I'll send the link out tomorrow if you want me to.

Sure. I still have some BW available. It could be good recruitment for FU.

:)

Will do.

Witness the power of Fred Mertz tomorrow;^)

BUMP

I'm going to send it out tomorrow. People will visit and discuss it here.

Bump

Hey,
Pretty good video...it makes sense. Where did the plane go?

I've read several speculative theories but nothing concrete. For a conspiracy to be successful it must be in charge of all the evidence.

Of course I meant that the conspirators must be in charge of the investigation and the evidence. That way they can play show and tell.

btt

bump.

bump

trotline bump

I wish we had some active military members posting theit thoughts on it.....

Why isn't the ground fucked up if the plane hit the ground before it hit the pentagon. Why are there no pictures of turned over cars from the jet wash? Where did the plane go?

How did such big planes do so much damage to the WTC and so little damage to the pentagon? What happened to the wings?







How did that square box make such a big shadow?

maybe they folded the wings up before they hit?

sure are some good pics you posted.

Compare the size of the windows on the plane to those on the buildings and you'll see how badly the scale is off.

ping...this is the shadow I'm talking about

That shadow is consistent with the shadows of the cones.

Ohh no it's not....look at the big square box by the first cone....you see the cones shadow....and then you see the square boxes shadow....but in the shadow it is much larger then the square box and in a different shape up top....

then != than, dammit.

(Dad)

well... not sure what you're trying to say... that it's been edited?

The shadows of the cone and box look correct for the position of the objects and their size - I could raytrace similar objects in lightwave to see if it gives similar results if you want ;)

"...different shape up top..."
Are you referring to the traffic signal lights that are attached to the top of the box?
Or the different shadow shape due to the fact that the box is square at the top so naturally has a different shadow outline than a cone would?

Is that what you're talking about?

Sorry if I misunderstood, I'm just having a little trouble working out what's supposed to be wrong with the pic???

So where is the "real" flight 77????

i am :silenced: for words when it comes to this video althought it doesn't surprise me at all that the government would suppress the truth. eventually the truth will be let out some reporter is going to nail all the unreleased footage and prove what really happend.

I hope so.

This is the most bull that I've heard in a while. Honestly, do you actually think that a missile hit the Pentagon? Think about it...

-An aluminum airplane will not stand up to the concrete, bricks and steel of the Pentagon. While there was penetration, as the author said, through the E, D, C and half of the B ring, it was not an airplane that was penetrating most of that. It was a fireball thrust forward from the momentum of the aircraft. The wings and tail were sheared off on impact, and most likely incinerated since a lot of fuel is in the wings and the tail couldn't have been far away. The nose was reported to have penetrated the B ring (by now, it's definitely not a missile if there's fire and brimstone but the nose is still intact. So where's the nose? Remember that fireball? Yeah, it was right behind it.

-The author seems to think that even though the WTC was attacked by (and this has been confirmed left and right) Al Quaida, on the same day as two other hijackings, the culprit is some sort of missile. Who was firing the missile? The feds? You think that we would actually fire a missile at our own building?

-The points about intact windows, cable spools and unmarked turf are full of holes. First of all, The plane hit the pentagon while still airborne (hence the actual hole, not a doorway). Of course it didn't tear up the turf. He was comparing it to planes that crashed into mountains and the ground. Besides that, if a plane didn't destroy those things, then neither would a missile (and a bomb on the inside is impossible, as security was high enough that somebody would have been caught, and the puncture zones wouldn't have been the way they were). A missle which detonates on impact (a bunker buster would not have been the weapon of choice for practicality reasons) would have most of its force directed on the outside. Those windows would be more likely to break if it was a missile than if it was a plane. Plus, I'm not sure if they were like that in 2001, but now all the windows in the Pentagon are bullet-resistant and blast proof.

