Google Videos - Best of Google Video

(also best of YouTube)
Best of google is not sponsored by or affiliated with or .

Pentagon stike - Airplane or missile?

May 18, 2006


hacker_112  -  May 18, 2006, 22:16
Dantalion  -  May 19, 2006, 00:10
The full video of the security cam at the pentagon is available at Judicial Watch, you can clearly see on both videos that its a missile hitting the Pentagon. You cant see where its coming from, but its clear that there is no large airplane involved in the attack. The explosion is caused by cordite, a nitroaxplosive.
Bofra (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 00:12
Wow, that's crazy, for how long is USA going to keep the truths from us?....
Pessimisten (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 00:59
Now I'm no expert.. (:P) But there's no doubt in MY mind that this pentagon incident was rigged. I Just think it's sad (and oh yeah, pathetic by the usa) that we're never gonna know the whole truth. I wonder what most americans have to say about this.. Specialy the ones who still support Bush.
o_O! (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 04:06
why the hell did they say it was an airplane? this is just too weird, and of course they're not gonna say that they lied even when there's evidence.
Headshaker (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 07:23
"Well", said SPECTRE #1 and stroke his cat, "#5, what is your evil plan?" #5: "We shoot the pentagon with a missile - at a normal day, next to a large street, with maybe hundreds of eye-witnesses and tell the people it was a plane." #1 clicks a button. #5: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" Its a movie, in which a well sounding voice tells the visitor what they have to see: There must be parts of the plain, but there are not. In fact, there where parts, but this movie doesn't show them. It says, it must look similar to the World Trade Center. Why? Its a totally other kind of building with a different kind of cladding? OK, some want to believe. But movies like this are rubbish nevertheless.
citizenbfk (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 08:13
I never heard of this 'conspiracy' before?. What's the point?
jk  -  May 19, 2006, 09:13
Who cares if it was a airplane or a missile. Send one more.
pre (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 12:30
the usa didn't want to admit weekness (product of the clinton years) ...uh oh here we go
jk (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 12:30
oh, and shutup jk
pre (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 12:30
the usa didn't want to admit weekness (product of the clinton years) ...uh oh here we go
VoiceOfReason (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 16:13
How about you tell all the families of the people who died on that same plane that they are imagining things, that it was just a missle. Your husband/wife/mother/kid is actually alive, but the government is hiding it because they are weak. Yeah, right, get a life.
VoiceOfReason (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 16:25
How about you tell all the families of the people who died on that same plane that they are imagining things, that it was just a missle. Your husband/wife/mother/kid is actually alive, but the government is hiding it because they are weak. Yeah, right, get a life.
Tom (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 16:25
The whole 9-11 incident is just a big coverup operation for what's really important for the Bush administration. The middle-east oil and by that having a reason to keep US troops in the vicinity. Have a look at for more details around this. The WTC itself is just a controlled demolition, probably with some involvement of CDI. ( who for some reason where among the first to have access to ground zero. Well, I really don't think the american people ever will get to know what really happened and why. But all US Citizens are manipulated by the US government to keep control over international matters in where US clearly have no interrest what so ever except for the businesses which may increase the accounts of the people in control.
XXL (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 18:15
webs of deception are commonplace - we're just the little guys. one day it'll all come crashing down.
AerospaceEngineer (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 18:30
This is absolute idiocy. Very frustrating. Here's what happens when airplanes hit reinforced concrete. (commercial airliner skins are around 0.048" thick. Metal skinned fighters from the 60's are not much different) The concrete wins... The way the trade center and the pentagon are built are very different from each other. The Trade Centers had totally open floor plans and thin exterior walls. It's a skeleton of steel with walls of glass. The Pentagon is a brick. It's made of concentric shells of reinforced concrete walls. The airplanes hit the Trade Center and had huge expanses for the jet fuel to burn in. The heat from the fire was free to move up and down the hollow shafts in the building, heating up the metal structure to the point that it failed (NOTE: The steel didn't melt. Melting temp for steel is around 1500°C, the WTC fire temp is estimated at around 750-800°C --hot enough to weaken the metal, realign the crystal grain structure of the steel. See for details). The Pentagon is made of concentric shells of THICK concrete walls. The airplane broke through the first layer and then couldn't really do much more damage. The fire was essentially contained in a concrete shell that couldn't go anywhere. Heating up a concrete wall doesn't cause failure nearly as fast as heating metal (stones don't melt remember...). Wait...did we mention that we make our government buildings tough to resist these kinds of attacks?...