9-11 was an inside job

[Kat Kanning]

All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.

[Russell Kanning]

I don't believe the pentagons conspiracy theory that an arab stole a 757 and plowed it into their building.
I am not paying for damages .... it was probably arson.

[NC2NH]

All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.

I certainly couldn't see a plane in the grainy frames on CNN today. By comparison, it makes the Zapruder film seem like a feature-length IMAX movie.

[KBCraig]

All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.

Missiles don't carry jet fuel. High explosives don't produce big orange fireballs, but low-order flammables like JET-A do. A missile strike would produce a shock wave and a cloud of dust, with no visible flame or smoke. A plane crash would produce a big orange fireball and black smoke, exactly like is seen on the video.

Before everyone gets too worked up about the apparent size of the flying object that hits the Pentagon, please remember that both camera views are extreme wide angle, so that the farther away objects are, the smaller they appear.

Note: I'm not repeating the government line, and I don't expect anyone else to do so, either. I want the truth, but "Truth" must be based on facts. When you argue against the government line, please do so with actual, verifiable facts. "I don't believe it, so they must be lying" doesn't constitute proof.

Kevin

[Russell Kanning]

Does that look like a 757 to you?
Would you even think that unless someone told you to?

[KBCraig]

Does that look like a 757 to you?

It doesn't look like it's not a 757. It definitely doesn't look like a cruise missile, which would look more like a cigarette at that range. Insufficient data for a conclusion.

Would you even think that unless someone told you to?

I wouldn't think it was, or wasn't, whether anyone told me to, or not.

It's a one-frame blurr in a bad video. Insufficient data to say yea or nay. Anyone who claims proof either way is relying on a previous conclusion, not evidence as presented.

Kevin

[Russell Kanning]

Until the government proves their side .... I am going to be a skeptic.

[Tunga]

Does that look like a 757 to you?

It doesn't look like it's not a 757. It definitely doesn't look like a cruise missile, which would look more like a cigarette at that range. Insufficient data for a conclusion.

Would you even think that unless someone told you to?

I wouldn't think it was, or wasn't, whether anyone told me to, or not.

It's a one-frame blurr in a bad video. Insufficient data to say yea or nay. Anyone who claims proof either way is relying on a previous conclusion, not evidence as presented.

Kevin

A Skyhawk has a high wing vs. a 757 which has a low wing. The absence of any ripped up lawn lends credence to the high wing. The blur appears to be hugging the lawn. Tunga is aware of "ground effect" and that the length might be subject to the approach angle relative to the camera.

We don't know the shutter speed but the length seems short for the 155 feet of 757. Using the vertical height of 80 feet of the Pentagon as a scale.

Tunga has read about discrepencies in the approach angle which if true don't help the governments case. Why don't they release the other 84 videos too? Not blurry enough?

Bunker busters also contain two charges. There might not be any photographic evidence of the secondary explosion from one of those. Assuming it was detonating deep inside the building.

[BillyC]

That would make sense.
Could a plane fly into that building easily?

Only in a vertical dive.

Interesting theory, but pretty implausible.

How Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?

http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/pentagon_video_how_flight_77_really_look.htm

[Kat Kanning]

Alex Jones played clips of this one reporter on September 11th and now.  September 11th he was at the Pentagon and says all day long that he sees no pieces of plane, no fuselage, no evidence a plane hit the building.  Then clips from the same person reporting on it now...where the guy is saying that he was there that day and saw plane pieces all over.

[Republidog]

I think we need to be careful we don't get too sucked in to the no plane/missle theory. I personally don't believe it was a passenger plane that hit it that day but we'll never really know.

The reason we need to use caution telling people new to the 9/11 truth movement about the no plane thing is that it has been 5 years. That's long enough to create whatever they want. Imagine a perfectly rendered 3d plane just like in the movies added to the footage. Then they blur it badly and make it look like security footage and all of the sudden *poof* they'll claim they squashed the "crazies" that believe 9/11 was an inside job.

I believe 9/11 was an inside job- without a doubt. But we need to focus on things like insider trading, controlled demo of 7, and all the now public officials, etc.

Whether it was a plane or a missle that hit the pentagon- bin laden didn't do it.

[Russell Kanning]

Bin Laden 'probably back home in US'
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/05/13/10039526.html

[tracysaboe]

All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.

Missiles don't carry jet fuel. High explosives don't produce big orange fireballs, but low-order flammables like JET-A do. A missile strike would produce a shock wave and a cloud of dust, with no visible flame or smoke. A plane crash would produce a big orange fireball and black smoke, exactly like is seen on the video.

Before everyone gets too worked up about the apparent size of the flying object that hits the Pentagon, please remember that both camera views are extreme wide angle, so that the farther away objects are, the smaller they appear.

Note: I'm not repeating the government line, and I don't expect anyone else to do so, either. I want the truth, but "Truth" must be based on facts. When you argue against the government line, please do so with actual, verifiable facts. "I don't believe it, so they must be lying" doesn't constitute proof.

Kevin

I don't believe it. But I don't believe these controled demolition conspiracy theories either.

I think the government did know about it and purposely didn't do anything to stop it. It's a much more plausible "conspiracy" theory, and it's also grounded in history. A simular thing happened around pearl harbor. And if IS a theory that fits into all the questions cerounding the incident that the government isn't answering. The government's too stupid to come up with anything as ellaborate as controlled demolition.

Tracy

[Republidog]

The government's too stupid to come up with anything as ellaborate as controlled demolition.

I only wish such was the case.

Or perhaps WTC 7 just got tired and fell down?

[Russell Kanning]

....did someone say pearl harbor?

I wonder if all the buildings in NY are that fragile.