-"No remains found". A Boeing 747 or 757 is made up of mostly aluminum, aside from things like plastic and farbric interior. If you ever watch a chemistry class heat up aluminum, it doesn't melt unless under special conditions. It disintegrates once at a very high temperature (jet fuel could easily do the job) and once the exterior was gone, the interior and frame would burn as well, leaving nothing behind. If you don't believe me, think about the staircases in the Pentagon. People on the second floor open staircase doors to be met by a fireball shooting straight up. This was because the jet fuel was hot enough to actually incinerate the IRON OR STEEL that the stairs were made of, making what was essentialy a chimney. Besides, there was nothing that confirmed a missile had hit the building except eyewitness accounts and some mysterious dust (a bomb could have been on the plane as back up).

-When you ask why the World Trade Center suffered such damage while the Pentagon was under control in hours, think about it really hard. The World Trade Center was more or less a stock exchange and office center. Its was also, what, 80 stories high? The plane that hit it (which, by the way, didn't make it either - the plane hit it and a fireball came out the other side)left a huge hole in the metal framing, which was very delicate given the height of the building. The Pentagon is also more or less an office. But it's filled with people our government actually cares about, and whenever you walk through it, you'll find plenty of fire blankets, fire extinguishers, gas masks, etc. The reason the damage was so controlled was because the people inside took action and put out fires. The death and injury toll was much lower in the Pentagon than the twin towers because of this.

-"It sounded like a missile" "It was high and whiny" etc, etc, etc. Drive to your nearest airport and wait for the 757s to fly over you. Sounds pretty loud and whiny, like a missile perhaps. Not to mention that the author of this piece of work put in one quote that was especially degrading to his efforts. "It looked like it was holding 8-12 people" (sic). For the sake of argument, we'll trust a traumatized eyewitnesses testimonial. While a Boeing 747 or 757 certainly holds more than 8 people, a fighter jet or missile bearing aircraft that could slip through without being shot down first would hold less, my guess is a maximum of two people.

-The "renovations" on the Pentagon were not reenforcing the structure. I've gone to the Pentagon, and what they were doing was electric work. The phone lines, power lines, etc that the Pentagon had had been there since the building was first established. It was a large project, but all of the old wires were being replaced. Believe me, that won't help against the impact of a commercial airplane.

-If flight 77 wasn't what hit the Pentagon, then tell me, where is flight 77?

I'm not usually one to deprecate Bush-bashing efforts, but this is just crap.
-Mat

The author seems to think that even though the WTC was attacked by (and this has been confirmed left and right) Al Quaida

Uhhh....no. One crappy video of someone who looks sorta' like Osama's cousin is not "confirmed left and right."

The plane hit the pentagon while still airborne

Yes, hence the huge roostertail of dirt in the parking cam video. (ROTFLMAO)

Besides that, if a plane didn't destroy those things, then neither would a missile

Cetainly. The thousands of videos we saw in Gulf War I where missiles destroyed concrete bunkers are figments of our imagination.

A missle which detonates on impact (a bunker buster would not have been the weapon of choice for practicality reasons) would have most of its force directed on the outside.

Which would explain the huge fireball on the outside.

a bunker buster would not have been the weapon of choice for practicality reasons

Can you elucidate? I would definitely use a bunker buster to bust a granite building.

"No remains found".

Yet they identified the remains of most of the folks who were in the planes the hit the WTC 100 storeys up, and found the unburned passports of the "hijackers'" gimme a break.

But it's filled with people our government actually cares about,

Tells me a lot about you Bushbots.

Drive to your nearest airport and wait for the 757s to fly over you. Sounds pretty loud and whiny, like a missile perhaps.

I live at the end of the runway at a major Air Base. Don't even presume...

-If flight 77 wasn't what hit the Pentagon, then tell me, where is flight 77?

Where is the crew of the Maine? Where are the passengers of the Lusitania? Where are the soldiers on the Arizona?

Sometimes empire requires sacrifices.

The Arizona had Sailors.

Oooops! Sort of a brain typo.

:)

-If flight 77 wasn't what hit the Pentagon, then tell me, where is flight 77?


It wouldn't be hard to fly flight 77 under the radar (when there was so much chaos that day) and ditch it in the ocean or something. I'm not saying that is exactly what happened, but it's most plausible.


Also, if the Plane was flying that low and that fast where are accidents and what not that were caused from low flying turbulence? I don't know what happened, but I see zero evidence of large passenger jet flying into the pentagon.

PM had pics of some wreckage in the yard which were obviously from a comercial airliner.

I never heard a good explanation for those aside from dismissing them as planted.

Something hit the Pentagon.. I'm not convinced it was a 757, however.. But there is commerical aircraft debris there.

Yeah, I saw the photos of what you're talking about.

Where was the tail and what not though? The few scraps of metal was what I saw being carried out. Perhaps you saw different ones?? anyways, the pieces I saw Didn't even have burn marks on them.

I dunno what hit the pentagon, Could be flight 77....? Could be it wasn't. I'm leaning towards it wasn't for the simple fact of lack of wreckage, Lack of damage such as wall structures still standing where the plane supposedly went thru.

Evidence can convince me otherwise I'm open to anything.

"Uhhh....no. One crappy video of someone who looks sorta' like Osama's cousin is not 'confirmed left and right.'"

Explain to me then why Al Quaida has taken so much responsibility for it and the hijackers were linked to Al Quaida.

"Yes, hence the huge roostertail of dirt in the parking cam video. (ROTFLMAO)"

I don't doubt that a plane would kick up plenty of dust while only a matter of feet off the ground. Besides that, if the turf is fine, but there's still a roostertail, then don't even begin to think that a missile rocketing that close to the ground would have a different outcome.

"(ROTFLMAO)"

Shouldn't laugh at your own comments, even if they are ridiculous.

"Cetainly. The thousands of videos we saw in Gulf War I where missiles destroyed concrete bunkers are figments of our imagination."

Of course, it was destroying bunkers. Sounds like a BUNKER BUSTER.

A missle which detonates on impact (a bunker buster would not have been the weapon of choice for practicality reasons) would have most of its force directed on the outside.

But the penetration wouldn't have continued so far inside, and the damage on the outside would have been much more extensive.

"Can you elucidate? I would definitely use a bunker buster to bust a granite building"

If you ever are in Washington DC (and I will be on the 24th for a peace rally, so I'll check as well), then go to the Smithsonian Air and Space museum. They have a bunker buster, and it's giant. Besides which, and I'll assume that we're talking about Al Quaida here, because I have issues believing our government would kill people with money, the people whose lies it strives so hard to cover up... a bunker buster isn't exactly easy to get one's hands on when compared to a missile (which I'm not saying is easy, but all the same, I doubt that they would have used one).

"Yet they identified the remains of most of the folks who were in the planes the hit the WTC 100 storeys up, and found the unburned passports of the "hijackers'" gimme a break."

I'm not refering to the remains of the people in the Pentagon, I'm refering to the plane itself (read the blurb more carefully). And as far as the burnt up passports go, I'd like for you to elaborate on that.

"Tells me a lot about you Bushbots."

"You Bushbots"!? Listen buddy, I'm a liberal, and I hate Bush just as much as you, but that doesn't mean I believe that the governments in some sort of conspiracy to get me. Just because I think that its more likely that four airplanes did the job than three and one missile in the same day doesn't mean I'm a "Bushbot", it means that I'm a realist.

"I live at the end of the runway at a major Air Base. Don't even presume..."

Maybe you have a point, because the planes I hear are by Dover and Charlottesville Air Force bases. All the same, I wouldn't rely on, as I said, traumatized eyewitness accounts.

"Where is the crew of the Maine? Where are the passengers of the Lusitania? Where are the soldiers on the Arizona?
Sometimes empire requires sacrifices."

