Did a plane really hit the pentagon?

[Velociryx]

That's good footage, but it only ADDS to the questions, in my mind.

The guy clearly states that the plane hit the GROUND first. 'k...so where's the torn up lawn?

Also, if there was a plane, would it have been too much to ask for them to submit a sixth photo in that series (tacking one more from the security camera to the beginning of the sequence) where you know....they actually show a....ummm...plane?)

-=Vel=-
ps: Rav...yep...
lol

[Velociryx]

Was on my way out the door when I left that other post, but wanted to comment on Tingkai's post as well. Outstanding information, and an excellent point that the only relevant portion of the craft's height is the fuselage.

I'll readily admit that given a total fuselage height of 15-20 feet, the impact damage of the Pentagon is about right (1 floor gone, 1 floor badly damaged--mostly gone--the rest caved in). That is, making the assumption that the plane hit at or near ground level of the building.

But with the new link posted on this thread a couple posts above, I'm back to wondering about the ground.

If it is as the guy on the "video" indicated, that the plane hit the ground first, and then plowed into the building....should there not be some indication ON the ground that something 15-20 feet high, travelling at least 250mph and filled with fuel HIT the ground? I just went back to the photos to look.

Nada.

Another thing that strikes me as interesting is the "video" itself that was recently referenced here is that it's composed of still shots. Since I find it unlikely in the extreme that the Pentagon (one of our nations top secret buildings, and in the Nation's capitol) would use single frame (shutter) cameras for security, I must conclude that the frames were cut from a video feed in the Pentagon parkinglot. Given that, I guess I'm wondering why they cut the frames out that would have showed the plane descending (so we could all see the angle of descent and stuff). Just seems odd to me that they'd intentionally take that out before releasing the tape.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

Until you show me the missing Boeing, and other evidence suggesting some other explosive blew up that section of the pentagon... I'm going to say all non-757-impact believers are idiot trolls.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Zealot
That's funny, because I also saw the whole events on that day on CNN, since I was at home the whole day, and I really didn't see any debries from anything that wasn't part of the building!

Now that Vel mentions the size of the plane, and after seing the photos, I'm really freaking out, because there's no way, and let me put in bold, NO WAY that a Boeing crashed the Pentagon. Live with it, don't live with it, I don't care.
There's a Boeing missing, and something explosive hit the Pentagon, but it wasn't that missing Boeing! That's for sure!

If you didn't see on film the planes hitting the WTC, how much plane would you have seen?

[Zealot]

The towers collapsed. It's much harder to identify any fuselage within the rubble. Not that it might be impossible, though.
But don't try to compare with a 757 that didn't even scratch the Pentagon's lawn!

[Velociryx]

Sava - Just out of curiosity, since when does questioning something make one an idiot or a troll? Especially in light of the fact that the pentagon's OWN FOOTAGE never actually shows a plane? I think it's a fair question....my apologies if you don't, but I can agree to disagree with you *without* calling you an idiot.

Slow - The day of the attack, they were interviewing lots of people on the street in and around the area. One group of people interviewed were sitting at some coffee bar/shop a few blocks away when a large section of the plane's engine came down on the sidewalk/street outside. This was only one of SEVERAL sizeable portions of debris that came directly from the planes that day. Nothing like that at the Pentagon site, however.

-=Vel=-

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Sava
Until you show me the missing Boeing, and other evidence suggesting some other explosive blew up that section of the pentagon... I'm going to say all non-757-impact believers are idiot trolls.

So no one sees in the impact area the 757, and we're the ones who have to show you the missing Boeing? You can't provide evidence that the plane was there, and we have to search it for you?
And we are the idiots? HA!

[Sava]

I'm only calling the people that blindly believe your theory without evidence idiots. If you believe your scenario because of evidence... you aren't an idiot... well at least not because of your belief in that scenario anyways.

I saw footage on CNN of the plane hitting the pentagon... that pretty much convinced me a plane hit the pentagon.

I suppose it could have been computer edited... maybe? but why go to that much trouble? Plus.. how do you explain all the eyewitness accounts of people seeing the plane hit and hearing the plane hit? Did the conpirators have loudspeakers set up blaring low flying Boeing sounds over the speakers?

If you're going to make a case for some f*cked up theory, be prepared to explain everything.

I doubt you are an expert at logistics and crash analyzation. But maybe your theories come from your 20+ years of working at the NTSB... if not... then your theories are the product of your idiot-troll minds.

Thank you... please come again.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Sava
I saw footage on CNN of the plane hitting the pentagon... that pretty much convinced me a plane hit the pentagon.

You mean that CNN already had cameras in position near the Pentagon's perimeter? That sounds interesting!
Could you please provide a link to that footage, so we can all get our doubts clear, and end this conversation once and for all?

[Velociryx]

Sava: I'm not putting forth any theory at all. I'm merely asking questions. If you have seen footage of a plane crashing into the Pentagon, I'd like to see it, because I didn't see it on 9/11, or any time after that. If you have a link, that would answer the question in my mind.

Thus far, however, the only "footage" I have seen of the crash itself was provided by Zealot on the link above. In it, the frame where the plane should have been is missing.

I find that odd, and merely asked why.

I also find it odd that if the plane hit the ground first, and then plowed into the Pentagon, why was the lawn not torn up?

So I asked why.

This is not me fronting some conspiracy theory...this is me curious about how a 757 can crash into the ground and leave no mark.

That you consider the question trollish is...surprising to me.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

I didn't realize none of you have seen this footage.

I saw it on CNN or FoxNews.. I can't remember. It was last week and the footage was from a security camera pointed at the area. I'll try finding it online and I'll post the link.

Basically, you see the plane for like half a second and the it plows into the building about 1 story up and then there's a huge explosion.

There isn't debris scattered everywhere because the plane got annihilated inside the pentagon. When the planes hit the WTC, tons of debris didn't get expelled in the initial hit.

Plus, the pentagon is steel-reinforced concreted with Kevlar coating. It's no wonder debris didn't get scattered.

[Zealot]

You're not talking about this footage, are you?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

And about that coating in the Pentagon's building, well I'm no Engineer, but I believe that the points you made a reference to make exactly the point that the building is so hard, that it would hardly penetrate the building, but would get expelled from it.

[Sava]

Yes, that's the footage... unfortunately the poor quality makes it impossible to see the plane... I now understand your theories. When it was played on the news originally, you could see the plane.

[Velociryx]

Very cool! I'll keep my fingers crossed that you can find the link, cos in truth, I don't LIKE having questions like that floating around in my mind. (and, if you find one from FOX, then you'll make Uncle Wiglaf happy! )

I could buy that, had the plane impacted with the Pentagon first, it'd have been pretty much toasted, but the official line seems to be that it hit the ground first.

Since the ground was the primary (and initial) point of imact, I'm a bit surprised there's not at least something of the plane left there.

-=Vel=-

[SlowwHand]

True. The ground is much less dense than a building.