Dun DUn DUN!

2006-12-05 08:58:35

#1

Fen321: Member; +54|6756|Singularity

So they released another video footage of the Pentagon being hit, but to my surprise there is no plane!

Clicky

Strange angle i must admit, but still no plane footage. Now i understand it being held for so long because of a case against a now convicted terrorist, but i fail to see how this video is going to detract from the sentencing. Any-hoo....serious question though, how does this plane manage to get into this airspace without it being shot down if it was indeed an airplane?

2006-12-05 09:00:12

#2

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6653|The Gem Saloon

you dont know the workings of the air defense around the pentagon and i seriously doubt that anyone else here does......conspiricy...thats all.

2006-12-05 09:01:46

#3

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6626|Columbus, Ohio

DCA is right next to the Pentagon, and Dulles is right down the road, so there is not enough time to make the decision to shoot down an airplane.......at least before 2001 that is.

2006-12-05 09:02:08

#4

King_County_Downy: shitfaced; +2,791|6856|Seattle

Holy christ, here we go again.

Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it

2006-12-05 09:03:40

#5

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6859|132 and Bush

King_County_Downy wrote:
Holy christ, here we go again.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-12-05 09:05:04

#6

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6808|Southeastern USA

Kmarion wrote:
King_County_Downy wrote:
Holy christ, here we go again.

2006-12-05 09:06:04

#7

Fen321: Member; +54|6756|Singularity

Parker wrote:
you dont know the workings of the air defense around the pentagon and i seriously doubt that anyone else here does......conspiricy...thats all.

NORAD + Pentagon = strong like bull

Jet coming out of no where = not plausible

Why not shoot the jet down eh?

Seriously though Airspace is something that is highly guarded by any country what makes you think for a brief moment that that airspace over an important building such as the pentagon is going to be any different. I went there a year after it all happened and they had the place all patched up pretty nice, but what stuck in my head was the fact that the marine giving the tour told of how a friend of his was knocked back due to the blast and he was across the street at Arlington cemetery. SKETCH

2006-12-05 09:10:07

#8

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6808|Southeastern USA

and what do you think the public reaction to shooting down a passenger liner would be? people like you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that they had no way of knowing the jet was to be used as a weapon and would be suing the govt.

PS, it's hard to get to reagan international airport without going by the pentagon, the white house, or any of the rest of DC for that matter.

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-12-05 09:11:31)

2006-12-05 09:10:19

#9

Fen321: Member; +54|6756|Singularity

King_County_Downy wrote:
Holy christ, here we go again.

sorry wasn't aware of this video footage being already been posted on this forum, my apologies.

2006-12-05 09:13:49

#10

Fen321: Member; +54|6756|Singularity

kr@cker wrote:
and what do you think the public reaction to shooting down a passenger liner would be? people like you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that they had no way of knowing the jet was to be used as a weapon and would be suing the govt.

People like me...after i just finished stating to shoot the damn plane down. Nice.

no way of know the jet was being used as a weapon...if that's true then how the hell did the over flight mange to have passengers calling love ones haha i fucking love it they can call on that flight but this one no one had a phone ;(

2006-12-05 09:14:33

#11

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6626|Columbus, Ohio

kr@cker wrote:
and what do you think the public reaction to shooting down a passenger liner would be? people like you would be screaming at the top of your lungs that they had no way of knowing the jet was to be used as a weapon and would be suing the govt.

PS, it's hard to get to reagan international airport without going by the pentagon, the white house, or any of the rest of DC for that matter.

Yep, If you pull up the approach charts for the arrival and departure procedures for DCA, IAD, and BWI, then compare them to pre- 9/11 charts, it is a whole different ball game now.

2006-12-05 09:15:30

#12

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6814

It was those darn Russkies.

2006-12-05 09:15:39

#13

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6626|Columbus, Ohio

Fen321 wrote:
if that's true then how the hell did the over flight mange to have passengers calling love ones haha i fucking love it they can call on that flight but this one no one had a phone ;(

What?

2006-12-05 09:18:16

#14

Fen321: Member; +54|6756|Singularity

usmarine2007 wrote:
Fen321 wrote:
if that's true then how the hell did the over flight mange to have passengers calling love ones haha i fucking love it they can call on that flight but this one no one had a phone ;(
What?

I'm reffering to the flight that crashed in Pen. They had loved ones that called home...you know "lets roll" big movie about it.

2006-12-05 09:21:16

#15

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6905|Peoria

Fen, you have to understand, there is a government conspiracy to make to the public believe that their is a government conspiracy about 9/11.

2006-12-05 09:21:16

#16

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6808|Southeastern USA

usmarine2007 wrote:
Fen321 wrote:
if that's true then how the hell did the over flight mange to have passengers calling love ones haha i fucking love it they can call on that flight but this one no one had a phone ;(
What?

how's about they had their own cellphones and were in range of cell phone towers? you know, it is possible to talk on a cell phone miles away from the nearest tower, are you saying that in the 21st century no one on that flight had a phone?

2006-12-05 09:22:31

#17

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6905|Peoria

kr@cker wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:
Fen321 wrote:
if that's true then how the hell did the over flight mange to have passengers calling love ones haha i fucking love it they can call on that flight but this one no one had a phone ;(
What?
how's about they had their own cellphones and were in range of cell phone towers? you know, it is possible to talk on a cell phone miles away from the nearest tower, are you saying that in the 21st century no one on that flight had a phone?

