (especially when solidy supported) and any subsequent logical debate that must follow.

Thank you for your welcome message.

[Gold9472]

Pretty much all of it, actually. But, honestly, the alternate theories are voluminess and relatively new to me. It will take a bit to assess. Please understand, I am not officially adopting a position. What I am doing is viewing the proposed evidence, assesing it in what I hope is a neutral fashion, and trying to report, support and defend my interpretation. But I certainly hold no manifest claim to correctness, expertise or authority. I just happen to find the linked video report very unreliable, especially given that is was produced in the relatively early momemts when the confusion index must have been pretty high. I wouldn't think the reporter would be allowed close access to the accident site for safety and security purposes. And I'll wager witnesses and experts were very thin due to the rescue effort and early chaos. My only expertise is a Bachelor's degree in Aviation Electronics with 4 years experience. And, well, that's not much expertise at all given the topic. But I do savor the opportunity to hear other opinions and evidence (especially when solidy supported) and any subsequent logical debate that must follow.

Thank you for your welcome message.

The easiest thing for you to do is just watch the 9/11 Omission Hearings... they will make you cry, but they will remind you what this is all about.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47

Thank YOU for signing up. I look forward to speaking with you... Unfortunately, I'm at work. I'm usually on after 6pm EST.

[somebigguy]

Verbatim from the reporter in the video: "From my close-up inspection."

Smoke, rescuers, debris. Exactly how "close-up" was your inspection? As close as you are in the video?

"There's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon....<snip>.....the only pieces left that you can see...."

What pieces left? If no evidence of a plane are discernable to this reporter, why does he then describe pieces of an aircraft? It seems to me that the reporter is, at best, making running commentary in the very confusing and relatively early moments where his reporting seems to be mere speculation.

"....which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the Pentagon."

So what is this reporting expositing? That there was no evidence that an airplane crashed into the Pentagon, or that there was no evidence that a "whole" airplane crashed into the pentagon? Considering the preliminary nature of his report, I'd say it is dubious at best.

He said something along the lines of "There isn't any sizable portions such as a tail or fuselage anywhere around to indicate a large plane had crashed".

You're right, this video isn't proof of anything. It's another example of how certain facts of that day have been ignored by the media ever since. The lack of plane debris at the Pentagon, the numerous witnesses of secondary explosions at ground zero, that sort of thing that is no longer mentioned by any mainstream media outlet - and has not been mentioned for over three years.

What newsreports such as this remind us of is the immediate, first hand eyewitnesses to the attacks before their stories were whitewashed or covered up by the media and government.

[somebigguy]

Your requisite criterea for evidence is indeed high if you discount everything from eyewitness and below.



Believing this, how can you make an emphatic statement regarding anything?
Problem with eyewitness accounts is some of them saw a large passenger jet, some saw a small commuter plane. Some said it was noisy, others said it was silent. Finally, some said there were two planes.

All we can gather from those accounts is that at least one plane was present that day.

Regarding Flight 77, it disappeared from radar about 45 minutes from the Pentagon, so it didn't hit the Pentagon plain and simple.

[Gold9472]

gold do you think that 77 hit the pentagon???

Who knows... there is other, more important, PROVEABLE evidence to show complicity.

[Gold9472]

BTW... I want to say that there are people who like to focus on this kind of thing, and to me, whatever gets people interested is a good thing, but eventually, you should cover all the bases.

[911=inside job]

BTW... I want to say that there are people who like to focus on this kind of thing, and to me, whatever gets people interested is a good thing, but eventually, you should cover all the bases.


i agree gold... i think people like pics or videos... so if you can show me a pic or two of some put options... lol.. i would love to see them....

i find a lot of times i tell someone something and it goes in one ear and out the other... but if you show them video they will remember everything.... maybe im wrong....

i do check out everything gold.....well... i try...

[Gold9472]

i agree gold... i think people like pics or videos... so if you can show me a pic or two of some put options... lol.. i would love to see them....

i find a lot of times i tell someone something and it goes in one ear and out the other... but if you show them video they will remember everything.... maybe im wrong....

i do check out everything gold.....well... i try...

It's really very simple... The proof is on this website. All anyone would have to do is watch the 9/11 Omission Hearings from beginning to end. That's it, the end.

They are videos...

[911=inside job]

i have heard most of it....

[Gold9472]

i have heard most of it....

You can watch them here. :D Go watch Indira Singh, or Michael Ruppert, or John Judge, or Paul Thompson, or Jenna Orkin, etc... etc... Any one of them will blow your mind.

[somebigguy]

So a plane crashed here huh????

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/geometrie/jun2a.jpg

[somebigguy]

A 100 ton plane should leave 100 tons of debris.