Close up shots of the Pentagon prove, no 757

[rollingrock]

There is one hole in the building where the fuselage could have impacted and went through, but there's no area big enough for the wings and the engines to have fit in or gone in. Or for the vertical tail section for that matter. Unless the wings and the engines somehow magically dropped out of the sky before the plane impacted the building, the pictures are proof beyond doubt: no 757 hit the Pentagon.






















Roof collapse:













Before and after shots (of roof collapse) superimposed:


















If the wings and engines didn't hit the building, then they must have slammed into the
lawn, especially given that the engines hang much lower than the fuselage.

But obviously, that didn't happen either.









Nice lawn.

[undeterred]

1. Nice pics. Where are they from?

The event at the Pentagon is the weakest point in the whole cover story as far as I can see. Even if the pilot was capable of flying a plane that fast and low, planes don't disappear into buildings this neatly.

[lovepg]

2. Good luck, I tried to point out how the engines would have dragged on the lawn

A couple of threads ago and the basic response was who cares as long as you believe the plane hit. Why does it matter if it came in the exact way the reports say they did?
Well my basic position is that the official story has flaws that need to be explained and that inaccurate science in one area casts aspersions on the rest of the official story.
Lets pull up a chair and see how long before someone gets called dude shall we ?

[BuddyBoy]

3. Fine since of humor, lovepg

"Lets pull up a chair and see how long before someone gets called dude shall we?"

MY guess is that it won't be one of the Official Government Conspiracy Theorists.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Jesus Fucking Christ Dude!

Bla bla bla... Logical fallacy bla bla... Do you even know what bla means?... Your goofy fucking claims bla-de-bla... Stop embarrassing DU with your bla bla bla bla bla...

[rollingrock]

5. Dude!

enough with the goofy impersonations already, lol.

[BuddyBoy]

11. Very perceptive & funny. Keep on rollingrock.

You also seemed to have touched a certain person's funnybone, thus causing a caustic reply -- totally out of character for
that person? Only if you don't consider insults to be part and parcel of nearly all his responses to people who don't buy
what Official Government Conspiracy Believers promote.

[SDuderstadt]

6. You guys are doing such a great job of parodying yourselves...

you hardly need any help from us. By asll means, carry on.

[lovepg]

9. You see its posts like this that are the reason nobody here takes you seriously..

I am done. Lared rules or something like that!

[BuddyBoy]

12. MORE funny than a goofy, silly claim from...

an Official Government Conspiracy Theorist. Plenty of good minds in this joint. Thanks for the laugh.

[Mist]

18. Hey, whatchamacallit--you left out the ever-popular "anyone who's taken

a high school physics class would know.....blah, blah, blah."

[MrMickeysMom]

81. Now...... WHO can argue with THAT?

:rofl:

[hack89]

14. So what caused the damage?

what conclusion doe accurate science lead one too?

[Realityhack]

15. Actually several people pointed out that...

you were wrong and the engines would not necessarily have dragged on the ground. You mischaracterize the discussion.

[William Seger]

20. No, the "basic response" was...

... that we know precisely where the engines hit from the damage to the generator trailer and the low retaining wall, and that the damage to the wall is perfectly consistent with impact from the 757 that hundreds of people actually saw hit that wall. Your "basic response" was who cares about actual evidence that conflicts with your implausible speculations and delusions. Like all other "no-planers" your "basic position" is willful ignorance and imaginary science.

Dude.

[Realityhack]

31. +1 n/t

[rollingrock]

7. They were originally from

various official sources. FEMA, FAA, Boeing, DoD.

except for the ones that show a superimposed image of a 757, of course.
that work was done by a French site:

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm

[lovepg]

10. Another question..

Assuming the engine made the whole in the storm fence before hitting the trailor how come the wing did no damage to the rest of the fence?
Remember these are the same wings that mowed over four much thicker stronger lamp posts seconds earlier.

[rollingrock]

39. Where is it?

That's I want to know. If the engine on the starboard side of the plane supposedly collided with the generator, where is it? and why is the generator still intact, but the engine is nowhere to be found? there's no hole in the facade area directly behind the generator, so the engine did not go inside the building. also, what happened to the engine on the port side of the plane? (there was no generator on that side for it to run into).


