Video

Your comments please. :rolleyes:

Most of the links on that site lead to nowhere.

Did you see the video? It's a direct link.

I wasn't asking about the site it is on.

Do you have any comments on the video?

Nothing new. It would take a while for the floors to crumble and planes fly at hundreds of miles per hours so there tends not to be much left after a crash, especially if it is straight into a building. Besides, there is footage of the plane hitting.

It's certainly fakeable if the info is incorrect.

There is footage of the plane hitting? The only footage I have seen is something unidentifiable (either flying extremely low or perhaps it was just something on the camera lens) and then there's a big explosion.

Did you notice all the light posts in front of the Pentagon? Amazing how a low-flying airliner could avoid hitting those with its wings. And, like the WTC planes, those pilots sure were top-ace gung ho experts. To think that they only trained in Cessna-type aircraft (4-seater).

its not that hard to crash into the wtc. i mean come on enough with the conspiricy theories. and btw there is footage of all of these events

Well, show the footage then!

And why is it you people have no comment to what Jamie McIntyre says he saw close up?

It's not hard to crash into the Pentagon, dodging those light posts? If you say so... :rolleyes:

Well the plane didn't skim along the ground for miles did it? It just piled into the building (which is really quite large and hard to miss).

EDIT: SPAG

Are you familiar with handling characteristics of large airliners?

You don't just 'dive into a target' like those dive bombers do in the movies.

For a large airliner to hit the Pentagon you need to have an approach similar to a landing. According to the official story (as shown in computer animation on National Geography) the plane went 'straight in,' nose first into the wall. Meaning they did skim the ground. Otherwise the plane would have hit the Pentagon with its underside, nose pointing up. The Pentagon may be large but it's not that high in relation to a big airliner. So it's amazing they still hit the wall, instead of 'touching down' on the part with the biggest 'hit-chance:' the roof.

And why did CNN Pentagon-reporter Jamie McIntyre say he could not find any piece of wreckage that indicated a large airliner had crashed? Why didn't McIntyre see any parts of the wings or tail?

im very farmilier with the handling charachteristicsof large airplanes. Why you might ask. because my dad flies the exact type of planes that crashed into the building. He flies for american airlines. So if you want i could call him right now since he is working. and he could explain those charachterisitics for you? :bye:

que?

spelling, punctuation and grammar methinks. or possibly a delicious dish with long strands of pasta, mince and vegetables in a tomato-based sauce.

mmm spag bol. delish.

LOL

I seriously doubt your dad flies anything remotely resembling the plane that hit the Pentagon. Btw, does he also have to dodge light posts on his approach frequently?

I showed you the CNN-footage. Where's the footage of the plane actually hitting the Pentagon? You said it exists, so show it why don't ya.

Still waiting for your comment on Jamie McIntyre's report from the Pentagon site... :rolleyes:

>>Let me just make clear again what I am asking in this thread of those who have watched the video link in my first post: what is your comment on Jamie McIntyre's report on that video?<<

This Video

Hmm, IF the Pentagon was not hit by a plane but say by a US launched missile, did they have a plan and plane ready in case someone else attacks with planes in other parts of the country so to cover any such attack?
I do not buy the whole 9/11 (whole or part) was fake. If you want to see lies just look a bit further *cough* Iraq *cough*.

Punch's dad DOES fly those Planes. Why else would he claim that? Duh.

Why do you care? The fact is that both the pentagon and the WTC were hit by planes.

I just threw a small log against my house's walls. It scratched the paint. Bomb Iraq!

So far, none of you have commented on McIntyre's report on the video.

Listen to what the man is actually saying. Is he blind or what? Why would he say that?

CNN Video

Is it too much what I'm asking for? Your comments please on the statement of the reporter in the video. :rolleyes:

Yes, well that certainly does convince me. :whistle:

We just like to flame US way too much, and have no patience for downloading videos. :bleh:


I'll take a look at it when I'm not so busy.

hay micro ive brought this idea up before here its on a documentary called in plane site and i indeed suggest that a bowwing 747 (cant spell today) hit the pentagon ive seen plane crashes in the news they leave a huge mess what i suggest is its a smaller plane or even perhaps a large missle a tommahawk perhaps also dont you think some sevurity cameras would have any sort of footage of this well ive seen some of 1 cam thats the only one they had working and it said the crash happened on 12 (and the plane wanst bowwing 747 size it was jet sized) (in the lower right you know how cameras put dates on footage) not on the 11th so doesnt this add any questions and why cant we get any answers

Well Shunk, I am not speculating in this thread. I am merely asking people to watch the video and tell me what they think of the reporter's statement. But thanks for your reply anyway.

If people can't download the video because they're on dial-up, let me know and I will understand. But please, refrain from speculation or other comments. I just want to know why a CNN reporter, live from the Pentagon shortly after the plane hit, would make such a statement.

CNN Video

Damnit Punch's Dad DOES fly the friggin planes. He knows what he is talking about. Don't insult me by not believing it. I know Punch outside of Abandonia. DUH.

WHO GIVES A DAMN.

The reporter doesn't matter squat. They have the records of the planes being hijacked. They WERE hijacked. And then they crashed in to the 3 buildings.

You'd think people would notice if it wasn't a plane.

Thank you for your comment regarding the video, seriously. :ok:

Jamie McIntyre for one seemed to notice there may not have been a plane.

So, where is the plane footage and where are the witness reports?

