Pentagon........

What do you think of this video.........hhhmmm

http://path-to-peace.net/misc/pentagon.swf

Do you believe their ideas regarding their theory behind the blasts to be true or not?

Reply 1

Nightowl

This has been posted many, many times. I personally don't believe it at all.

Reply 2

SSS

It has some truth to it, although the fundamental flaw is that it claims that NO plane hit the pentagon.

There is clear evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon, although it was not a 757, but infact a 737. This can be verified by the 1 picture available which shows a damaged engine in it (not the fan hub, but an actual engine). http://www.rense.com/general63/ident.htm

The engine is a JT8D, which comes from either a 727, 737 or a military jet aircraft (DC something). A 757 engine is alot different. It came from a 737, based upon eye witness statement (two engines, under the wings, not at the rear, and was a "commercial jetliner", so not the military plane).

The video is missing some other aspects though

-Massive shockwave, threw several people, inside and out of the building, backwards (one person into a lamp-pole, just under 100ft, causing internal injuries).
-Radiation levels 8-10 times higher than normal downwind of the Pentagon on the day (Depleted Uranium warhead, from the missile that was fired seconds before impact, causing the neat holes in the walls)
-Photos show no bodies or blood

People don't seem to realise, that a plane hitting reinforced walls is like firing a coke can against a wall. It just crumples up and shatters. The wall will absorb the impact, cracking, but not having a neat hole punched in it. The fact that 1 engine is seen OUTSIDE the pentagon shows that even multi-tonne engine could not even make it through.

Of course, this gets denied as wild conspiracy junk, but you only have to look at photos on the day to realise something is seriously out of place...

Reply 3

Robob

SSS

People don't seem to realise, that a plane hitting reinforced walls is like firing a coke can against a wall. It just crumples up and shatters. The wall will absorb the impact, cracking, but not having a neat hole punched in it. The fact that 1 engine is seen OUTSIDE the pentagon shows that even multi-tonne engine could not even make it through

Are you an engineer?

If not then why do you dispute what the world's leading engineers say can and did happen?

Reply 4

SSS

rpotter

Are you an engineer?

If not then why do you dispute what the world's leading engineers say can and did happen?

No, im not an engineer. But just because they say it happened, does not make it so. There is a video you can find through google where they crash test a boeing plane, and it just shatters into the wall, with the wall taking only slight damage.

It only takes a bit of common sense to realise that a plane (not very dense, except for the engines, landing gear) would not punch several neat holes through several walls of reinforced concrete. You can see in the photos that the wall is cracked all over, which is what you would expect, but the hole in the wall is from something other than a plane.

This guy, however, is an engineer. http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html

Reply 5

Dhesi

Theres probably a degree of truth to it but I highly doubt that its all true.

Reply 6

Apollo

The whole "they never found a plane" thing is simply not true, there are pictures in which there are plane parts scattered all around the impact area.