A giant object made of titanium doesn't just disintegrate into thin air.

[vincent_vega_lives]

140. The generator was hardly "intact"

after the strike.

There was a hole directly in the facade in line with the path of the aircraft which was NOT perpendicular to the building.

And the Engine was not made of titanium. Only a few high stress lightweight parts like the compressor fan blades.

Any more false statements you wish to utter?

[rollingrock]

8. Another good one

Red lines - Impact hole
Green rectangles - Windows
Grey oval - Scaled B757 fuselage
Orange lines - Columns still standing/hanging
White jagged ovals - Broken windows
White dotted lines - Floors
Blue arrows - Undamaged cable spools
Lime green lines - Fence posts
Lime green dotted lines - Bent fence posts
Yellow dotted lines - Collapse area
Purple arrow - Truck generator

[hack89]

13. So take the next step

and show us what made that damage. What is your theory?

[rollingrock]

32. Probably explosives

planted in the building, or a missile.

[hack89]

60. So they blasted a rectangular hole that happens to match

the distance between a 757's engines? Pretty sneaky bastards - no wonder they fooled all the experts.

Three reasons it can't be a missile:

1. The rectangular hole.

2. If it was a blast fragmentation warhead there would be a fan of debris on the lawn as such explosions are omni-directional.

3. If the warhead was directional (such as a shaped charge), then there would not be any extensive external damage. All you would see is a small (3 or 4 feet) hole with all the damage unseen inside.

[rollingrock]

68. But it doesn't match

look at the circles, drawn to scale.

there's no room for the engines, only the fuselage.

[hack89]

74. Read this

it has a little more depth than a couple of pictures. Look at the pictures of the facade damage made by the wings in particular.


http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

On edit: look at all those pictures of the interior damage - an 80 foot wide swath of damage that corresponds to an 80 hole in the wall.

[vincent_vega_lives]

106. That bottom photo you posted

contradicts your subject line. What type of explosives do you suppose would undercut a structure like that leaving the portion just above untouched?

This has the hallmarks of a kinetic strike.

[vincent_vega_lives]

141. Correct partily

Teh red dot is where the fuselage struck (if a little higher). You see below and to the right where the facade is GONE (some steel I beams are left) That was caused by the wings (and right engine).

[lovepg]

36. No that is not the next step. The next step is to admit the official story is flawed..

and we need a new investigation. When the courts gets DNA evidence that clears one suspect they do not say well if they didn't do it show me who did before I release them.
They reopen the investigation to find out who DID do it. JEEEESH!

[hack89]

62. So where is your "DNA" evidence?

do you really think that the OP is proof of anything? We are presented a picture of a rectangular hole that just happens to match the distance between the engines of a 757. There are also pictures available elsewhere that show 147 feet of horizontal damage to the facade. The lack of a cartoon cutout in the Pentagon facade is evidence of nothing.

Now, if you were to actually present a plausible alternative and showed how it matches the physical evidence, you might have something. Why can't you? If it is so obvious that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon that any layman can figure out with a couple of internet pictures, why isn't it so obvious as to what actually caused the damage?

After 8 years, "just asking questions" and "we need a new investigation" is clearly not getting the Truth movement anywhere - don't you think it is time for Plan B?

[Realityhack]

63. Good luck hack.

He doesn't seem to be able to see that hole that the rest of us can.

And he has been whining all day about part of the plane passing through three reinforced walls. I didn't even touch that one.

[lovepg]

87. Show the pictures that show the conclusive damage that corresponds to the plane...

Or at least post a link. You are the guys with the evidence to prove your story so prove it!

[hack89]

102. Here's a good start

it shows all the internal damage - something the Truth community has never bothered to address. It also shows the damage on the facade caused by the wings.

It was done by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf


Here are some good pictures of the wreckage - some also good eyewitness accounts:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

[Realityhack]

16. Rollingrock. What makes you think this post is any diffrent than all the others...

that we have had over the years about this same topic? Did you look through the archives here and pull up all the clearest counterarguments and show they were incorrect?