CNN Video

Why does it matter if there was a plane for the Pentagon or not? I wouldn't care if it was a huge flying purple hippo. There definitely were 2 Planes that crashed into the WTC. I am prepared to ignore the Pentagon just for that.

I have never seen that reported ever. (Exceot now). I have no idea if that is real footage anyhow. Is voice and image can just be dubbed over it.

i remeber being glued to the tv as the reports were coming in. i dont remeber seing any plane wreckage outside the pentegon. the reosen it matters whether the pentegon hit was real or not is becuse if it wasnt real it asks a very nasty question about the rest of the days events.

Erm, may I ask a very stupid question? Who IS Jamie McIntyre? Anyone I should know?:unsure:

I believe it's the reporter. :whistle:

Well, yes, but I mean is this reporter a particularly reliable source for some reason?

#1. I beleive the reporter he works for CNN.
#2 @yobor . seriously dont get worked up over it.
#3. actually I agree with what yobor said Who cares about the pentagon there were 2 planes that hit the world trade centers and thats enough for me

Well there won't be any wreckage outside the pentagon as the plane went into the pentagon. And obviously the US goverment is not about to let some random reporter poke around it the wreckage of a building containing some of America's most important miltiary secrets.

Has anyone read that Clancy book involving the white house and the same idea?

As it says, you can fire a stinger at a 747, but it might as well have been a spitball.

The Air Force would have a hard time shooting down a passenger jet and it would be a PR nightmare in any case.

Perhaps some kind of gigantic net is in order...

Or mind control of the cabin crew.

why the cabin crew? :blink:

The plan US Air Force were in the air and ready to deal with any other planes that might be hijacked (though none more were), their plan was to kamikaze into the planes. As they didn't have enough time to arm the planes with missiles.

BTW, "facts" from Tom Clancy books are to be taken with a pinch of salt in my experience ;) ditto with Dan Brown.

Because an ample supply of salted peanuts and soft drinks is crucial for any terrorist attack, of course. :D

uhh... works for me ^_^

Ample supply? Those tiny bags of nuts and nasty reheated plastic food wouldn't keep a terrorist going for more than an hour - let alone a Carthaginian elephant handler.

that is exactly the point. they die from starvation.

Are you people on the internet!? Who is Jamie McIntyre?

Again, I am asking of you who have not commented yet, what is your comment on McIntyre's report live from the Pentagon shortly after the attack?

Please refrain from making trivial remarks that could be considered as spam.</span>

Your comments, please:

<a href=\'http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/index.html\' target=\'_blank\'>CNN Video</a>

How to shoot down a 747: this is indeed a tricky one since a 747 has four engines. To succesfully shoot it down, all engines need to be taken out by missiles. I believe this would be possible if the pilot(s) fired their missiles in two rows. So the first time they hit two engines, the second time they hit the remaining two. The reason for firing two times is because if you fire four missiles at once, their heat-seekers could zero in on the same engine. And I believe a 747 already in the air could theoretically remain in the air running on just one engine.

To shoot down a 757 or 767 is a whole lot easier since these planes have only two (2) engines.

<span style=\'color:green\'>Regarding the plane disappearing entirely into the Pentagon: I have seen the digital recreation on National Geographic where they claimed the plane went into the Pentagon too. The problem with the plane going into the Pentagon is this: the Pentagon was built like a giant bunker, with each outer ring having two reinforced solid concrete walls on both sides. Not at all like the WTC, which is almost entirely glass on the outside.

And where is the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon?

WTF does shooting a 747 down has anything to do with what happened in the Pentagon?

I watched the video, I actually have read reports much earlier (than this thread that is) saying more or less the same thing. The problem is I do not trust reporters for some time now. I don't know this guy, I do not usualy get my news from CNN. IF he is correct in the report, and since thousands of people would already know that no plane hit the building, how come none of them has spoken yet? Who attacked the Pentagon and as I asked you, who ever else might have, was he/they praying for an attack to cover their own attack at the pentagon? What is the logic and explanation for any other reason for the explosion?
Also, were there no people on the plane that crashed on that building? Are they not missing? Isn't the plane missing either?
If a bunch of guys managed to take hold of 3 planes, why not 4 or 5?

Who is Jamie McIntyre?

Perhaps people were asking why the plane that hit the Pentagon wasn't shot down. Remember it first circled the Pentagon before impacting, or so the official story goes.

Whoa, a lot of questions. Remember, I am only questioning the existence of a plane at the Pentagon. If I had all the answers, I wouldn't be asking that, would I? So be my guest, stick with the official story. Just another question on the official story: where are the bodies of the passengers that perished as their plane hit the Pentagon?

Speculation: if no plane hit the Pentagon, it could have been a guided missile. Especially since an ordinary airliner is entirely made of lightweight aluminium, not intended to pierce three outer rings (six reinforced concrete walls) as the official story goes. A guided missile that was built to destroy bunkers would be a more logical explanation to explain the damage at the Pentagon and the lack of debris, pieces of the tail section, wheels, luggage.

Where are the missing planes? I don't know. I can guarantuee however they will not miraculously turn up at some point. In other words: they were disposed of, speculation: who knows, they could have been flown into the Atlantic Ocean.

Why have no other people spoken out yet? They may have, but in America it's a simple matter of controlling the mainstream media. Note that the media would not release or repeat videos like the one posted on this thread.

Who was behind the attack on the Pentagon? Speculation: it could be the military industrial complex themselves. At least they have the technology.

Closed as requested by the FBI
They were alarmed due to the amount of USA conspiracy posts.