I think what he's trying to say is that people on the flight that crashed in Pen. were able to use their cells, but the people on the flight that hit the pentagon were not able to use their cells.

2006-12-05 09:25:23

#18

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6626|Columbus, Ohio

Elamdri wrote:
kr@cker wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:

What?
how's about they had their own cellphones and were in range of cell phone towers? you know, it is possible to talk on a cell phone miles away from the nearest tower, are you saying that in the 21st century no one on that flight had a phone?
I think what he's trying to say is that people on the flight that crashed in Pen. were able to use their cells, but the people on the flight that hit the pentagon were not able to use their cells.

The Pentagon plane passengers did not know what was going on.

2006-12-05 09:25:39

#19

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6808|Southeastern USA

the hijackers turned on the "no electronics" sign

granted the phone companies use "pancake" transmitters so they expend more of their energy transmittin laterally than vertically, but it's still possible to be on a plane and make a phone call, perhaps not at cruise altittude, but the hijackers were flying extremely low as they were using landmarks to steer by.

2006-12-05 09:27:33

#20

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6704|The Land of Scott Walker

Elamdri wrote:
kr@cker wrote:
usmarine2007 wrote:

What?
how's about they had their own cellphones and were in range of cell phone towers? you know, it is possible to talk on a cell phone miles away from the nearest tower, are you saying that in the 21st century no one on that flight had a phone?
I think what he's trying to say is that people on the flight that crashed in Pen. were able to use their cells, but the people on the flight that hit the pentagon were not able to use their cells.

Damn you Cingular! Fewest dropped calls my ass!

2006-12-05 09:35:03

#21

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6859|132 and Bush

Elamdri wrote:
Fen, you have to understand, there is a government conspiracy to make to the public believe that their is a government conspiracy about 9/11.

lol, Southpark

Ok, I watched your Video, now you watch mine.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-05 09:42:38)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-12-05 09:35:25

#22

JohnLeavitt: Member; +16|6702

Ok, so WHERE IS THE FUCKING HUGE JET??? i have seen this video before. this is some major proof for the conspiracy theory ppl. so lets get the facts strait...

supposedly an airliner is driven into the Pentagon... but the video shows no jet...

the hole caused by the "jet" was only 16 feet wide (even though most jets are over 20 feet wide, plus the impact should make the hole bigger)

somehow the entire wing of the pentagon that got hit was closed for construction before the impact so there where minimal government fatalities ...

the wings should have sheared off on impact and been laying on the ground outside the pentagon, there are many engineers that claim this... i was watching the TV that morning and saw ALL the coverage right from the start and there was NO WRECKAGE on the scene at all (that fact hit me as strange even on the morning of the attack)

In My Opinion- the pentagon attack looks more like a cruise missile strike than a suicidal airplane. this has caused me to seriously doubt my government even though i had considered myself a patriot, i had joined the Navy Sea Cadets and was planing on joining the Naval Aviation before 9/11 but the so called attacks have caused me serious doubts... one may argue "what is the point of the government attacking their own country" but look at what this has gained the US government.

1) a massive increase in power through the patriot act and several others...
2) control of an oil rich country...

put together the scene just doesn't look right... make your own conclusions.

Last edited by JohnLeavitt (2006-12-05 09:36:02)

2006-12-05 09:39:33

#23

usmarine2007: Banned; +374|6626|Columbus, Ohio

JohnLeavitt wrote:
the wings should have sheared off on impact and been laying on the ground outside the pentagon, there are many engineers that claim this... i was watching the TV that morning and saw ALL the coverage right from the start and there was NO WRECKAGE on the scene at all (that fact hit me as strange even on the morning of the attack)

There is not test that has ever been done to prove what will happen to an aircraft at that speed and angle of attack. Only theories, which are not good enough for me. I have been in aviation for a while now, and I have no idea why people think these planes are rock solid hunks of steal.

2006-12-05 09:42:45

#24

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6905|Peoria

usmarine2007 wrote:
JohnLeavitt wrote:
the wings should have sheared off on impact and been laying on the ground outside the pentagon, there are many engineers that claim this... i was watching the TV that morning and saw ALL the coverage right from the start and there was NO WRECKAGE on the scene at all (that fact hit me as strange even on the morning of the attack)
There is not test that has ever been done to prove what will happen to an aircraft at that speed and angle of attack. Only theories, which are not good enough for me. I have been in aviation for a while now, and I have no idea why people think these planes are rock solid hunks of steal.

Because people want to think that the planes that are responsible for their lives are as durable as tanks. No one wants to hear/believe that planes are fragile. Same applies to cars.

2006-12-05 09:44:22

#25

Fen321: Member; +54|6756|Singularity

usmarine2007 wrote:
JohnLeavitt wrote:
the wings should have sheared off on impact and been laying on the ground outside the pentagon, there are many engineers that claim this... i was watching the TV that morning and saw ALL the coverage right from the start and there was NO WRECKAGE on the scene at all (that fact hit me as strange even on the morning of the attack)
There is not test that has ever been done to prove what will happen to an aircraft at that speed and angle of attack. Only theories, which are not good enough for me. I have been in aviation for a while now, and I have no idea why people think these planes are rock solid hunks of steal.

Indeed, but you gotta have at least some kind of i dunno wreckage somewhere

BF2S Forums Dun DUn DUN!

King_County_Downy wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

Parker wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

JohnLeavitt wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

JohnLeavitt wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

JohnLeavitt wrote:

Board footer