Pentagon Strike

What really happened to the Pentagon on 9/11?

I came across this just now, and it's kind of freaky. I wonder how valid this is, though. It does, however, make me think of something that my old band's bassist said: "my friend who is in the military said that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down by a military jet. They just made up all that stuff about the people on board to make everyone feel better about it." I don't really have much of a problem with that, but I wonder what good this type of cover-up would do.
Wow, that's really interesting. I can't imagine why they would lie if it had been a missile rather than an airplane. :? Both are equally horrifying. Maybe they think an American target being hit by a missile would be a scarrier thought for the public to handle. Wouldn't a missile have easily destroyed the entire building? It seemed like the damage was (relatively) minimal. I don't know what to make of that.
the damage there seemed pretty big for a small missile... a nuke would wipe it out, sure.. a normal warhead, nah.. i think that would be alright.. (didn't watch the thing, but i asume it's the flashfilm with the text that flies by a bit too fast, right?)

my guess would be that if the people knew this was a missile (asuming it was) they would be very scared because if they have one missile they might have many. and that would give them the capability to attack again at any time, maybe with nukes even. If it was just planes that attacked, they would feel secure by the airport security being bumped up.

edit: just watched it and it's the one i was thinking of.. but either this version has been slightly edited or i've just gotten better at reading fast in 2 days =P
Satori had posted this already:

As Mac said the text switches too quickly, but if understood the stuff correctly, it was supposed to be a small plane, not a missile (or a large passenger jet). The damage to the Pentagon somehow seems to support this theory. But, isn't another passenger jet missing? Where did it go then?
bossel wrote....
But, isn't another passenger jet missing? Where did it go then?

That's just what I was thinking. Four full-sized planes were destroyed that day. If one of them didn't crash into the Pentagon, then where did it go?

it was supposed to be a small plane, not a missile (or a large passenger jet).

If it wasn't a missle, why would the Pentagon want to hide the fact that it was a small plane?
thomas said:
For those who love conspiracies
Nice links! According to some US Christian fundamentalists everything strange going on in this world today is a great conspiracy of free masons (or illuminati). The French are heavily involved as well, because the glass pyramid at the louvre has 666 panes (it has not, & I notified the site owner about this, but no reaction). :D

The Pentagon impact does look strange though. But damned if I know what to make of it. As Brooker said, why would the Bushites try to hide it?
Thanks for the link, Brooker. Yeah, that does a good job of explaining everything. As was said before, it just doesn't make sense that there would be a cover-up of that nature.

bossel said:

Oops, sorry about that. I'll merge the threads. :sorry:
Hey, thanks for merging the threads, Glenn. And thanks to Thomas for all of those great links!

Frankly, I didn't find the Snopes link very convincing. First of all, they are relying on Rumsfield's statements to make their case? Oh, please!! Now there's a fair and impartial source. :rolleyes:

And here's a comment in the Snopes link about those of us who believe there was, indeed, a conspiracy with respect to the events of 9/11:

"This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."

I don't know of anyone who is "happy" about the fact that we have a bunch of Nazis who strong-armed their way into a presidency that wasn't earned, who created a major catastrophe so that many, many American lives were lost, who were immediately hell-bent on shredding the constitution and throwing away our freedoms, who then declared war on other parts of the world, who have alienated us from the rest of the world, and who are not only a menace to the American people but to the world at large--all so that they can make a lot of money. How is that supposed to make any of us "happy"???

When Bush first stole the election right before our very eyes, I was in absolute shock. I couldn't believe he was getting away with that. I mean, it's not like our country hasn't rigged elections in other countries before, but it was certainly the first time I had ever seen it happen in this country. I had a neighbor at the time who was 80 years old, and the two of us used to talk about the political situation in the U.S. We couldn't get over the fact that the Bush Administration seemed so confident and cocky, and how fast they were moving once in office. However, the more Bush spoke in front of the cameras (without a prepared speech), the more the public began to view him as a complete dufus. His ratings dropped dramatically. Also, facts were surfacing about the fact that Bush did not really win the election after all. Then 9/11 happened, and everything changed. He stepped forward as the puppet of his father's old regime, appearing to be some type of "leader" at a time of crisis. My neighbor had fought in WWII and had lived through the first McCarthy era. It was appalling how all of the freedoms that so many men and women gave life and limb for were being arbitrarily tossed aside by Bush & Co., as though they had no meaning at all. Then we watched in horror as Ashcroft immediately put through the U.S. Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc., and even tried to implement Operation TIPS. The New McCarthyism had emerged in this country, and it's been growing ever since.