(White House and Congress are build to resist impact as well) BTW, airplane wreckage WAS found at the scene. Everywhere. In tiny little pieces. You just can't see them in the crappy grainy pictures that are released to the public. And by the way, aluminum melts at around 660°C. Of course stuff is left unburned at the Pentagon. The fire was contained. And the last time I checked, steel is a much better conductor of heat that say, concrete. The huge exposure in the side of the Pentagon is largely from demolition work as part of the clean up!!! That airplane fuselage is only 12' 4" in diameter, so compared to the 70' building, it's pretty small. The 46' quoted includes the height when sitting on it's landing gear, and includes the height of the vertical tail. There are only 5 pictures being released because the aircraft was traveling at 350 mph and most security cameras are not running super high speed film!!! Idiots...this is making me angry.
Ralph (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 18:31
My Cat's breath smells like cat food.
l-Ã¥ (guest)  -  May 19, 2006, 20:05
i can se no plane
RationalSceptic (guest)  -  May 20, 2006, 01:10
I am inclined to agree with AerospaceEngineer. The kids spreading this misinfo/disinfo probably mean well, but really - if you want to target american imperialism, human rights abuses, corruption, state sponsored terrorism, torture, illegal occupation, kidnap, political assasinations, coup-de-tat's, etc., you don't have to falsify or misrepresent evidence, you don't have to ignore facts that contradict your argument. Personally i believe that elements of the american political/economic/military elite were profoundly involved in the attacks. i find it unlikely that some people working from a cave in asia could divert the bulk of the american air defence away on manuvers and manage to time their attack with a roleplay drill to confuse NORAD and all. the fact that al-quaida was funded by the cia, that bin laden was payed by the cia, that the bin laden family were rushed out of the country despite requests from other law enforcement organisations for them to be interviewed... the fact that the bush and bin laden family enjoy holidays together, that daddy bush is a well known spook and has been since before he lied to congress - claiming he was an incorruptable outsider when he accepted the role of head of the cia. these people are in it up to their necks. something is not right - thats why official investigations are not allowed. so, i think elements within the us government were in on the job - but to claim that the aircraft were military jets and that the hijacked planes all landed safely in secret at some military base... that's just ridiculous and deeply insulting.
Tyson (guest)  -  May 20, 2006, 02:21
The Loose Change video is filled with wild speculation and misinformation, and clearly sounds like it was produced by someone still in high school. In response to bullshit claims like a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon, the reputable scientific magazine (one that isn't particularly popular with the Bush administration by the way; they also debunked his proposed missile defense system) Popular Mechanics ran this article: Theorists always get caught on a handful of details without understanding the whole picture. They stare at the same dozen grainy photos, making claims as if they have ANY knowledge of aeronautics and high speed collision, and either glaze over or completely omit other key details that don't meet their conclusion. Where IS the plane that "didn't" hit the Pentagon? Where are all those people? Part of another amazing global conspiracy? You're talking about a government that can't keep NSA and CIA secrets intact without leaking one every month, let alone the dark hooded organization of oil companies and lobbyists who supposedly conspired to superficially damage the Pentagon. I swear, the popularity of The X-Files tv show is to blaim for this level of paranoid, ignorant stupidity.
Sture (guest)  -  May 20, 2006, 02:49
AerospaceEngineer: Hello moron. Aluminium my ass! The engines are titanium and weigh 6 tons each!! Concrete dosent WIN!
chutup (guest)  -  May 20, 2006, 04:42
