Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pentagon Releases 5 Security Camera Pics of Plane Hitting Pentagon
FOX News ^ | March 7, 2002 | John Gibson

Posted on 03/07/2002 1:15:17 PM PST by codebreaker

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:32:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Just saw them on air, you can see the tail of the plane in the 2nd photo.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: airseclist; anamericansoldier; bushdoctrineunfold; clashofcivilizatio; conspiracy; historylist; terrorwar; virginia; warlist; washingtondc; wtcattacks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-343 next last
To: demdesur
If the left wall wasn't perfectly straight I would address the passengers but I don't even need to go there (you explain the left straight wall and I'll look into the passenger list.

Okay, I'll do it. The explosion is not what caused the straight line.

Follow along: Big explosion and fire on lower floors (I won't distress you by saying "plane"). Presently, the now-unsupported floors above the hole fall down. The collapse follows the lines of the building supports . Look at the pictures you posted. See how the top part of the building is still attached on the right side, descending at a diagonal to the left? Sort of like a hinge that swung down on one side?

The pictures you've posted are not an illustration of what the explosion did. They show the consequences of what the explosion did. They weren't taken early enough in time to prove your case. They're from many hours or even days after the initial blast.

Now, get busy on that passenger list. There aren't that many names.

281 posted on 03/08/2002 9:41:19 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
I'm not satisfied with that but it's a pretty good try.
282 posted on 03/08/2002 9:47:19 AM PST by demdesur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: demdesur
and they could get away with it fine if they just had more explosives

LMAO!

"For want of a nail, the shoe was lost..."

283 posted on 03/08/2002 9:49:17 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: demdesur
The angle of attack of the plane was not straight on as the arrow in the picture suggests. The plane came over the top of the Navy Annex (which is at an angle to the left of the picture) and struck the building. If you drew an arrow on an angle half way between the red arrow and the bright white object to its left, that would approximate the angle of the attack.

The building did not collapse becasue of the aircraft strike, it stood for over 30 minutes before the support columns gave way, but only in the E-Ring. All other rings, despite being punctured front and back by the aircraft, remained intact (not by much, but the building did hold).

Evidence of the angle of the strike is in the same photo. Look at the photo and see the obviously burned rooftops running straight down the picture and on the left and right sides. That's the rooftop area of corridors 4 & 5 where the fires burned in between the slate roof tiles and the concrete structure. The 4th corridor is to the left of the picture. The plane struck to the right of 4th corridor and continued on to end up in the open area between the B and C Rings. You can see the top floor burned area of the C-Ring where the aircraft made an exit hole and caused major fires. Count back from the E-Ring to C and then look to the right of the 4th corridor rooftop and you'll see the soot from the fires. That's above the ground floor exit hole the plane made.

I'll see if I can post photos tonight that better detail what I'm trying to describe.

284 posted on 03/08/2002 9:50:30 AM PST by Defender3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Hey, give me a break... I'd like to be a brainwashed sheep too!... it is much more fun!
285 posted on 03/08/2002 9:54:54 AM PST by demdesur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: demdesur
It should be obvious that the building collapsed down hinge-fashion like I said. Follow the line, it's still attached on the right side. It may have collapsed DUE to the blast but it is in no way indicative of any blast PATTERN. That would now be UNDER the still-attached-on-one-side roof section, so there's no conceivable way you can determine the original shape of the hole immediately after the pl--I mean, explosion.
286 posted on 03/08/2002 9:57:05 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Defender3
I'll check back tomorrow for your pictures.
287 posted on 03/08/2002 10:00:37 AM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Defender3
Sounds good... getting there.

Still a picture is worth a thousand words.

Ever play the block game when you were 3 years old? This fits in here... this doesn't fit in here.

Try this one also: Why would you put gravel and sand over grass that wasn't affected?


288 posted on 03/08/2002 10:01:58 AM PST by demdesur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

Comment #289 Removed by Moderator

Comment #290 Removed by Moderator

To: Red Jones
"There is also a video that exists that shows the 2'nd world trade center tower exploding just a fraction of a second before the jet's nose hit the building."

If this is the picture from the video in question (I've seen the sequence floating around the web for several weeks and snagged this one) it was de-bunked. CLICK!

291 posted on 03/08/2002 10:12:07 AM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: seamole
A much more realistic take is that they know they are vulnerable to common sense people doubting their propoganda. The timing is very strange indeed.
292 posted on 03/08/2002 10:13:00 AM PST by demdesur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

Comment #293 Removed by Moderator

To: Eastbound
Can't throw out too many uncredible conspiracy theories to discredit the credible ones.
294 posted on 03/08/2002 10:15:07 AM PST by demdesur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: seamole
Sorry to be repetitive but I don't like backtracking on posts either.

Must have been a light plane!!


295 posted on 03/08/2002 10:16:59 AM PST by demdesur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

Comment #296 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
Whatever.
297 posted on 03/08/2002 10:21:49 AM PST by demdesur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

Comment #298 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
and you do... not.
299 posted on 03/08/2002 10:26:15 AM PST by demdesur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: buzzcat
"Thank God they didn't release the entire video of the plane smashing into the Pentagon!"

As a matter of fact, the sequence shown IS the entire video. The plane was going too fast to be photographed between frames. The video surveillance camera apparently takes about 100 pictures a second, if these five sequential pictures were taken in 4/100ths of a second, according to the story.

The first frame shows no plane crash; the second frame, taken at about 1/100th of a second later, shows the explosion.

So the plane traversed the entire field of view of the camera between the first and second frames in less than 1/100th of a second.

This does not seem possible. I tend to think that the story is in error and the camera possibly takes only 60 pictures a minute (one per second). This would leave a full second for the plane to cross the entire field of view without being photographed. I' m not sure at what speed the plane would have to be flying to accomplish that.

300 posted on 03/08/2002 10:31:36 AM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-343 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson