911 Pentagon plane remote controlled?

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

Will everybody here give 30 sec's of your lives, watch this video that I already posted, but I'll post again as nobody seem's to have watched it, Please, Please,Please watch this from 1:00-1:30, and please explain what you just saw and how you explain it being possible.

Given that its only 30 seconds long, could you perhaps describe what it is that you want people to watch.

I'm one of those lucky few who find myself regularly with an inernet connection I can't stream video over.

squod

bonkey wrote: »

Given that its only 30 seconds long, could you perhaps describe what it is that you want people to watch.

I'm one of those lucky few who find myself regularly with an inernet connection I can't stream video over.

The video points out the undamaged section of the pentagon building. A plane full of aviation fuel hasn't managed to scorch not a shred of paper on a book for instance, or burn a table or scorch the wall paint either.

It also references the size of plane it was which allegedly which struck the building and the size of hole it made in the collapsed building.

Earlier CNN footage told how the building had just collapsed roughly 40mins after impact. The reporter on the ground witnessed no plane, or plane debris at that time.

The official line is fantastic, as are the stories of UFOs striking the pentagon.

fontanalis

squod wrote: »

The video points out the undamaged section of the pentagon building. A plane full of aviation fuel hasn't managed to scorch not a shred of paper on a book for instance, or burn a table or scorch the wall paint either.

It also references the size of plane it was which allegedly which struck the building and the size of hole it made in the collapsed building.

Earlier CNN footage told how the building had just collapsed roughly 40mins after impact. The reporter on the ground witnessed no plane, or plane debris at that time.

The official line is fantastic, as are the stories of UFOs striking the pentagon.

So did a witness see a missile, bunker buster, the hindenberg etc
What happened the plane and passengers?

squod

fontanalis wrote: »

So did a witness see a missile, bunker buster, the hindenberg etc
What happened the plane and passengers?

I presume you can watch a video without me having to explain it to you, personally I'm not so interested. Just answering Bonkey's request, poor fella can't watch youtube.

bonkey

squod wrote: »

The video points out the undamaged section of the pentagon building. A plane full of aviation fuel hasn't managed to scorch not a shred of paper on a book for instance, or burn a table or scorch the wall paint either.

It also references the size of plane it was which allegedly which struck the building and the size of hole it made in the collapsed building.

Thanks for that. I'll check it when I have video access again...

Earlier CNN footage told how the building had just collapsed roughly 40mins after impact. The reporter on the ground witnessed no plane, or plane debris at that time.

Assuming you're referring to Jamie McIntyre, it depends who you believe.

McIntyre himself has clarified that this is not what he was saying.
The site I've linked to above also recommends that rather than trusting transcripts, anyone's interpretation and/or editing of the piece, you should watch it yourself. There's a link on teh page, but (with no video access right now) I've no idea if its still working.

squod

Not so interested, thanks anyhow. Joe public in the US voted after September 11 2001. They were over eighteen and made their' minds up for themselves as to wether they wanted to be accomplices or not IMO. Pointless worrying about it now.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

Given that its only 30 seconds long, could you perhaps describe what it is that you want people to watch.

I'm one of those lucky few who find myself regularly with an inernet connection I can't stream video over.

Ok bonkey since you don't have youtube, actually it's not streaming,press play then pause it, leave it long enough and it will download, anyway from the still of my video in your post, if you look at the bottom left side of the "play" symbol, where the ladder crosses it, you will see a little white thing just directly below it, almost touching the ladder and corner of the play symbol, this Bonkey is a paper book open on a stool, the paper is not scorched whatsoever, does it not seem a little strange?.

Now here's a pic of the 757, actually I'll copy and paste:

In the below photos: on top is the turbine rotor recovered from the Pentagon 9/11 crash scene which is from a much smaller engine and is from a loud high performance engine like the ones used by the military. On the bottom is a picture of a Boeing 757 Rolls Royce RB211-535E4 engine which is the same exact type as mounted in Flight 77, it's much bigger and has "commercial" fans in the turbine rotor (bigger, more fuel efficient and designed for less noise). The rotor found at the crash site doesn't even come close to the "official" story. [FONT=Geneva, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

The only parts retrieved from inside the building
where piled up here in front of the building.
Note the small engine rotor in the foreground.



Rolls Royce RB211-535E4 engine rotor

http://donsplace.us/pentagate/

Now while these pics don't go along with a missile hitting the pentagon, as missiles dont have turbine rotors, it certainly isn't from a 757, can you see the problems some of us free thinkers have with this whole story bonkey, and what conclusion can one come to except it's a big lie.

