9/11 Pentagon Crash Animation:

I think you should see this:
http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf

I just wasted two minutes of my life.

It ignores the line of fire on either side of the impact, and the huge black mark on the side of the Pentagon - it points to "intact windows" - hardened windows that remained intact while completely ignoring the intact windows just feet above the impact areas of the WTC.

It's slick, quite slick for this type of flash movie, but no amount of slickness is going to help anyone prove these things.

It seems like if there was a coverup of any sort, the perpetrators would be more careful. They've already destroyed three commercial airplanes -- why would they phone in the Pentagon attack?

Interesting, though. I think that if it were to be presented in a clearer way with less special effects it would be more effective - people could think about what they were hearing.

Thanks for posting.

I had heard about this before but now I have seen it. It was well-produced, at least.

No Answers !

most of the stuff on the animation can be explained, doesn't surprise me that footage hasn't been released or that there's evidence of fire - what I just can't swallow is the ability to fly that plane and hit a target as small and low lying as the Pentagon, if the pilot DID pull that off, and I'm told by a couple of pilots that it'd be an amazing feat, you would think that there'd be some marks on the lawn, some broken wing/tail wrreckage.

I havn't made up my mind but I don't by the official version either

Funny things did happen at the Pentagon that morning, but the missile theory doesn't rise above the folkloric. There is much to counter the claim. Here's a compilation of some evidence, here are photos of the plane's wreckage, and a refutation of the missile theory by respected Washington-based conspiracy researcher John Judge.

Here's one thing to consider: when an anomalous event occurs, like a jet striking the Pentagon, we ought to make allowance for anomalous results. Yes, the hole looks too small, but with what do we have to compare the event? The walls of the structure - particularly the side the plane went 270 degrees out of its way to hit, which had been hardened against attack - are much stronger than those of the WTC.

But for me, here's the big consideration: did the conspirators need a missile to produce the desired result? No. And that's not to say Hani Hanjour did it. He couldn't fly a Cessna the month before. Hanjour didn't perform those high speed aerobatic maneuvers and hit the ground floor without scraping the lawn. But control could be taken from the hijackers so Flight 77 would behave as a guided missile. The technology exists. A month before, Raytheon had remote-flown a FedEx 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico air force base in August 2001, without a pilot (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/2001/10/2/remote-pilot.htm). Raytheon employees were on at least three of the four flights, and on Flight 77 was Stanley Hall, director of program management for Raytheon's Electronics Warfare Division. A colleague called him "our dean of electronic warfare" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm). That incredibly, none of the black boxes were said to be recoverable, suggests to me there's data on them that someone wants hidden.

Substituting the flight with a missile, disposing of the plane and its people, risking detection in broad daylight before witnesses who could have been taking pictures - none of that needed to be chanced.

I'm MIHOP, but we can't build our case upon urban myth.

various DU threads. Nobody has ever been able to debunk the truth though, that Bush is an alien lizard and that the takeover began long ago.

and, yes, it is, pure, 100% A-Grade, 24-Karat, certified BULLSHIT.