When 9/11 happened, the first question I asked myself was the same question I would ask with any crime that has been committed: Who stands to benefit the most? Osama? Yes, somewhat. Bush & Co.? Absolutely, and more than anyone else. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that something like this has been used to further one party's agenda. Believe me, I wish I was wrong and that someone would come along and prove me wrong, but so far that hasn't happened. Quite the contrary. The more information that is revealed about Bush and 9/11, the more I am convinced that the men who surround him, in concert with others, were somehow responsible for that tragedy. I don't think Bush himself was responsible, as he's too stupid. But I definitely think the men who surround him were involved. Sometimes I think that maybe it was just a "happy accident" in their eyes and that they had nothing to do with it. But then I look at the facts again, and that just doesn't fit. There's something very disturbing about all of this.

At first I thought I was maybe jumping to conclusions because I was reading Robert Ludlum's The Prometheus Deception when 9/11 occurred. Anthrax attacks, etc. But the reality is far worse and much more frightening than any piece of fiction. :eek2:

The other night while researching information on Hitler for another thread, I stumbled upon this bit of info.:

After Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933, he moved quickly to turn Germany into a one-party dictatorship and to organize the police power necessary to enforce Nazi policies. He persuaded his Cabinet to declare a state of emergency and end individual freedoms, including freedom of press, speech, and assembly. Individuals lost the right to privacy, which meant that officials could read people's mail, listen in on telephone conversations, and search private homes without a warrant. Hitler also relied on terror to achieve his goals.

Gee, sound familiar? :eek2:

With respect to the "Pentagon Strike" video, I agree that the words flash across the screen a little too quickly. In fact, I have had to watch it a few times in order to read all of it. I even clicked on the "Website" button on the bottom righthand corner of the screen in one shot, which brought up this page:

Here are some quotes from that site:

According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the above described "smart missile guidance system."

The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 ?C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft.

Well, if that's the official story, then why is it that metal reinforcing inside the Pentagon didn't melt? You can see from the pictures of the inside, there's all kinds of metal hanging from the ceiling and on the floor. And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down? It just doesn't add up.

As it happens, a correspondent had an interesting encounter on a train. In his own words:

"I met a gentleman that was of Jamaican descent who said he was an artist by trade. He was heading back home to Washington. I have no reason to doubt the man's story as he seemed very sincere and told it "as a matter of fact."

"He said that when he heard on the radio of his car about the WTC event that the tension around the capital was rising, he was on his cell phone talking to other people while he drove. He was in viewing distance of the Pentagon at the time of the attack and he saw TWO planes in the air, one of them being a "small commuter type jet" but he didn't id the other plane. He said it was this smaller plane that hit the Pentagon, so it could have been laced with explosives and remote controlled in by that other plane (reports were of a C-130 in the area as I recall)."

Or it could have been "launched" by another plane.

And we come back to the idea that it is extremely likely that a plane that had onboard smart missile guidance system that can literally turn corners and hit the target with such precision that it is amazing was used.

And we consider this carefully and the only answer that presents itself as obvious is that of the necessity for precision.

And theorizing that precision was a major concern - precision of the type that can hit an exact window on a designated floor and do an exact and designated amount of damage - we realize that LIMITING the damage to a specific and pre-designated area was the major concern.

... you can be assured that hitting the Pentagon would very likely be seen as essential to divert attention AWAY from individuals within our own military organizations as possible conspirators. Once you have a good handle on the disinformation and COINTELPRO machines, you will understand why a strike against the Pentagon was important not only for the ALIBI, but for the EMOTIONAL IMPACT on the public. After all, if the buildings that represent not only our status in the world, but also our ability to maintain that status - i.e. our military organization - are hit by terrorists, then the emotional reaction of the people will naturally be that we not only have a right to strike back with all our power, but also that we MUST. They will also not look at the possibility of a "home conspiracy" because - after all - the Pentagon WAS a target, right?!

The information on that page was very good. However, whenever I followed some of the links provided in that story, it led me to some information that was pretty "out there," in my opinion, and I didn't care for all of the information. There are true conspiracies that do take place, and then there are conspiracies that paranoid people seem to invent. And some of those links led to the latter, IMO. I think some of it was what Bossel had referred to, such as New World Order, etc. :rolleyes: As I read some of that stuff, all I could think was, Hmmm ... somebody hasn't been taking their medication! I mean, that stuff was really "out there!" :eek2:

But I absolutely loved the links Thomas provided, especially the last one. I spent an entire evening reading those. And here is the question asked in the last link, and that I still ask myself today:

AND, the question is.... The automatic response to all this goes to the fate of the actual aircraft & occupants ? the real mystery, in all this. Raw guestimation is the only response available, for the moment. The planes and occupants are gone; in some fashion. Did the aircraft actually take off? Who can be certain? If they did, where did they go? What of the people?

Seriously, what happened to all of the people who boarded Flight 77? Where did they and their plane go? While I don't believe it crashed into the Pentagon, I would sure as hell like to know where it did go. :eek2: Anyone else have any ideas or thoughts on this matter? Or do most or all of you believe that there was no conspiracy or coverup at all?