[/FONT][/FONT]

Edit: just for reference here's a pic of the fire, now judge where the open book would be in this fire

humanji

With regards the engines, the second picture is the front of the engine. The first picture is the back. The back is usually about 50% smaller than the front.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

The video points out the undamaged section of the pentagon building. A plane full of aviation fuel hasn't managed to scorch not a shred of paper on a book for instance, or burn a table or scorch the wall paint either.

That might have something to do with the fact that the upper floors where the book and furniture were did not collapse until 45 mins after the plane strike by which time the fire had more or less exhausted itself. The upper floors were protected from the fire effects while the floors remained intact. This is pretty basic and I would have thought easy to understand but some people insist on closing their minds completely and not thinking about the reality of the situation.

bonkey

squod wrote: »

Not so interested, thanks anyhow.

So if I understand what you're saying....you're interested enough to make the claim, but not interested enough to follow up on the evidence which says that you might be wrong.

Fair enough.

squod

bonkey wrote: »

So if I understand what you're saying....you're interested enough to make the claim, but not interested enough to follow up on the evidence which says that you might be wrong.

Fair enough.

Who says who is wrong? I've heard many explanations of what happened at the pentagon building. Missiles, military aircraft, aliens :eek:, rockets, US government cover-up and the official line. Each argument has it's own merrit.
I simply haven't read any posts from yourself to indicate research you've carried out at all. Yet you call me out on a point. FYI I have followed up, I suggest you do the same.

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

Ok bonkey since you don't have youtube, actually it's not streaming,press play then pause it, leave it long enough and it will download,

The problem is actually that where I was, all I get is a nice little message saying "active content removed".

I'm home now, and have had a chance to look at it...but my thanks for bearing with me.

anyway from the still of my video in your post, if you look at the bottom left side of the "play" symbol, where the ladder crosses it, you will see a little white thing just directly below it, almost touching the ladder and corner of the play symbol, this Bonkey is a paper book open on a stool, the paper is not scorched whatsoever, does it not seem a little strange?.

Not exceptionally, no.

Don't get me wrong...its a bit weird alright, but I don't see any significant problem with it.

The section that collapsed did so due to a combination of impact damage and resulting fire causing the support columns to fail. I don't believe it has ever been claimed that the entire section, from roof to floor, front wall to back, was engulfed in flames. Its not like the WTC towers, where each floor was effectively one massive open-plan area,

Now here's a pic of the 757, actually I'll copy and paste:

In the below photos: on top is the turbine rotor recovered from the Pentagon 9/11 crash scene which is from a much smaller engine

As with McIntyre's interview, there doesn't seem to be much agreement on this point either.

Here's one article, just as an example, which shows that it could indeed be a component for the engine its supposed to be from.

Now while these pics don't go along with a missile hitting the pentagon, as missiles dont have turbine rotors, it certainly isn't from a 757, can you see the problems some of us free thinkers have with this whole story bonkey, and what conclusion can one come to except it's a big lie.

I can see the problems you have, yes.

I would say this, however...several claims have been presented as though they were fact. I'm merely pointing out that it is far from clear that these are facts, like they are made out to be.

Ultimately, my feeling is that threads like this always end up with some sort of "scatter" approach. There is no clear, single, "smoking gun" which can be honed in on which shows the official account to be a lie. Instead, there are a myriad of points where doubt can be raised.

For some, that doubt is sufficient. For others, its not. I accept this.

What I do not accept, however, is that there is any sort of "slam dunk" case to categorically show that the official account is false. There is no single point where we can drill to the nth level of detail and reach a firm conclusion that there must have been a conspiracy.

A book on a stool...what does that tell us? A section of the building was on fire. A section of the building did collapse. Is a book on a stool supposed to tell us that it was all staged...that the fire wasn't real...that the collapse was faked? If not...then what does it matter???

The aircraft rotor...far more interesting. If it could be categorically shown that there is no part of a 757 engine, or indeed no part of a 757 at all, which could match this part....then its case closed. Unfortunately, thats not the case. There are parts that it might be. So where does that leave us? We have something which isn't a problem if the official account is true....and isn't a problem if the official account is a complete fabrication. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us which is the case, so its not much use.

I like to consider myself as a "free thinker" as well. I tend to favour one position over another, but I rarely believe in the absolute correctness or wrongness of any. regarding the Pentagon, I've yet to see any evidence I consider as convincing which says that a 757 passenger jet did not crash into the building on September 11, 2001...but I certainly don't rule it out.

bonkey

squod wrote: »

Who says who is wrong?

I certainly didn't say you were wrong.

I said you might be wrong, and that there was the other side of the story to be considered. You said you weren't interested.

I simply haven't read any posts from yourself to indicate research you've carried out at all.