paranoid and ignorant? stupid? you reduce yourself to petty name calling when someone suggests that americans should research alternate sources in search of the truth? *i swear* the popularity of 'american idol' and reality tv is to blame for the level of blissful ignorance that the majority is afflicted with. ok, so let's move away from 'conspiracy theory' and back to hard science. check out the letter from an employee at underwriter's lab, who believed the circumstances surrounding the events on 9/11 are 'at the crux of the issue' (and then was fired a few days later). if the information available presents a plausible alternative to the government's official story, how can we in good conscience label our fellow concerned citizens as 'paranoid' and 'stupid'? ... .... (excerpt) We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
CommonSense (guest)  -  May 20, 2006, 06:50
Mmmmm. Tasty KoolAid!
fuck off (guest)  -  May 20, 2006, 08:37
GhostmanPat  -  May 20, 2006, 12:22
seen it all before, a million fucking times
Guran Person (guest)  -  May 20, 2006, 14:16
It wasn't a missile, nor a plane; It was Elvis!
arnas (guest)  -  May 20, 2006, 18:19
Oracle (guest)  -  May 20, 2006, 20:36
ok, let's put the facts against each other- You can see on the security tape that there is a missale. There is no parts of the airplane. Ok we got a missile you think but wait! What happened to the people on the plane? Remeber that there was a plane that crashed on a field in Pennsylvania that day. It was also hijacked, therefore no one can prove that it was a plane nor a missile that struck pentagon. Unguilty untill the opposit7e is proved. Always...
Dantalion  -  May 21, 2006, 03:17
Who is guilty is the question? You cant prove anything btw, since I bet most people here werent there as eyewitnesses. We all have our info from 3rd parties, and I have never been in america before so as far as im concerned the whole continent is CG'ed :P
smartars (guest)  -  May 21, 2006, 09:09
Chuck Norris + round house kick to the building = game over
DaveC426913 (guest)  -  May 21, 2006, 17:44
There's speculation back and forth. One thing I don't understand is: Where is the *plane* in any of the footage? It takes *days* to remove debris.
Whatever (guest)  -  May 21, 2006, 20:12
TakenForEver (guest)  -  May 22, 2006, 00:22
Does it matter? to be honest.. with the continued raise of terrorist threat and disslike from other countries U.S. is in a bad situation soon enough. the country is ruled by terror, I mean wtf just watch the news in U.S scares the hell out of ya, then travek to canada and watch their news..hmm?!
pain  -  May 22, 2006, 08:18
yo dudes and dudettes. stop arguing and agree to hate. mmkay
AerospaceEngineer (guest)  -  May 22, 2006, 19:32
Hey FuckBrain (Sture), yeah, the engines do have titanium components. And most of the airplane's actuators, struts, and mechanisms are steel, and guess what? They didn't go anywhere, they're right here!!!: and here: See all that aluminum skin? See the engine combustor rings? See some aircraft wheel rims? How about that landing gear strut? Yep, you're right. It MUST have been a missile. Yep, all those parts MUST have been planted there in a great big conspiracy. I bet the CIA put their tennis shoes on real quick and ran out there in a flash just planting evidence...yep...THAT'S the logical explanation. Quit watching the fucking ex-files. Why don't you people contribute with useful comments instead of blowing unsubstantiated statements out of your ass? If your opinion differs from mine, that's fine. Go ahead voice it. Educate me. I'd love to discuss this issue, maybe learn a thing or two. But don't blow shit out of your ass without even thinking about what you're saying. If you make a statement, or have an opinion about something, there ought to be at least *something* to back that statement up that explains *why* you think that way. Watch the video again. Concrete does win.
Abacus (guest)  -  May 23, 2006, 03:23
No matter what people say, what the government says, what evidence shows and what conspiracists claim, there are a few details that noone can argue against: - The twin towers and that third building were all taken down in controlled demolitions. - Since the US government claims that the towers collapsed because of the fires, they lie. I don't ask why. I don't want to know. I hope by God that there are good reasons, and that these reasons are for the best of mankind in the long term. But I feel sad for the millions of people who want US kids to go to war in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Iran, or whatever comes next) against "terrorism". I cry for you.
IwillRepeatMyself (guest)  -  May 23, 2006, 20:40
Ask the victim's family's what they think of this "supposed" missile. Were all the victims riding on it? Anybody can make a video like this for Media 101 in college.
Fix (guest)  -  May 23, 2006, 23:24
too many spudid guys agree this vision to make ur fucking war ! shame on U (SA) !
Sasquatch (guest)  -  May 25, 2006, 05:17
Abacus, are you mentally retarded? How would they have implemented a controlled demolition in the hour between contact and collapse? That shit takes a couple of days to do, and i'm pretty sure they've NEVER collapsed a building as large as the twin towers were. Honestly, the planes took out half of 2-3 floors. Then fires, like drywall burning, office furniture, papers, etc. etc. heated up the unprotected steel. When the buildings were constructed, they had a foam on them that was fire protectant, however, that was 30 years ago, and since then, the foam had become unusable. By the way, everything was covered in jet fuel. Jet fuel burns really hot, that's why it was able to weaken the steel.
Skeptic (guest)  -  May 27, 2006, 03:51
I guess if you want a cover-up and look hard enough, you will always find one. You just need to know what to look for, and reject every evidence that points in a different direction. This goes for almost anything, from UFO cover-ups to conspiracies about Jesus Christ Marrying Mary Magdalene and having children who became forfathers of the French kings during the middle ages.
engineer (guest)  -  May 30, 2006, 00:24
Anyone who buy's this ridiculous claim about controlled demolition should read this Popular Mechanics story... ...and this quote in particular: "Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. 'I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building,' he tells PM. 'I only said that that's what it looked like.' Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. 'I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line.' But saw something else: 'The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement.' Romero responds: 'Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.'"
Dude (guest)  -  May 30, 2006, 19:50
After reading comments from supporters of both theories, I must say, I find the ones supporting the missile theory more plausable.
Matey (guest)  -  June 2, 2006, 01:32
Guys try and remember you are dealing with people who are smart enough to get into power. They are a lot more canny than you give them credit for. Dont you think that there more mileage in it for them to leave us all guessing? If you never really know all you can do is hypothesis. It exposes to them who believes what they say and who doesnt and it keeps everyone divided. They win again!
dwindie (guest)  -  June 4, 2006, 17:11
This is such a fraud, and has been refuted numerous times. The hole in the building was 75 feet across, which later caused the building to fall. The 16 foot hole you see is from the inside of the building, where the engine broke free and went through. Why do you people believe things like this? It's just a silly conspiracy. Hundreds of eyes witnesses, on the news that day saw a plane fly into the building.
Albatross (guest)  -  June 4, 2006, 17:15
Are you people stupid? Why would the government send a missile and pretend it was a plane? Wouldn't it have made more sense for the government to hijack a plane and use it for real? Every news report and eyewitness and for gods sake, high resolution picture shows this video is a complete farce. There's wreckage all over the ground, an entire wall ripped out of a building, and airplane wreckage all over the inside of the building. Hundreds of people were there.
auggie (guest)  -  June 4, 2006, 17:17
What a load of shite. You people are absolute morons for believing anything like this happened...
An American (guest)  -  June 12, 2006, 05:51
i am an american, and i have to say from the beginning i suspected that the whole 9/11 thing was just a big excuse for bush to gain more power in order to crack down on civil liberties and to help out his big buisiness friends. the wolrd trade center attacks may have been connected with a terorist orginization but that orginization was most definitally connected with the buch administration, why haven't we caught osama? because we dont want to, as long as osama is alive and poses a potential threat to the american people bush can shepard us around like the little sheep that we are becoming, using fear as a tool to keep us complacent, the FBI had ample warning that these attacks were coming, yet they did nothing to stop them how can they get away with this. P.S. I really am an american not some stupid foriegner posing as one to undermine our country's credibility
HAPPY (guest)  -  June 20, 2006, 18:08
I dont buy it. Think whats the gain to use a lie like this one ? None ! People died, its very wrong to say it wasnt a plane. Have u forgotten that people died ? Its sad that some people say " Hey we make a lie about this and we will not remember that people died.
Constructioner (guest)  -  June 21, 2006, 00:29
They use CONTROLLED DEMOLITION to take down the buildings!!! Have a look at this video ; The Use Of Explosives In the 9/11 Attack!!!! Yes people DIED.... but the EVIDENCE is CLEAR..... Watch and see........
Canadian (guest)  -  June 30, 2006, 06:54
Sasquatch are you an Idiot!! maybe your brain doesnt process the word "pre planning", it would be interesting to know what happened weeks before they went down. After seeing AreoSpaceEngineer's info, I believe the plane theory.. but none the less the government is nothing but orginized crime..
Canadian (guest)  -  June 30, 2006, 06:57
Check out Constructioner's link... Very cool.
Canadian (guest)  -  June 30, 2006, 06:58
Sasquatch are you an Idiot!! maybe your brain doesnt process the word "pre planning", it would be interesting to know what happened weeks before they went down. After seeing AreoSpaceEngineer's info, I believe the plane theory.. but none the less the government is nothing but orginized crime..
Swede (guest)  -  June 30, 2006, 11:12
Nolan  -  July 12, 2006, 11:33