I honestly do not see the images you posted as proving what you seem to think they do. The 7th picture you posted for example seems to show very heavy damage on every point that the wing box would have impacted and significant but lighter damage where the very tips of the wings and stabilizer impacted which would make sense as you would not expect them to inflict as much damage as the fuselage, wing box, engines, etc. In other words the damage in the photo appears consistent with rather than inconsistent with the impact of a jet.

[undeterred]

21. You'd expect "light damage" from any part of a plane going 500mph?

[Realityhack]

27. That depends...

on how light and what surface it struck.
Remember that we are talking about a recently reinforced section of concrete wall. And we are talking not about the wing of the plane but the last few feet.
Also keep in mind that 'light damage' is a relative term. The damage was light compared to the damage done by the heavier sections of the plane which is exactly what one would expect.

[undeterred]

35. I don't see any damage at all outside of the big hole

in the wall. If the whole plane went into the building then the whole wing went in with it- at least I presume so, since no visible plane parts are outside the pentagon. I don't see any damage at all.

[Realityhack]

40. "I don't see any damage at all outside of the big hole"

Unfortunately I am not on a computer where I can edit and repost the images with arrows pointing at the damage.
Nor can I help you over the internet with any vision problems you may be experiencing.

There is clearly damage to a number of areas outside the 'big hole'.

As for no visible plane parts outside The Pentagon you are just factually incorrect. None is pictured in the OP but the photos have been posted here dozens of times.

[undeterred]

75. So where's the "light damage" caused by the engines?

Or are my eyes and the pictures too bad to see it?

[Realityhack]

101. I said NOTHING about light damage from engines.

Please stop misrepresenting what I have said. It is unacceptable in a reasonable discussion.

[undeterred]

105. Aren't we discussing damage from the wings?

And aren't the engines mounted on the wings?

[Realityhack]

109. I suggest you reread the thread. n/t

[undeterred]

110. That's what you say whenever you can't answer a question.

[Realityhack]

112. No it is what I say when I think...

that someone may have missed, misread, or forgotten over time what was said up thread and re-reading it would answer their question.

Let us recap:

From:Realityhack Post: 16
...The 7th picture you posted for example seems to show very heavy damage on every point that the wing box would have impacted and significant but lighter damage where the very tips of the wings and stabilizer impacted which would make sense as you would not expect them to inflict as much damage as the fuselage, wing box, engines, etc....

Emphasis Added

From:Realityhack Post: 27
Remember that we are talking about a recently reinforced section of concrete wall. And we are talking not about the wing of the plane but the last few feet.

Emphasis Added

From:undeterred Post: 75
So where's the "light damage" caused by the engines?

Emphasis Added

Is this the best you can do? Is this the extent of your reading comprehension? Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I said?
At this point as you flat out refused to re-read the thread as I suggested I can only assume you are playing some kind of game.

[undeterred]

113. I did re-read the thread.

And I don't see things the way you do. But apparently you are so insecure you feel the need to insult every person who disagrees with you. And that not a very effective means of persuasion.

[SDuderstadt]

114. Maybe you get "insulted" because of your weird way of seeing things...

ever think about that?

[BuddyBoy]

115. "And that not a very effective means of persuasion."

Is he on record as saying that's what he was/is trying to do or are you simply assuming it? And if you ARE just assuming it, what is the basis for such an assumption?

DU rules don't specify that members must only post here solely or even partly for the purpose of persuading others. Those of us who are convinced by the evidence and lack of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job aren't going
to change our view because certain people insult other DUers in nearly all of their posts, and those who have only recently become
interested in learning more about 9/11 aren't going to be persuaded by someone who insults them. After all, they're here to
be educated.

[Realityhack]

117. Cute.

Unfortunately having reread the thread myself I can not for the life of me see how you got from my clear statements that the engines, fuselage, etc. did heavy damage compared to the lighter wingtips, to 'light damage' from the engines.

Therefore I can only conclude that there is no point in attempting to further discuss this with you as the likelihood of successful communication is approaching zero.

[BuddyBoy]

119. Can insults ever be an effective tool in persuasion? Yes.

Remember the 2000 post election attempts to shut down the ballot counting in Miami? Insults and intimidation tactics were
successfully used there.

The so-called "birthers", "teabaggers", and right-wing Healthcare reform town hall meeting attendees who shout and threaten
are as much or even more interested in persuading people to get discouraged, to have doubts about their feelings concerning
certain issues, to undermine confidence in President Obama and his administration's goals and objectives...than they are in
trying to convince people to a certain point of view. Notice how they talk in generalities, platitudes, insults etc. Those
CAN and DO have the effect of persuading lots of people to lose interest, lessen confidence in their knowledge and in their
political convictions, assume that shouters and insulters MUST know what they're talking about and that's why they're so
"passionate". Insults, ridicule etc. can also be effective to some degree in dividing people from one another and causing them
to question other members of their own group.

When ideological extremists want to make people feel that dissent is futile and that the "safe" course is to consent to the
superiority of a particular viewpoint, a heaping dose of constant insults is often all that's needed to persuade people to
go along to get along.

Insults can be a kind of short-cut method of gaining consent. They can also be an effective way to sidetrack people's attention,
induce self-doubt, cause people to give in or give up, and confound and confuse those who are sincere but perhaps naive.

In my experience, the people who use insults in political discussions are more likely to be conservative rather
than progressive. Cold-hearted "realists", not warm-hearted liberals. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions.

[SDuderstadt]

121. "Truther Logic"...

spirited debate is insulting.

[BuddyBoy]

124. OGCTheorist logic ...

"Emphasis on learning the truth is threatening to the perps."

[SDuderstadt]

125. Apparently, you don't understand...

parody or satire, either.

[BuddyBoy]

126. I understand and see through your BS very well.

How's that make you feel?

[SDuderstadt]

127. If you did, you'd be able to refute it, dude.

This is why you've become an inside joke around here.

[BuddyBoy]

128. I don't have time to refute ALL of your BS.

There's simply too much of it.

[SDuderstadt]

129. Then refute just one...

you remind me of someone during a debate who claims their opponent "lies all the time". When challenged to provide an example of a single lie, their retort is: "Well, there's so many of them, I cant think of just one". 0f course, if their claim were, in fact, true, they should easily be able to point to one example. Your credibility here is just about shot, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

130. Anything you say is true.

"Then refute just one"

[SDuderstadt]

131. Now you're becoming...

incoherent. Not that that's unusual.

[BuddyBoy]

132. That sting a little?

n/t

[SDuderstadt]

133. No.

Incoherence dulls the senses, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

134. You sure reacted like you got stung.

Maybe you're not as good an actor as you think and maybe that's partly why you received such a harsh "sentence".

[lovepg]

37. So what part of the plane made it all the way thru three levels of steel reinforced walls..

to punch a hole in the other side? Can anyone answer this simple question?
You cannot argue light damage to steel reinforced walls while simutaneously claiming the plane made it thru three WALLS.

[Realityhack]

42. Please read the thread you are responding to.

Then slow down and read it again because you seem to be lacking reading comprehension skills.

I said the relatively light tips of the wings caused light damage as compared to the heavier parts of the plane that smashed strait through the wall.
First off this is something anyone who thinks for 2 seconds about the impact would expect.
Secondly it in no way implies that the damage to The Pentagon as a whole was 'light' or any other such mischaracterization that you feel like making.

I most certainly can claim that the damage at the wing tips was light while the heavier engines, reinforced wing box, fuselage, etc. made it though the same wall.

Are you laboring under the delusion that all items hitting an object at a given speed will do the same amount of damage regardless of mass?

[lovepg]

45. Can you see the holes in the pentagon walls made by the engines?

Or do you claim the fuselage hole accommodated both engines as well?

[Realityhack]

46. I think you are looking in the wrong place.

You do realize the aircraft struck at an angle right?

[Realityhack]

47. Look at the third image from the bottom in the OP

It is the best in this series in terms of showing the extensive damage between the two engines.

[Realityhack]

48. BTW seing as you have changed subjects

I can only assume you no longer support your goofy idea that wingtips would do as much damage as the fuselage.

[lovepg]

49. Got the wrong guy . I am the what part of the plane made it thru three levels guy?

I do not see what part of the PLANE was gonna be able to do that? Where did the engines enter the building ?
Yes it came in on an angle but you still should be able to see the hole produced by two seven ton objects hurdling into the building at 500 miles per hour.
Are you saying on an angle they followed the fuselage cleanly in thru that hole?

