9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

This evidence that the video frames were manipulated, though not conclusive, further discredits the idea that the release of these images was just a miscalculation on the part of people involved in the cover-up. The source of these images must have known that they show a vapor trail, an obscured aircraft that is clearly not a 757, and an explosion that could not have resulted from jet fuel combustion alone. It is unreasonable to think that this set of five frames is anything other than a planned part of the cover-up. They fueled theories that the Pentagon crash involved a small plane and a missile, rather than a jetliner such as Flight 77. The perpetrators have correctly predicted that controversy between people rejecting and insisting that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon would divide skeptics.

I like the last part of the paragraph from the source posted on top of my post. Talks about that type of explosion cannot blow that big. Has the author forgotten about the planes crashing into the towers and exploding just as big as the one on the Pentagon? Not to mention says the images are manipulative but is not conclusive to prove it.

Originally posted by ChapaevII
So after this amazing pilot brings this huge jet full of people into the tiny hole there and I am supposed to think he does this like a rat squeezes into a hole? What did it compress the engines and wings into its 2 foot ground clearance and dispense with the formal procedures for solid objects to encounter each other? This is an amazing story. Maybe more amazing than that NYC city one.

What is really amazing is that you seem to think that the hole was there before the plane hit.

You suddenly seem keen on the idea that the whole Pentagon argument may just be a disinformation tactic, it's good to see you are suddenly so open minded.
Have you considered that while the scant evidence is in order to cause argument detracting away from the crucial matters, it can work equally as well in respect to the idea that an airliner did hit the Pentagon? And that it would make even more sense to do it that way, otherwise you would risk leaving behind definitive proof that it was not as it seemed.
It's far easier to supply proof of what you want people to think and supply rumours of what you seemingly don't, if you catch my drift.
Plausible Deniability I think it's called.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

so you are claiming the engine to a 757 is "softer" than the cable spools???

You bet your tail chief. I can put a hole in side of a plane with a screwdriver and a good push. I cannot do that to one of those spools. Maybe you should stop listening to the biased, flaky book writing, Beechcraft jockey.

So, now I have to believe you can walk up to a Boeing plane and put a hole in their jetliners with a simple screwdriver and a "good push". (Of course I apologize as this whole line ignores that the gentleman was referring to a steel and titanium engine and you are talking about the body of a jet) Should they make planes from spools then for better strength? Have you told Boeing of this flaw?

I know some little gentlemen that can put their hands through those wooden spools with nothing but their hands, but they study their art.

I am also lost that if this plane is so strong to pierce this fortress, and through many levels and layers, yet is too flimsy to hold up against a wooden spool or your massive screwdriver with a simple "push". So many things I find I have to drop logic to understand. Is this thing strong enough to pierce the walls of the pentagon, yet flimsy enough to be poked into pieces by a simple screwdriver? Strong enough to penetrate 4 steel reinforced and cement walls, but cant damage a spool?

Where is the sun to rise tomorrow?


Who is the "flakey book writing, Beecraft jockey"?

That is my other problem as well. The fact that of you look at the thin white smear that you can only guess is exhaust, it is perfectly parallel to the ground.
That kind of speed, that close to the ground may not be totally impossible but wouldn't you need a tremendous amount of space to bring it down that close and that parallel to the ground without clipping an engine or wing and cart wheeling into the Pentagon?

AgentSmith, HowardRoark, I have a question.

As you're probably aware, this is a board to discuss conspiracy theories, something you guys don't seem to see merit in. Still, you're burning vast amounts of your time to debate ("debunk") them here, when it would be much more economical and reasonable to pursue other, more worthwhile activities and leave the loony tin-foil hat crowd to their own.

Why don't you?

Originally posted by ChapaevII
I know some little gentlemen that can put their hands through those wooden spools with nothing but their hands, but they study their art.

ChapaevII,

Not to detract from the quality of your post.

I just wanted to point out that they are not wooden spools.

Originally posted by Lumos
AgentSmith, HowardRoark, I have a question.

As you're probably aware, this is a board to discuss conspiracy theories, something you guys don't seem to see merit in. Still, you're burning vast amounts of your time to debate ("debunk") them here, when it would be much more economical and reasonable to pursue other, more worthwhile activities and leave the loony tin-foil hat crowd to their own.

Why don't you?