First of all, that doesn't answer my question. Second of all. the difference here is that your assuming it wasn't even an airplane. We know the Maine blew up, we know the Lusitania was sunk, we know that the Arizona was destroyed. But you're implying that there never was a Flight 77 involved. But there was a Flight 77 existent at one time, so where do you think it is? While Japedo makes a valid point, I'm more eager to believe it was a plane.

Altogether, I'm more willing to believe that four planes hit within the same day (We saw two of them hit, we found the wreckage of the fourth in Pennsylvania) as told to me, unfortunately, by our government (who, believe me, I am always reluctant to believe, but they have quite a few pieces of evidence backing them up) than I am to believe somebody who presented his opinion to a forum in the form of a flash movie.

You haven't countered all of my points, which implies to me that a good portion of them were valid. I'm a little disappointed. Hope to hear more from you.

Altogether, I'm more willing to believe that four planes hit within the same day

Altogether, I'm inclined to agree with you.

So you know, I am not the creator of the video. But, I think it brings up many valid points.

As to plane vs. missile, I lean towards plane. That lean is due to Occam's razore as opposed to any physical evidence. If you are going to have to destroy the plane anyway, you may as well smack it into the building.

There are still plenty of valid questions. At the WTC we identified tons of remains. Where are the identifications of remains of passengers at the Pentagon? Have any remains of Barbara Olsen been identified?

My allusion to the Maine, etc. was to show that our government is more that willing to capitalize on the death of its citizens, and even kill its own citizens, in order to justify engaging in profitable wars. The Maine and Gulf of Tonkin were fortuitous events that were capitalized om. The Lusitania and Pearl were instances of our government willfully sacrificing citizen's lives in order to gin up American blood lust.

There has been so little evidence given regarding 9/11 that it is always going to be open to speculation.

As for Al Qaeda taking credit, I am waiting for them to claim credit for Katrina. Terrorist groups love to take credit for stuff they didn't do. Also, keep in mind that the bin Laden and Bush families have been business partners for decades. That would explain why a SEAL team hasn't come back with Osama's head in a bag. Odds are he will die of natural causes at a ripe old age.

PS. I apologize for the derision, and the Bushbot comment. I just assumed (I know, I know...) that because you are supporting the admin side, that you are a Bushbot. Six years ago I would have called you a Clintonoid for supporting the gummint.

I know it's wrong.

Water under the bridge. Some people believe things along these lines, while others don't. I apologize for my attack too. I was a little heated as it was on both of my comments. We both make valid points, and for whatever we can't work out, I think we should just agree to disagree. Glad to see a fellow liberal taking action, though.

I don't know that I could be considered a fellow liberal, other than maybe a social liberal.

I am more of the gun totin' libertarian bent. I'm liberal in the idea that you have the right to do whatever you want, as long as you aren't hurting anyone. I'm conservative when it comes to fiscal issues. The gummint does not have the right to spend one thin dime on anything not expressly authorized by the constitution.

And, I have a very deep tinfoil hat streak whenever I see the government hiding facts about important events.

;)

Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building

ill check out the video. Thanks for the info. Also put this in google and find another interesting video

no plane pentagon cnn

watch that clip for some more light on the subject.

Welcome to FU!

Welcome to Freedom Underground!

Excellent find. I downloaded it with bittorrent. I was looking for an online version. Thanks for the link. This may even deserve its own thread.

Thanks for having an open mind and welcome to FU.

Wow, quick response, heh.. Thanks for the welcoming. I came upon this site looking for this flash video to show my family. I viewed it a long while back and just remembered it today, with all the talk of 9/11. Though I still am not 100% sure it is a "conspiracy" or just a rumor, I may be leaning towards the idea of it being a conspiracy. Some shocking footage, and more knowledge of what kind of person G.W.Bush is, hah.

here is a list of good movies on the subject

"911 in plane site"
"911 the road to tyranny"

www.infowars.com

ill post you some more later. Nice to meet you.