Also, in one of the links Thomas provided, it mentioned the possibility that there were detonations set off in the bottom of the WTC towers. That was my first feeling when I watched those towers collapse. Many years ago, I witnessed a controlled demolition of a downtown building. Explosives were planted in the basement, and the area was roped off for about two blocks. If done properlly, the building will collapse, one layer at a time. If not, bricks and debris can fly outwards for quite a distance, injuring anyone nearby. The way the twin towers collapsed was exactly like a controlled, detonated demolition properly done. Afterwards, I was told that they collapsed due to the heat from the fuel of the planes and that the steel melted from the heat, so I scrapped that idea, thinking, Well, what do I know? I'm certainly no expert. But then when I was reading one of those links, it talked about the very thing I originally suspected! Hmmm ...

Last edited:
conspiracy? try facts. if its printed on the internet is has to be true.
News Flash !!!

On todays Internet News(IT MUST BE TRUE, IT"S POSTED ON THE INTERNET!) we learned the infamous gipper was captured while using a local library's PC to invade a "FAMOUS" Forum and spread havoc! He was captured and returned to the "HOME" he escaped from!

You heard this "TRUE FACT" on Internet news, it has to be true!!

Goodbye gipper, we will miss you!!


Satori said:
Frankly, I didn't find the Snopes link very convincing. First of all, they are relying on Rumsfield's statements to make their case? Oh, please!! Now there's a fair and impartial source. :rolleyes:
Actually, I think the Snopes article is quite convincing. For the most part I can agree with it. What I have my doubts of are the wings. I have some problems to imagine them breaking, sticking to the fuselage & then being dragged into the building. I still would expect a lot of debris on the outside. But I'm not an expert on aviation technology, hence I don't know if & how this would work.

Since I don't see any reason why the US government would have to attack the Pentagon, I stick to the commonly accepted explanation. After the WTC attacks there would have been absolutely no reason to attack other targets as well, if it would be a conspiracy. In defending the war on terror, almost noone speaks of the Pentagon or the other crashed flight. WTC is reason enough, it seems.

BTW, Satori: If you watch the pictures of the WTC going down, you can see how the upper floors come down & there is a little holdup around the floors where the planes hit. Then you see these floors giving in & the whole thing collapses. To me it didn't look like it was some explosions on lower floors that did it.
I just don't understand how people can believe such conpiracy theories, is it because they want to blame Bush for everything?
The link I posted satisfied me that the story we've all heard is true. The Pentagon and the World Trade Center were made out of very different material, of course the crashes would look different. The Pentagon was made out of concrete and steel, the outside of the WTC was much less solid. Also, airplanes are made out of aluminum. It seems plausable that the plane went into the building and burned up from all the fuel. The reason there's so much debris when a plane crashes in a field, is that the fire can disperse. But the biggest thing is that four passenger planes full of people disappeared that day. If one of them didn't crash into the Pentagon, then where is it? In Bush's basement?
I do still have some questions, though. The article didn't mention anything about the Pentagon lawn being intact, even though it states that the plane hit the ground first. Where did the plane hit the ground, if not on the lawn? What about the incompetent pilots? I suppose that their story could have been made up, but there was no explanation offered in the article. And lastly, what about the path that the plane took to the Pentagon? Was it not assumed to have passed over the highway? There was nothing mentioned about that, either. In all, though, the article does do a good job of explaining everything, and I tend to believe it, if only it's because I want to believe it.
Well, I'm glad everyone else is pretty much satisfied with the explanation given by the Snopes article, as well as our present administration. Wish I could say the same, but I can't. I'm not convinced at all. There are too many inconsistencies for me to believe any of that. Glenn mentioned a couple of them--the ground surrounding the Pentagon and the trajectory and height of the plane just prior to impact. A Boeing 757 flying at that height through the area and not creating extensive damage in the process? Another was the fact that the plane debris that was found on the Pentagon lawn didn't even belong to a Boeing 757. It belonged to a completely different type of aircraft, yet everyone claimed it was the missing debris.

Frank, thanks for that update!! Earlier, I saw "gipper" as the new member around here and thought to myself, How much do you want to bet that name means trouble?! Later I came back to the forum, read some of his comments, rolled my eyes and was going to disapprove of one of them but found I couldn't because he's already been banned! Boy, that has to be the fastest join and ban I've ever seen!! :D You guys are good!! Guess my initial assumption about him was right, huh? Now, let's just hope I'm wrong about my other theories in this thread!! :eek2: :eek2:
Glenn wrote....
The article didn't mention anything about the Pentagon lawn being intact, even though it states that the plane hit the ground first. Where did the plane hit the ground, if not on the lawn?

They did. They said it hit the helicopter landing pad.

What about the incompetent pilots?

They probably said they were incompetent pilots because they never paid attention during landing training.

This thread has been viewed 2672 times.