tbh america is the most fucked up country and they never tell the truth first time round if they ever do i started to look for pictures just after it happened and they showed a small explotion like the one in this video and i think it was a missle not a 50 ft plane
Omg (guest)  -  July 27, 2006, 09:53
Omg (guest)  -  July 27, 2006, 09:54
Okok (guest)  -  August 26, 2006, 17:12
Listen, I was too on the side of the conspiracy theorists on this at first, only then I had only seen THEIR side of the story. For example: "There were NO PLANE WRECKAGE WHATSOEVER"........ Good job on that "fact". Guess someone didn't see the MILLION FCKING PIECES all around the site!? Secondly, DO NOT watch Loose Change, it IS ALL BULLSHIT, not a single one of his facts are true! It was a plane hitting the pentagon. k? stfu. NOW, who was flying the plane is another story. THERE'S where you should focus your conspiracy theories.
Deleted0001  -  September 5, 2006, 18:42
awp (guest)  -  December 3, 2006, 01:08
i often eat vegetebles
George (guest)  -  December 29, 2006, 15:16
the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition. Why? Because when it was build, people already thought what to do with it in 50 years. How do we get rid of it easily? Well if it's build already to come nicely down verticaly wen blasted at the bottom, that will be an easy job. SO the WTC was built to fall vertically and not sideways! That's why it looks like a controlled demolition, because in fact it IS. THe only way this building can collapse is vertical because it's built into the building itself.
Vilxan  -  January 7, 2007, 18:47
To Aerospace Engineer: Ok, I think you need to understand that when planes crash, they leave wreckage. Go to which is filled with Airplane crashes. They mess up the place. I don't see how a plane could cut itself up into tiny little pieces. They leave big chunks of the plane. If you look at the worst pilot mistake in history, the Disaster at Juliana Intl. where KLM and Pan Am collided, the planes didn't go into tiny little pieces, the whole plane was left, but severely damaged. I am not an Engineer, but I have enough knowledge to know that planes don't shred easily. I'm a pilot myself, but I have never gone anywhere near a 757, but if my plane crashed, I know me and any other person would not simply "disintegrate", or the plane would be little pieces, it would be a bad wreckage. If a plane so many times bigger than mine crashed into a building, I think it will do more than that. Just so everyone knows, I'm not meaning to attack anyone, or insult anyone, so if you do get the impression I'm attacking you, I'm sorry.
George (guest)  -  January 13, 2007, 20:38
vilxan, see how a plane behaves when hitting a wall an that's a sturdy build military plane against a full concrete block. So it should be no different between a light build jumbo against slightly enforced pentagon walls. In fact a good part of the jumbo entered the building instead of turning into pure dust. In this video the fighter runs at 500mph, the same speed of the jumbo.
Paul (guest)  -  February 14, 2007, 21:09
Its about time all americans ppl wake up. This nation is the most corrupt on earth and lead by an elite group who will assasinate their own citizens to make it look like an invasion to bring war wherever they want.'They'created terrorism so they can smoke them out! remember what they did to JFK ?
Jon (guest)  -  March 7, 2007, 11:55
If any of you actually did any real research, you'd realize it's not just a loose conspiracy theory that doesn't make any sense. In fact you realize that the government's story has more holes in it than the things you call conspiracy thoeries. Such as why WTC7 was EXCLUDED from the official 9/11 investigation report.
awakenedone (guest)  -  December 4, 2007, 11:06
we know the attacks we faked yet we are happy to accept the lies, see eating medicated GM foods does help the state control you unable to think for yourself or think logically or rationally open to government suggestion at all times because they have programmed you this way, and all the thime you pay for that privilege.SUCKERS
StevensSandra21 (guest)  -  September 9, 2010, 00:51
Every one remembers that modern life seems to be expensive, however some people need cash for different issues and not every one earns enough money. Hence to receive fast credit loans and short term loan will be a right way out.
dobbofromaust. (guest)  -  December 23, 2010, 03:59
what about the families of those on board "flight 77".
Ziggy (guest)  -  August 30, 2011, 14:17
Hey, good to find someone who aegres with me. GMTA.
dwpzfmkigrw (guest)  -  August 31, 2011, 18:38
XYbjKo ekmhpnkfklxb
uogvpnqs (guest)  -  September 3, 2011, 12:31
djMGHO pdsxgfxfxent
GeorginaBender31 (guest)  -  December 1, 2011, 14:49
Following my own exploration, millions of persons all over the world receive the mortgage loans at different banks. Thus, there's a good chance to receive a credit loan in any country.

5 random popular videos

79% crazy
Fearless roof riding
Fearless roof riding

90% funny
100 YouTube classics
100 YouTube classics

90% funny
Robot Chicken - Grand Theft Mario
Robot Chicken - Grand Theft Mario

85% impressive
Indoor cycling
Indoor cycling

97% funny
Reporter and snowbanks
Reporter and snowbanks