[Realityhack]

53. Nope correct guy. I double checked.

The engines entered the building where you would expect them to. The damage is clear in the images. You can see the hole/s created if you look. I honestly can't help you with any vision problems you may be having over the internet.

"Are you saying on an angle they followed the fuselage cleanly in thru that hole?"
Obviously I am not making any such claim. Stop making such silly arguments.

[lovepg]

55. Well Hey Hack the emperor is calling you about his suit of new clothes...

Telling me YOU can see the holes the engines made when I do not see it gets us nowhere.
If you take the time to post a picture that shows what you are seeing I would love to check it out.
Maybe you DO see something I do not.

[Realityhack]

56. As I explaned previously...

I can not do so right now. Maybe later.
You could also search the 9-11 forum as others have posted such pictures many times.

[lovepg]

59. Yes but you are the one who sees it. I have looked at lots of the photos and have never seen where..

the engines hit. Also what punched a hole in level three?

[Realityhack]

65. Out of curiosity...

are you familiar with the ASCE Pentagon performance report?

[lovepg]

51. By the way that third from the bottom picture shows the engine about to knock over the spools

of wire in the engines way that magically did not get knocked over.

[Realityhack]

54. Magically not knocked over...

by the IMAGE of a plane viewed from the wrong angle to accurately judge the exact position of the engine upon impact?
I am shocked I tell ya SHOCKED!!

You have considered that if the engine could have cleared them by a very short distance have you not?

[lovepg]

58. Those spools occupy a rather large area we are not talking inches here..

They are in the area the engine should in, in comparison to the fuselage. The engine is roughly a fuselage width away from the body of the plane.
Show me the angle it would come in on to miss them.
They are rather tall as well and if the engine created the hole in the storm fence there is no way it was high enough up that it missed the spools.

[undeterred]

116. According to you 6 ton plane engines going 500mph

wouldn't disturb an object they missed by a few inches. And Hani Hanjour had practiced this maneuver millions of times.

:shrug:

[Realityhack]

64. "three levels [SIC] of steel reinforced walls"

And what three 'levels' would those be?

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html

[hack89]

66. What do you mean by steel reinforced walls?

Rebar in the concrete columns? You are not arguing that the masonry walls were backed by steel plate are you?

[BuddyBoy]

22. In other words, a real plane MUST have crashed there because

you can see things that appear to have sustained damage and even that beautiful lawn sustained damage, though it was after the event
had ended. But, we know it sustained damage because there are photos of sand and gravel "bandages" covering it.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Jesus fucking Christ....

The sand and gravel was spread on the site to allow large trucks to drive up as close as possible. I don't see anything really nefarious in that, do you?

[BuddyBoy]

25. That's a Chickenshit explanation/excuse for why it was done.

Large trucks were up close to the buildings beginning almost immediately after the non-crash. The sand and gravel was spread on the site to hide the pristine condition of the Pentalawn. That was necessary because one of the explanations for what happened was that the non-existent AA FL77 plane supposedly hopped and skipped across the lawn and you don't see anything suspicious in that.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Jesus, what bullshit....

you know nothing about how hard it was to maneuver the trucks on the lawn initially. So you invent this yarn about how spreading sand and gravel is actually part of a "cover-up". This is entirely consistent for a CT who yammers about "commonsense", then rejects commonsense explanations for everyday situations because it undermines their conspiracy theory.

If your claim was true, why aren't large numbers of people who were on the scene saying what you're saying? The reason you aren't credible is that you determine your conclusion first, then only look for "evidence" that supports it. Everything that contradicts your CT is "chickenshit".

Here's what the guy who had the gravel road constructed said about why it was necessary, dude.

http://www.911myths.com/html/lawn_covered.html

The link appears to be broken, but you should have enough information to track down the publication.

[Realityhack]

30. Thank you for the link SD.

I hope that clears some things up though I have my doubts about how BB will integrate it into his world view.

[Realityhack]

29. Another fine straw man you have there.

"That was necessary because one of the explanations for what happened was that the non-existent AA FL77 plane supposedly hopped and skipped across the lawn..."
Who exactly outside of the 'truth movement' made this claim? Please provide a link and quote.

[lovepg]

38. Why so the trucks would not damage the grass? LOL!

[Realityhack]

43. So they would not sink in.

If you read down the thread you would notice a nice link SD provided. If you followed it and read it you might not post this silliness.

[SDuderstadt]

50. Do you fucking think anything through, dude?

The guy who made the decision explained precisely why he did it. Why don't you call him?

[MrMickeysMom]

82. "I don't see anything really nefarious in that, do you?"

Here...

(insert picture of blind person)

[Realityhack]

28. Please quote where I said anything approaching that. n/t

[rollingrock]

41. I think it's pretty evident

just from looking at the close ups. too little damage for a 757.

[Realityhack]

44. Well now that you said it...

I guess we should all agree.
I mean obviously you are an expert on structural engineering and physics with an unparalleled knowledge of the design of the pentagon and what one should expect in photographs when a plane strikes a building with that particular design.

[BuddyBoy]

17. Non-existent flight = no plane crash

According to the U.S. Gov't, AA FL77 crashed into the Pentagon, however, FL77 wasn't a scheduled flight on 9/11. Unless
the Gov't wants to now claim that a DIFFERENT plane than FL77 crashed there (and if they prove it), the reality is that,
just as the photos you posted prove, no plane crashed at the Pentagon.

No amount of parsing of the photos can change the simple fact that there wasn't a plane crash at the Pentagon. Explosions
and fires, yes. Planted evidence, yes. People claiming a plane crashed, yes. Actual plane crash. Didn't happen.

[Realityhack]

33. Another phrase with an equal sign: No planes = No brains n/t

[Mist]

19. "Nice lawn" indeed! I have envied the "amazing Pentalawn" for many years--how I'd

love to find one and install it in my sad scrubby front yard!

[vincent_vega_lives]

23. The vertical stabilizer

and wings outside the fuel tanks did not penetrate the facade. The fuselage, engines and wing fuel tanks created a hole in the facade some 100' long and 10' high at ground level with a 15' x 20' hole in the center created by the fuselage.

[rollingrock]

34. more

2a


2b


2c


2d


2e


2f


2g

[SDuderstadt]

52. Simple question, dude...

why don't any of your photos show an unobtructed view of the first floor? How about one BEFORE the roof has collapsed and with the view of the first floor unobstructed? Are you afraid to do so? Haven't you engaged in enough dishonesty already?

[BuddyBoy]

57. But you're not saying he's a liar, right? Just dishonest. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

61. It's dishonest to omit photos that don't show an unobstructed view...

yes.

In precisely the same way it's dishonest to say there was no plane debris on the Pentagon lawn and attempt to prove it by only showing certain photos and withholding any that contradict the claim. Sheer dishonesty.

[rollingrock]

67. Several have been posted in this thread

if you choose ignore them, I can't help you.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Why do you continue to post pics that have obstructed views, then?

What are you afraid of, dude?

[rollingrock]

70. Use your brain for a minute

The pre-collapse shots all have smoke in them because the smoke did not clear up until AFTER the roof collapsed. Does that make sense?

That's why pre-collapse shots without smoke DO NOT EXIST. If you have any, then please feel free to post them. Because I've been to all the official sites, FEMA, DoD, NTSB, etc, I haven't seen any.

But even with the smoke, you can still make out the outline of the damaged face through the smoke.

[SDuderstadt]

71. What a rationalization...

You use the obstructed shots precisely BECAUSE they obscure the view and are less likely to visibly contradict your CT. It leads the uninformed reader to believe the smaller circular hole is all that was created because they cannot see the much larger rectangular hole immediately below it. When the two holes are visible it, of course, looks much more obviously where a 757 hit th4e building. Utterly dishonest.

[rollingrock]

72. Jesus Christ

whatever dude, lol.

[SDuderstadt]

73. Oh, I'm typically not showing the larger rectangular hole immediately below the smaller...

circular hole because I could not find photos of it. What a crock.

[lovepg]

86. So if they exist post them and man up.....Nt

[SDuderstadt]

89. Dude...it's IN the fucking OP!

Did you notice it?

