![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There is certain controversy about the airliner that was shupposed to have hit the Pentagon on September 11th. I saw a website about this, back in late '01 or early '02. Earlier this week, I was wondering what ever happened to that controversy, then the ghost of Zuul posted this film. Still going on. I think it was under the radar because it sounds (on the surface) like a classic "conspiracy theory."
But nothing there really sounds crackpot to me. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone can provide any information to debunk this account.
(two sites, same film)
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
http://pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm
When that other account was first posted by a friend, one of her friends posted a how dare you! hundreds of people were killed there, and my husband was there and he saw the plane! sort of reply. Still doesn't answer the question of how a giant Boeing 757 could hit a building and leave no hole. The previous account I mentioned asked why a jet with a wingspan of hundreds of feet could have left a collapsed wall behind that was no more than 70 feet wide. In this one, they show pictures of before the fire caused that wall to collapse.
For those of you without the bandwidth to view the film, it shows photos of the aftermath, with no sign of a jet airliner - no giant hole, crater in the lawn or aircraft debris of any kind (at the site or being removed). Also includes eyewitness accounts who describe a small airplane, and a secondary explosion, as well as one person who recognized the smell of explosives, and not jet fuel.
So what do you think?
But nothing there really sounds crackpot to me. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone can provide any information to debunk this account.
(two sites, same film)
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
http://pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm
When that other account was first posted by a friend, one of her friends posted a how dare you! hundreds of people were killed there, and my husband was there and he saw the plane! sort of reply. Still doesn't answer the question of how a giant Boeing 757 could hit a building and leave no hole. The previous account I mentioned asked why a jet with a wingspan of hundreds of feet could have left a collapsed wall behind that was no more than 70 feet wide. In this one, they show pictures of before the fire caused that wall to collapse.
For those of you without the bandwidth to view the film, it shows photos of the aftermath, with no sign of a jet airliner - no giant hole, crater in the lawn or aircraft debris of any kind (at the site or being removed). Also includes eyewitness accounts who describe a small airplane, and a secondary explosion, as well as one person who recognized the smell of explosives, and not jet fuel.
So what do you think?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 02:54 am (UTC)From:there's a tremendous amount of info out there about this and lots of other things from that day that just don't add up...
condi rice was on cspan and said something about "we didn't know a missle was going to hit the building" talking about the pentagon... some people have it on tape but the transcript and the tape are unavailable from cspan for some reason
sort of like how jfk's radio transmissions and the faa radar and weather radar and first few news reports about jfk jr's flight are unavailabe...
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 03:46 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 03:47 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 04:08 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 04:18 am (UTC)From:Taking it a step farther - in the WTC footage you could clearly see that one of the engines went clear through the second tower and out the other side. This would suggest we'd see impacts from the jet engines on either side of the main impact... and there are none. Even if the plane bounced before hitting, the wings would have sheared off, either on bouncing or on impact with the buildings, and there's no sign of that either.
I read a claim that the fusilage made it through almost to the core. Surely upon hitting steel re-inforced concrete the cockpit crumpled like an alunminium cigar tube in a hydrolic press, even as it began to enter the building.
If the state department or war department had photos clearly debunking this you'd think they'd have published them on their own.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 04:36 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 04:38 am (UTC)From:also the main columns went WAY down into the bedrock and they weren't even sticking up after the towers came down.... more evidence of demolition charges and total demo job....
read this if you dare..
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 05:00 am (UTC)From:Such a wave would be seen to travel along the building by it's effects - an air pressure wave would be able to pop windows if it were strong enough, an actual "ripple" (like a giant xylephone chime being struck) traveling down the structure could blow the windows out from stress, and would probably travel farther and faster than air-pressure. The sound waves would also be tremendous.
Have you ever used a plastic ice-cube tray? You know how you twist it a little, and all the ice comes right out? The structure of the building is made to be somewhat flexible. The windows are much less flexible. Give that strong, flexible structure punctuated with holes coverd with hard, rigid, fragile stuff, a knock at a harmonic point in it's "chime", and you'll probably be able to pop a number of them fragile things to let-go.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 03:12 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 03:16 pm (UTC)From:Here's a question: Where are the fuel tanks? In the wings or in the fuselage?
no subject
Date: 2004-09-04 03:17 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-09-07 02:31 pm (UTC)From: (Anonymous)no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 05:44 am (UTC)From: