believe it or not

clark_kent · 12-03-2005, 00:45

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

have u guys seen this?

***horge*** · 12-03-2005, 00:52

Yes.
When that thing first reared its backward head, quite some time ago,
it was debunked rather thoroughly on several online forums.

clark_kent · 12-03-2005, 00:57

i just find it interesting, specially after i saw an episode abt 9/11, i don't remember if it's the discovery channel or not. but the epiode discuss a full detail on wat happen on 9/11 but little did they show anything abt the pentagon.

oh wel, to guys who haven't seen it. u may find it interesting

nice day to u all

***horge*** · 12-03-2005, 07:23

Well, it IS interesting

I forgot to thank you for sharing it with us!
Thanks!

st. matthew · 12-03-2005, 08:04

;P ^8 like the other lies and cover-ups , we will never know..
xfiles?

toxic · 12-03-2005, 08:14

well we can never know, there are lots of unexplained mysteries out there. but i give it to those guys who are behind these events..man just imagine how much time and effort they have spend planning and the logistics, Hope they sleep well at night.

theTactician · 12-03-2005, 13:53

this could be included in "the Unexplained" list... like UFO's and stuff..? Roswell? Bermuda triangle mystery? government hiding something.. so they say. :-)
Have you guys seen Farenheit 9/11?
History channel's "Zero Hour" episode?
mysterious huh? anyway, these are all just pure speculations. we'll never know until the truth eventually surfaces.

bulm540 · 12-03-2005, 14:38

You know how thick the walls of the pentagon is?? No wonder there was no 757 because it disintegrated after impact. ALuminum vs. a couple of feet of concrete.

isuzu · 12-04-2005, 10:18

Not True! The one who made the video was probable some left-wing anti-war organization based in the UK.

Pentagon, being the center of military operations of the US is designed to handle tremendous forces or impacts. Over the years, the structure was improved. That is why the airplane didn't stand a chance when it hit the Pentagon.

As to why there weren't any big parts of the airplane that were recovered:

1. The airplane was travelling at cruising speed in a clean configuration when it hit the Pentagon. I'm no physicist, but when an object hits a highly fortified wall with tremdous momentum, it would just have disintegrated.

If you recall the Cebu Pacific plane that went out of its original flight path, and eventually slammed on a mountain in Cagayan de Oro, they weren't able to recover the fuselage. Authorities were only able to recover the tail portion of the plane. Considering that the mountain is much softer than the Pentagon walls.

2. Burning fuel may have melted the metal parts; that's why the World Trade Center buckled and finally collapsed. Jet fuel burns hotter than regular gas. Of course, jet A-1 is refined kerosene, but additives makes it burn efficiently and hotter.

As to why witnesses failed to see a big plane:

1. An airplane flying at 580 mph (about 500 knots)is very hard to see. Even the security cameras failed to capture a clear image of the plane due to the speed it was travelling.

As to why the film clip questioned the capabilities of the pilot to fly "that the pilots were incompetent":

1. You don't really need a good pilot to fly that kind of plane in that kind of mission. All that the pilots wanted to know is to maneuver the plane to a certain bearing and hit its intended target. When the flight instructors of the suicide pilots were investigated, some even said that the student pilots "weren't particular with takeoff and landing(they took over the controls of the airplane in mid-air anyway). They were just concentrated on straight and level flight, and certain maneuvers.

Modern passenger planes are very sophisticated (with many redundant safety features) that a pilot once told me that once you engaged the auto-pilot (which has been pre-programmed by flight dispatch), they are just relegated to monitoring gauges, reporting their position, and making sure the passengers are comfortable(by having a flight crew inside the cockpit). The next time they would touch the flight controls (pedal and yoke) is when they disengaged the auto-pilot prior to reaching the aerodome of their destination or make emergency corrections.

gundog · 12-07-2005, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by clark_kent
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

have u guys seen this?

another version of the pentagon strike...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html

bulm540 · 12-07-2005, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by isuzu
Not True! The one who made the video was probable some left-wing anti-war organization based in the UK.

Pentagon, being the center of military operations of the US is designed to handle tremendous forces or impacts. Over the years, the structure was improved. That is why the airplane didn't stand a chance when it hit the Pentagon.

As to why there weren't any big parts of the airplane that were recovered:

1. The airplane was travelling at cruising speed in a clean configuration when it hit the Pentagon. I'm no physicist, but when an object hits a highly fortified wall with tremdous momentum, it would just have disintegrated.

If you recall the Cebu Pacific plane that went out of its original flight path, and eventually slammed on a mountain in Cagayan de Oro, they weren't able to recover the fuselage. Authorities were only able to recover the tail portion of the plane. Considering that the mountain is much softer than the Pentagon walls.

2. Burning fuel may have melted the metal parts; that's why the World Trade Center buckled and finally collapsed. Jet fuel burns hotter than regular gas. Of course, jet A-1 is refined kerosene, but additives makes it burn efficiently and hotter.

As to why witnesses failed to see a big plane:

1. An airplane flying at 580 mph (about 500 knots)is very hard to see. Even the security cameras failed to capture a clear image of the plane due to the speed it was travelling.

As to why the film clip questioned the capabilities of the pilot to fly "that the pilots were incompetent":

1. You don't really need a good pilot to fly that kind of plane in that kind of mission. All that the pilots wanted to know is to maneuver the plane to a certain bearing and hit its intended target. When the flight instructors of the suicide pilots were investigated, some even said that the student pilots "weren't particular with takeoff and landing(they took over the controls of the airplane in mid-air anyway). They were just concentrated on straight and level flight, and certain maneuvers.

Modern passenger planes are very sophisticated (with many redundant safety features) that a pilot once told me that once you engaged the auto-pilot (which has been pre-programmed by flight dispatch), they are just relegated to monitoring gauges, reporting their position, and making sure the passengers are comfortable(by having a flight crew inside the cockpit). The next time they would touch the flight controls (pedal and yoke) is when they disengaged the auto-pilot prior to reaching the aerodome of their destination or make

emergency corrections.

Ditto!!!