Yes, you're right. I've never researched the topic. Amazingly, despite knowing nothing about it, I was able to offer detail to your (vague) claim about "a CNN reporter".

uprising2

But Bonkey, where in the fire would the book be at the moment this pic was taken?, it's 2 windows down and 15-20ft in, this is the same jet fuel that took down the twin towers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4tj5RZJHVQ

bonkey

uprising2 wrote: »

But Bonkey, where in the fire would the book be at the moment this pic was taken?, it's 2 windows down and 15-20ft in, this is the same jet fuel that took down the twin towers.

OK...leaving aside the questionable significance that I've already outlined...

Where was the book?

Here's how I see it.

The plane impacte a section of the building. The main fire that we see roughly corresponds to the impact point. Looking to the right of that large flame, we can see that there's a set of windows and columns....at a rough comparison, the big fireball-like flame is about as wide as the 4 window-sections we can clearly see. Taking really rough numbers, I'm going to put that at about 40 feet.

The section of building which collapsed was, if memory serves, 67 feet across. If we assume that this is centred on the point of impact (which is roughly the center of the fireball-like flames), that puts each edge some 15 away from the edge of the fireball.

So, that would put the book one-and-a-half window-sections (rooms?) away from the fire that we see. Its also positioned close to the top of that big flame, and - as you say - some 15-20 ft (and several walls) in from the front wall.

Its several floors up. Given that the plane impacted low, that means there's almost certainly solid floor seperating it from the burning aviation fuel.

So while I'd readily agree that its a surprising thing to find, I don't find it by any means to be impossible. We can, in fact, see that there's a lot of stuff in the rooms exposed from the collapse which did not catch fire. This is consistent with the majority of the fire occurring on the lower floors, and with the fire

I'd also point out that jet fuel did not take down the twin towers. They collapsed from a combination of structural damage, and steel weakening from the fires which were started by jet fuel. The reason I mention this is not just for accuracy, but because the Pentagon was little different. The impact cause structural damage. The jet fuel started large fires. These fires eventually caused enough damage to cause the failure of supports, leading to collapse. There is nothing in that scenario that requires every combustible object in every room, in or near the collapse area to have been on fire.

Duiske

This video is one of the better ones I have seen about the Pentagon attack. Its almost 1hr 30mins long, but is well worth a look.

There are interviews with police officers, pentagon security workers and other government employees who witnessed the planes approach to the pentagon.
The most amazing interview is with Loydde England, the driver of the cab which was hit by a falling lamp post, alledgedly knocked by the plane.

If these witness's are correct, then there is something seriously amiss with the official report of what actually happened that day.

Sorry, having problems embedding the video, link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o&feature=player_embedded#

Podman

bonkey wrote: »

.. the book ...
Its several floors up. Given that the plane impacted low, that means there's almost certainly solid floor seperating it from the burning aviation fuel.

So while I'd readily agree that its a surprising thing to find, I don't find it by any means to be impossible. We can, in fact, see that there's a lot of stuff in the rooms exposed from the collapse which did not catch fire. This is consistent with the majority of the fire occurring on the lower floors, and with the fire
...
... The impact cause structural damage. The jet fuel started large fires. These fires eventually caused enough damage to cause the failure of supports, leading to collapse. There is nothing in that scenario that requires every combustible object in every room, in or near the collapse area to have been on fire.

How can fire which is clearly confined to lower floors, and separated by concrete cause collapse of upper floors and roof?

Also there is a temperature issue, fire by itself does not cause a building to collapse unless the structure is made of wood.

Podman

squod wrote: »

Off topic, opinions on the vids/pictures of the alleged attached pod on flight 175 which struck WTC building?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4

Its the same type of plane as this pilotless aircraft, a Boeing 757 200 NASA 557 ...


But more likely to be a variance of a Boeing E-8C J-STARS


Something like the E-10a, a twin engine that looks identical to the Boeing 767 except for the Radar housing on the bottom. Planes can be modified especially when there is a trillion dollar payoff.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System

J-STARS is used for airborne battle management, command & control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

Podman

uprising2 wrote: »

...
Note the small engine rotor in the foreground.



Rolls Royce RB211-535E4 engine rotor

http://donsplace.us/pentagate/

Now while these pics don't go along with a missile hitting the pentagon, as missiles dont have turbine rotors, it certainly isn't from a 757, can you see the problems some of us free thinkers have with this whole story bonkey, and what conclusion can one come to except it's a big lie.

Actually Cruise Missiles do have turbofan engines, the Williams F107 ...

This one is from an AGM 86 Cruise Missile ...


Seems about the right size to me ...


This is what it would look like when assembled ...