[whatchamacallit]

76. 1. there's simply no plane there

2. the fbi still refuses to release the confiscated video evidence
3. there are conflicting eye-witness accounts
4. the OCT has jumped the shark on blindly accepting the varied (and ridiculous) explanations for the bizarre condition of the crash site (yes, I do expect *massive* debris from a fully loaded 757 smashing into the face of a steel reinforced concrete structure)
5. wtfoct?!?!?!?

[SDuderstadt]

77. What a stupid fucking post...

where did the plane debris come from then?

[whatchamacallit]

78. "Dude" you've got some *major* anger issues

If you're referring to the dubious smattering of debris that shows up in some pictures, I can only guess. But look at the pictures in the OP, there is no 757 on the lawn of the pentagon. Period.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Dude...

you have some basic dishonesty issues. Given the speed with which the 757 hit the Pentagon, why would you expect it to "be on the lawn", when most of it is in the building and there are plenty of graphics that indicate the degree of penetration? zDo you think it should have just bounced off the building and landed on the lawn? Another stupid fucking post.

[whatchamacallit]

80. How am I being dishonest?

I simply don't see the plane, and I don't buy the moon-bat "liquid missile" bullshit either. I'm not being dishonest about what I don't see in the picture. Are far as cropped or close up pictures displaying some kind of debris, I can't be certain of the authenticity of what's being displayed. All I can tell you is there is no plane in the wide master shots. Period. Again.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Where do you think the plane is, dude?

Jesus, you guys are always yammering, "well, it doesn't like I think it should look like". So, tell us, what should the site look like? Are you surprised that the bulk of the plane is INSIDE the Pentagon? And, who the fuck cares whether you're certain of the authenticity of what's being displayed? I don't think the thousands of people involved in the investigation owe you any explanations, dude. Why don't you guys apply the same standards of proof to your fucking goofy claims as you demand of the so-called "OCT"? Do you realize that if you had to apply the same standards you demand of the "OCT", every CT bullshit claim totally falls apart?

[whatchamacallit]

91. It looks like something else hit the pentagon

Be honest, does it REALLY look like what you would expect it to? Or, are you just convincing yourself this looks right because you can't even entertain the possibility it wasn't a 757? Me thinks the latter... Also, as far as I'm concerned most of the OCT falls apart by any standard.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Dude...

it looks like a plane hit and, by all indications, it was a 757. There are 100+ witnesses who directly saw the plane hit the building, many of whom mentioned that it was an American Airlines plane or that it was a 757. Do you honestly think that AA is somehow "in on it"? Can you explain to them where their missing plane is? How about the missing passengers? Why was plane debris found both inside and outside the Pentagon? How did the DNA of the passengers get there? When you answer all those questions intelligently, then someone might start buying your "no-planes" bullshit. I sincerely invite you to go to the Pentagon, confront one of the survivors from that day and tell them no plane hit the Pentagon. I'll even pick up the tab for your hospital stay.

The problem with "no-planers" is that when confronted with evidence that most people would admit totally debunks the "no-planes" theory, you guys just dig your heels in deeper and concoct even more dubious claims.

[MrMickeysMom]

84. "Another stupid fucking post"...

... (see above)

[rollingrock]

85. Both cannot be true

either the plane exploded on impact, or all of it went inside the building.

Both CANNOT be true.

A) If it exploded on impact, then the debris should have been scattered everywhere on the lawn.
Because that's what an explosion does; it sends debris flying in every direction.

B) if the plane went inside the building, then there could have been no explosion. Because the plane would have been destroyed before it had a chance to disappear into the building.


So which is it?? A or B? Again, both cannot be true.

[SDuderstadt]

90. Oh, bullshit...

Please prove that ridiculous claim. Provide some math to show both couldn't happen simultaneously. Another stupid fucking post.

[whatchamacallit]

93. Ha, fuck the math

use your fucking eyes!

[SDuderstadt]

94. So, you can't prove it mathematically...

Why am I not surprised?

[whatchamacallit]

95. Neither can you Einstein. (n/t)

[SDuderstadt]

96. You're the one making the stupid claim, dude...

yet you can't model it mathematically. Despite that, you expect us to believe that plane could only have either completely exploded outside the Pentagon or entered the Pentagon completely, yet with no explosion whatsoever. Yet, when I offer you the chance to prove your claim mathematically, you fold completely.

[whatchamacallit]

97. Lol, I'm glad you at least have this place

to prove your manhood.

[rollingrock]

99. There's no reasoning with some people

its like trying to reason with a crazy person or some Christian fundies I know.

The minute you introduce them to simple logic and common sense, watch them explode into a blind rage. lol.

[SDuderstadt]

107. And I'm glad we have this place where...

we can ask you for proof of your bullshit claims and watch you fold every time.

[rollingrock]

98. No, you're the one making the goofy claim

that they can occur simultaneously. It's up to YOU to prove that claim.

You can't prove a negative, Einstein. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Fucking unbelievable...

now you're denying it's YOUR claim?

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rollingrock]

118. I see you are struggling again

with reading comprehension.

[SDuderstadt]

122. Dude...

did you make the claim or not?

[Realityhack]

135. I think whatchamacallit did.

I think RR just jumped in.

[Gravel Democrat]

100. Cameras?

Clips from images above-pentagon roof:


If they are cameras (after all there are probably
cameras watching cameras at the most important
US Military building in the world)

Then where are the images?

SO we are supposed to believe the most important US Military base in the world
only had 1 camera (at the heliport) looking in the direction of the incoming, and 4
frames (with incorrect datestamps no less) that definitely show something flying
into the building are the *only video record available to show the public*?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flight77-2.ogg

and people that merely question this are the conspiracy theorists?

heh heh

Here's a conspiracy theory:

Hani Hanjour and 4 others hijacked a heavy jet aircraft with boxcutters
(...), and then executed complex aeronautical maneuvers that dropped
the jet 20,000 feet in a corkscrew dive and then perfectly aligned the
aircraft to fly into the ground floor at 500 mph, Hanjour no doubt being
extremely adept at handling ground effect so as to hit a near bullseye-
Wedge 1 -the West Wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive
the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day,
September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees.

yep thats a whopper

[vincent_vega_lives]

103. False hood

The plane was not standing still. It was moving at a velocity of 733 fps. All "explosions" are not the same. You are mistakenly assuming that the plane exploded in a high velocity detonation. It did not. What you saw was a fuel BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor) It is relatively low speed expansion of hot gasses. Slow in that you can catch the expansion on video. A typical chemical explosive requires a high speed camera as they tend to detonate at 30,000 fps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLEVE

While BLEVEs can be violent if the fuel is under pressure, fuel vapor ignition in open air tends to lack the pressure wave of a detonation.

Video has shown plenty of lightweight debris covering the lawn. Some photos of this debris are in this very thread.Most of this is most likley from the wing tips and vertical stapilizer which did not penetrate the facade of the building. All of the aircraft debris with substatial mass (even the passengers) would continue on the path their momentum is carrying them. Into the pentagon.

[hack89]

123. We know the fuel filled wings outboard of the engines did not penetrate the building

Therefore the most likely source of the fireball

[Realityhack]

136. What you have done here is construct a false dilema.

This is a common logical fallacy. If you want to understand what happened you will need to read some of the responses to your post and admit your mistake.

[vincent_vega_lives]

104. "dubious smattering"

You really haven't done much homework have you. I recomend you acctually make an effort to know what you are talking about before you spout your opinion.

there is no 757 on the lawn of the pentagon. Period.

You REALLY don't understand what happened.

[MrMickeysMom]

83. no such "plaine debris" existed- eom

[leftofthedial]

120. Stop Making Sense!

stop making sense

[BuddyBoy]

137. Were airplane parts PLANTED inside the Pentagon?

A 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon, yet some people reported seeing airplane parts (even interior parts like seats) INSIDE the building. Were they PLANTED?
Maybe, but probably not.

Then how did they get there? Maybe the parts that people reported seeing were from the plane mock-up that was used in the
simulated crash of a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon as part of the MASCAL exercise.

[SDuderstadt]

138. Do try to be ridiculous?

Or does it just come naturally?

[Realityhack]

139. sure they were from the tabletop excersize held a year earlier...

they were 25mm miniatures which explains why so many looked like elves and orks.

Get a grip man. Do you have ANY evidence that such a mock-up EVER existed??