Thread: Pentagon

Originally posted by Squall


http://slackdaddy.org/flash/pentagon.swf

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7494
go here i have seen this before

Oops... delete this thread then someone.

Wait what does it show?

its a (very good flash movie) showing how the 9/11 attack on the pentagon was a hoax....... and.... it looks convincing..... (especially the part about the confestication of the films....) it mentions mind controll........ but wheres the motive/???????? someone explain please

http://www.overclockedgaming.com/pentagoncrash.swf

I think this is something that's best dropped, but I'll explain anyway: The only reason I can think of is to create an emotional response from the publics towards the government. If the public have a very strong backing of the government, then they really have no limits. Bush exploited 9/11 like Hitler exploited the Reichstag. Hitler started invading countries, claiming they took a part in the Reichstag, and then he said he was liberating the people, just like Bush did with Iraq and Afghanistan. Hitler started rounding up the jews, calling them a threats, just like Bush is rounding up middle easterners, calling them threats (do you people realise we have 'detained' thousands of middle easterners without access to a lawyer?). We're heading towards another holocaust-type event, wake up before the world you know is gone.

I really don't believe the government would attack the towers and I REALLY don't think they would fly a plane through the middle of a town for everyone to see if they wanted to cover something up.

ah, no, i have looked into it more, and heres WHY they did what they did,.... you see, the us knew the terrorists were going to attack, and to make it look like the government was at risk (so they could take drastic action) they had a jet fly in, and drop a cruise missile into that part of the pentagon, they made sure all the big reps werent there (10 of em canceled on 9/10) and they blamed it on a jet, they say the temps were above 2500 C and that the plane basicly evaproated, except for the black boxes, and one headlight (how convenient), (the metal inside the pentagon, like the stuff hangin from the ceiling, was okay, so, how can they say that? )

this was all done, so that the us could have controll (not own-ination, but controll) of the oil in the middle east....

some people say that they heard a jet. others saw a small plane (the jet launched the cruise missile) cruise missile is the plane, the jet sounded like the jet.... if it was a b757 that went into the pentagon, trees would have been "burninated" -trogdoor and the wave of air that would have followed would have been enough to make the cars on the highway blow over, not to mention that most of the witnesses that heard the thing would be deaf (particularly that one guy in the hotel the airplaine flew right by)

So your saying they knew the terrorist would attack and that instead of letting them attack and using that as a reason to start a war, they instead decided that they needed an extra boost for public support so risked everything to fly a jet through the middle of a town and blow a huge hole into the side of the pentagon then captured and murdered everyone on a US plane to cover up the attack?

It just doesn't add up. Flying a jet through town is a huge risk. Why would they take that risk when the tower attacks where more than enough to get the same responce? Its just stupid unless you want to get caught and I am sure if they did it they wouldn't want to be. Thats not even counting the kind of person you would need to be to do something like that, which there would have to be a lot of.

so what are those Osama tapes all about? Is Osama just some random hobo? I think that it was a missile that shot through, but damn whatever happened the government should get their story straight. Its like asking a kid if he stole a toy, and you can clearly see it behind his back, but he just keeps on denying it... Okay bad analogy there.

Flash movies created by some random person on the internet is an excellent source of truthful information.

Just because it's a flash movie doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Look at the photos and the video, then the flash animation, they match up.

Did you guys forget the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania? It was heading towards the White House. If whoever set this up needed to know that the politicians had their backs, they would need to make it also look like they were trying to destroy the government as well. The white house being destroyed would have made a bigger influence on this country than the WTC.

Ah... actually Americans probably value people more then structures. People are important, for everything else, there's Uncle Sam's Mastercard.

Yea hes right. If just the white house got hit, then yea it would be enough, but all the people died and that makes the other targets less important. Fact is the government had no reason to even try it, they had all the support they could ask for just from the first attacks. There is no reason to hit a third place to make people feel sorry for you.

Originally posted by Death-Wuad
Just because it's a flash movie doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Look at the photos and the video, then the flash animation, they match up.

So did the man's face in those two pictures (IMAGINE THEM A BIT MORE REAL WITH SOME COOL DOCTORING OK?). Dosen't mean it's real though.

That flash is a very well made piece of garbage.

It accomplishes it's goal of conspiracy theory perfectly; using flashy images, music, and incorrect or untruthful factual information.


http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...%5FAPboxes.html
http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/o.../12279%2D1.html
http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/...tagon/frame.htm

The flash animation gives only about half the 'facts', pieces of quotes from eyewitenesses, and none of the proof that this myth or conspiracy is, in fact, worthless - which there is plenty of out there.

Originally posted by AcidBasick
That flash is a very well made piece of garbage.

It accomplishes it's goal of conspiracy theory perfectly; using flashy images, music, and incorrect or untruthful factual information.


http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...%5FAPboxes.html
http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/o.../12279%2D1.html
http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/...tagon/frame.htm

The flash animation gives only about half the 'facts', pieces of quotes from eyewitenesses, and none of the proof that this myth or conspiracy is, in fact, worthless - which there is plenty of out there.

BS
do you know how big the Boeing 757 is it huge and if a plane hit a building like the pentagon then the wings would have been torn off and they are no remanants of a Boeing 757 except for small pieces that could have been planted look at the damage the Boeing 757s did to the towers the explosion the fuel did there wasn't one like that at the pentagon just a small ball of flames (just enough to toast a marshmellow)

there is a conspiracy going on

a plane hit a building like the pentagon then the wings would have been torn off and they are no remanants of a Boeing 757 [/b]

3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph? *
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not \"only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring\" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse). *

Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below: *
[/b]

5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage? *
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
[/b]

Look at the pictures on the website I gave you. You can clearly see pieces of the aircraft debris spread over the lawn.

Edit:

explosion the fuel did there wasn't one like that at the pentagon just a small ball of flames (just enough to toast a marshmellow) [/b]

I certainly wouldn't want to be inside of that explosion.

Um the first picture of the flash movie even shows a huge fire ball comming out the pentagon, what are you talking about?

None of those sites addressed why there was no damage to the lawn. I also saw no evidence of the wreckage in any of those photos, point them out to me if I'm wrong. I'm not seeing any explanations for the most valid arguments. And Kaniaz, why would those photos be tampered with? It takes a lot of time and experience to manipulate a photo that well. I can also argue that the video of the pentagon being struck was manipulated by the government (which is arguable)

Originally posted by Death-Wuad
And Kaniaz, why would those photos be tampered with?

Why not?

Anyway, as far as I am concerned if snopes.com says it isn't true, it isn't true. They're pretty good.

Originally posted by Death-Wuad
None of those sites addressed why there was no damage to the lawn.

You must first realize that you are basing the argument of a missing damage trail around eyewiteness accounts. Any detective or investigator will tell you that eyewiteness accounts are very unreliable. It has been mostly proven that the plane came very close to the ground. It has not yet been proven that the plane actually touched earth. In addition, those pictures of plane wreckage shown in the animation are from planes that most likely hit the ground at an angle; kicking up dirt and spreading debris in all directions. The pentagon plane slammed directly into the side of the building rather then diffusing into the ground.

Even if the plane did scrape the ground, because of the angle of the shots, the nearly parallel flight path of the plane, and the angle in which it hit the building, the trail would most likely be nearly indistinguishable.

I also saw no evidence of the wreckage in any of those photos, point them out to me if I'm wrong.[/b]