If you ask me, this is the closest you can get to the image of the missile in the released Pentagon pictures from 911.

drkpower

What is the reason the perpetartors of 9-11 would use a missile at the Pentagon, and make it look like a plane, when they used 2 planes in NYC? Why not just use a plane?

Its hilarious how truthers, so desperate to question everything about the day, tie themselves up in knots to show that there was a conspiracy....:p

amen

Also there is a temperature issue, fire by itself does not cause a building to collapse unless the structure is made of wood.

that is just so untrue. it doesn't take much to get a fire in a modern building up to several thousand degrees and it can happen fairly quick.

RGDATA!

drkpower wrote: »

What is the reason the perpetartors of 9-11 would use a missile at the Pentagon, and make it look like a plane, when they used 2 planes in NYC? Why not just use a plane?

much harder manoeuver to hit a five story building practically at ground level than to hit the WTC towers?

squod

RGDATA! wrote: »

much harder manoeuver to hit a five story building practically at ground level than to hit the WTC towers?

Excellent point, one I've not heard mention before. Target.

uprising2

amen wrote: »

that is just so untrue. it doesn't take much to get a fire in a modern building up to several thousand degrees and it can happen fairly quick.

Is that fact or fiction?, if its fact please show us some evidence, if you just made it up it's ok.:D

Several thousand degree's, whoa!, thats hot, and it doesn't take much to get it up there fairly quickly, whoa!, and you were thanked for saying that.

uprising2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_ACM

Here's another, this can only be launched from an aircraft, then I remembered the mystery plane flying over washington at the time of the pentagon attack.


http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

Then cruise missiles come in different sizes, so the rotar size can vary, missile theory still intact, not that I ever doubted it was a missile, just thought the rotar was a "plant".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile

humanji

RGDATA! wrote: »

much harder manoeuver to hit a five story building practically at ground level than to hit the WTC towers?

Why did it need to hit at that specific angle? Wouldn't any angle have done?

Also, why is it easier to believe that a plane took off, landed secretly without anyone knowing, the passengers and crew "disappeared", a missile launched without anyone seeing from where, and all witnesses to the event paid off or threatened into lying and hiding evidence, than it is to believe that either the plane was remote controlled or the hijackers were real (but were working for the government)?

RGDATA!

humanji wrote: »

Why did it need to hit at that specific angle? Wouldn't any angle have done?

Also, why is it easier to believe that a plane took off, landed secretly without anyone knowing, the passengers and crew "disappeared", a missile launched without anyone seeing from where, and all witnesses to the event paid off or threatened into lying and hiding evidence, than it is to believe that either the plane was remote controlled or the hijackers were real (but were working for the government)?

not sure what you mean about hitting at that specific angle, but that wing of the building was undergoing renovation and a lot less staffed than it would have been normally which could be a motive for hitting that specific side.

it's not my contention that it's easier to believe that plance "disappeared" etc - i know where you are coming from. i was just speculating as to a possible answer to the question posed above:

"What is the reason the perpetartors of 9-11 would use a missile at the Pentagon, and make it look like a plane, when they used 2 planes in NYC? Why not just use a plane?"

humanji

RGDATA! wrote: »

not sure what you mean about hitting at that specific angle, but that wing of the building was undergoing renovation and a lot less staffed than it would have been normally which could be a motive for hitting that specific side.

it's not my contention that it's easier to believe that plance "disappeared" etc - i know where you are coming from. i was just speculating as to a possible answer to the question posed above:

"What is the reason the perpetartors of 9-11 would use a missile at the Pentagon, and make it look like a plane, when they used 2 planes in NYC? Why not just use a plane?"

Sorry, what I was getting at that is that it's easy enough to aim at a specific side of a building and hit it. The angle was level but not unachievable to a pilot and not impossible for a plane. To me it just seems as easy to maneuver a plane into that position as it was for a missile, so why would they risk using a missile when they could easily have used a plane?

RGDATA!

humanji wrote: »

Sorry, what I was getting at that is that it's easy enough to aim at a specific side of a building and hit it. The angle was level but not unachievable to a pilot and not impossible for a plane. To me it just seems as easy to maneuver a plane into that position as it was for a missile, so why would they risk using a missile when they could easily have used a plane?

I accept the angle wasn't impossible for a plane, but it was, imo, extraordinary for an amateur pilot to pull it off. also I would have thought that it would be easier to maneuver a (presumably much lighter, presumably smaller) missile into the same position but i'm certainly not an expert in aeronautics.
but yeah, i find it difficult to reconcile what happened the "real" plane and the people who were on it if it was in fact a missile that hit the pentagon. i do wish they would release all the other video footage they undoubtedly have.

uprising2

Though not pentagon specific, very relivent here.........where did the people go??