911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77 Videos

neilzep Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Chukasia get medicated dork!Wasnt a inside job,we just our ass kicked by the radicals get over it war mongrel,paranoid douche bag.

USAFFEKC10 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Wow, it never fails to amaze me how many conspiracy theories exist about this. But, the Pentagon theory takes the cake for me. These conspiracy types want you to look at a picture with spools of cable and some bomb-proof window that didn't break and draw the conclusion that a plane didn't hit the building. Do these people think the govt. brainwashed a gridlocked hwy full of approx 600 witnesses into lying about seeing a large jet crash into the pentagon? Really?!

USAFFEKC10 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - I'm going to believe the 600 witnesses over your still photograph any day.

LastCynicStanding Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - The 600 witnesses including the owner of the hotel? It's funny how that guy just shut up after he wasted all that money on getting his tapes back.

vulcanvisitor Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Go to vulcanvisitor!!!

chipelly Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - i'm still wondering, what happened to the wings exactly? the wings filled with fuel, that is. the wings that would have exploded into the building and left a wide swathe of damage instead a more concentrated hole.anyone know?

kilez666 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - i wachted that cvidea a thosand times and never saw a plane on it tell now

fsjake Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - you want a motive? ok the govermont attack the WTC, tell the american public that terrorists did it then they have the country backing the army to invade iraq and iraq is covered in oil fields. oh and btw how hard is it to get a room put sum iraqi material around dress a man up and have him speek iraqi to a low quality camera confessing that the terrorist did it. oh and btw i suggest u watch the films that can be found on youtube called "loose change" it describes the events on 9/11 in detail.

nandocosta09 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - the pentagon have only one video security cam around the building?? the plan touch where on the lamp pole??

NYCRailRevolution Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - "McCain is making a come-back in swing states". I bet he is. A big Diebold/ES&S come-back. Everyone knows the Republicans have sold out their brand. McCaput. The media is trying to prepare us to not be shocked when McCain wins 51/49 in the swing states due to the vote swapping software scam. If they steal this next election rifles are coming out. The resistance is real. If you plan to steal our elections you had best arm yourselves.

alwaleed5 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - It is mission impossible to keep this tons of steel body that close to the ground! its rarely that close in acrobat small aircraftsso how it could be that close with such big bodysecond of all the Pentagon with all of its MAXIMUM security stuff are that cheap they don't have a better cameras than that crappy eye camera at the security booth!!!

MuckupAgain Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Ground effect isn't some 'magic barrier' or some mysterious force that drags aircraft into the ground. It's imply a reduction in lift-induced drag that occurs as an aircraft approaches closer than 1 wingspan from the ground.Since when were building/perimeter security cameras designed to capture footage of high speed (700ft/s+) objects? Their primary role is to capture pedestrian and vehicular traffic (70ft/s max) and record it at 2 - 4 frames/sec.

whodoweshoot Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - pentagon has round about 300 high speed cams all over the property. these cheap hispeed cams can capture anything that moves..pedestrians?, running through the main doors of the pentagon..., with a bombs in their hands?... no, the cia is not really that stupid. rather, a planned attack would be expected to come from the sky, as it also happend. and for that reason, at least 80 cams should have shown this.

whodoweshoot Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - it is not possible, for a com. airliner to fly 500 mph. 10 feet off the ground. the distance is at least 30 feet above the ground..the impact zone is even closer to earth..show me one comercial pilot, who would accept the nist theory...

solarday Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - I agree that's would take one seriously skilled pilot (never mind a terrorist) to crash like that. I reckon your average Red Bull pilot would have difficulty handling an airliner at those speeds and height. Another feeble explanation. What I don't get is that Washington has millions of people in it and no one seams to have seen this airliner diving in from the sky. Oh, sorry, it was flying 30ft odd feet off the floor at the last stages of flight so couldn't be seen. Come on please.

CxCOXitvpD8 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - muckupagain,Still here spreading lies, eh?Guess the paranoids at the pentagon figured the most likely attack would be a walk-up, not a missile, so, like the military, they dumbed down the cams!How do you sleep at night?

CxCOXitvpD8 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - ps, you still have not shown that the "C" was legally moved.The image of the FBI carrying stuff does not show him moving the "C" piece and the image has no fides; we don't know who took it, when they took it, and who authrized its publishing.We have agreed it wasn't there at 10:06 when the crime occured.

MuckupAgain Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - "Still here spreading lies, eh?"Feel free to post something to back up that accusation, or retract it. Baseless accusations are, after all, the backbone of CTer strategy.

MuckupAgain Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - PS you've yet to prove that it was planted as part of a criminal act.The photographic evidence clearly shows that wreckage from the scene was being gathered and removed from the site (by FBI/NTSB investigators) at the time the 'C' piece was first pictured. Occam's razor, time and again, would support the 'C' piece having been moved there from it's original location during that clear-up.Unless you can show a pick-up or similar dropping off that and other wreckage?

MuckupAgain Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Would you happen to be a recently banned youtube-r, now resurrected under a different identity?Is that you, Goldie?

CxCOXitvpD8 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Every comment you post.

CxCOXitvpD8 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - nope, muckupagain,The proof that it wasn't there at the time of the crime is complete.Those claiming a legal move have the burden.ps, every legally released pentagon image has an authority for release with it.Where is that one?

CxCOXitvpD8 Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Your invetigative skills stink as bad as your lies.

MuckupAgain Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - "The proof that it wasn't there at the time of the crime is complete"All you have is proof that it was moved to that location, but not from where it was moved. You're making a leap and concluding that the wreckage was planted, yet you have no proof of that act.On the other hand, we have clear proof that the FBI/NTSB did remove wreckage from the scene as part of it's investigation. That required the wreckage to be moved from one location to another. That's more a 'step' than a huge 'leap'

MuckupAgain Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - But my investigative skills are pretty good ;-)Sorry, i couldn't resist....new youtube account,a self evident idiot posting the same tired CTer BS about planted evidence (always the first point of attack,otherwise the whole conspiracy theory falls down the pan),i'll wager that we've seen you on here before under a different name and that you got booted for foolish behaviour like posting someone's address or some-such!