I think ATS reserves that kind of attitude for other forums, we like a balanced debate here to search for truth and deny ignorance.
If things were the way you suggest, then you would just have a one-sided opinon would you not? Do you think this would be better?
You may also find that a huge majority of people here would not appreciate you reffering to them as being a 'loony tin-foil hat crowd'.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

I'm new, but I have to agree with Lumos (except the tin hat part). I'd like to see a percentage graph of how much time is spent on "disinformation" claims.
It could be turned around and said that those who are quick to label something disinformation are the true disinformation agents. The whole thing would go in a circle forever.
Why not just let people discuss thier points without worrying about diversion and disinformation.
It seems to me all a clandestine agency would have to do to disrupt the whole thing is to put it out there that there are disinformation agent. You don't even need to actually have them. just say there out there and everyone starts spinning in circles.
It's a very tried and true tactic. You don't have to actually do anything. Just make people think you are.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by Outriderdark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by ChapaevII
So after this amazing pilot brings this huge jet full of people into the tiny hole there and I am supposed to think he does this like a rat squeezes into a hole? What did it compress the engines and wings into its 2 foot ground clearance and dispense with the formal procedures for solid objects to encounter each other? This is an amazing story. Maybe more amazing than that NYC city one.

What is really amazing is that you seem to think that the hole was there before the plane hit.

You read it like that? Then I am the one laughing at you! Are you an expert at putting words into peoples mouths all the time? I have not been here long enough to see who they are yet.

The amazing feat of flying so low to the ground can only be appreciated when you fly. Oh, I mean fly jets, not sit in them. Whatever you think your flying on, getting that close is no easy feat, and that entry hole shows this guy was one HELL of a pilot who could fly so low and parallel to the ground.

Sorry if you could not follow logic. I will be more careful to fully explain from now on to avoid that problem for you.


So, nice to give you a laugh but, that is one UNBELIEVABLE flying job.

if there was no foul play involved there would be no reason for secrecy or disinformation.

so whether or not it was a 757 the withholding/manipulation of evidence is indicting in complicitness with the operation.

Originally posted by ChapaevII
You read it like that?

Then I am the one laughing at you!

Are you an expert at putting words into peoples mouths all the time?

Originally posted by ChapaevII
I am just amazed at this. Are you telling me that someone has to fly a plane that close to the ground and exactly parallel to get into that tiny hole?

If English is not your native language, then I apologize.

In any case, the size of the hole has nothing to do with the abilities of the pilot.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by ChapaevII
I know some little gentlemen that can put their hands through those wooden spools with nothing but their hands, but they study their art.

ChapaevII,

Not to detract from the quality of your post.

I just wanted to point out that they are not wooden spools.

I take that information with kind graciousness and return it to you with thanks my friend.

Could I be such a horrid pest as to ask for the composition of those exact spools in question? I would be in your debt and would return the friendly gesture by using that information in my future references. Knowing that this would come well documented finally and I would no longer err in my posts.

Thank you in advance of your kindness.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle

if there was no foul play involved there would be no reason for secrecy or disinformation.

A good point. I often wondered how they were able to put forth names, photos, etc. of ALL the hijackers within a few days, yet here we are almost 5 years later with little more than 5 still frames from a security video camera. ???

Originally posted by Lumos
AgentSmith, HowardRoark, I have a question.

As you're probably aware, this is a board to discuss conspiracy theories, something you guys don't seem to see merit in. Still, you're burning vast amounts of your time to debate ("debunk") them here, when it would be much more economical and reasonable to pursue other, more worthwhile activities and leave the loony tin-foil hat crowd to their own.

Why don't you?

I'll take a stab at this.

In the "tin foil" crowd outside AboveTopSecret.com, a growing theme seems to be developing, and it involves the Pentagon.

Apparently, according to many conspiracists, if you think a 757 hit the Pentagon, that means you've "bought the official story". This is unusually narrow thinking, reminiscent of liberal-v-conservative divide-and-conquer hogwash.

The reality is far from it. For example, I happen to think that a 757 hit the Pentagon. However, there are numerous other conspiracy angles that I discuss and investigate surrounding the events at the Pentagon and WTC. I think the "Government" is complicit in heinous acts related to this event, and the actual thing hitting the building is perhaps the least important in the list of possible issues.


I also think, this relentless focus on the 757 is in itself another conspiracy.

There are countless websites and business selling books, videos, and related items that rely on something other than a 757. These people have come here, and often vehemently push their agenda at the expense of credibility.

There are also confirmed stories of government-sponsored disinformationists posing as conspiracy theorists, polluting the Internet with false information, overly wild ideas, and similar "noise".


On ATS, we try hard to apply a balanced approach to all ideas related to conspiracy theories in an effort to discard what is not a conspiracy, so that we can focus on what is. This is the only way to zero in on the truth, and not waste energy on disinformation and misdirection.


But, we still hold a warm place in our hearts for wild-ideas and crazy theories. Our Skunk Works Forum is a safe-heaven incubator for the wildest of the wild conspiracy theories.


I hope that helps.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
if there was no foul play involved there would be no reason for secrecy or disinformation.

There certainly was foul play involved. However, we need to remember that secrecy and disinformation is standard operating proceedure for "them" even when the truth is harmless. The truth, any truth, is contrary to "their" DNA.

so whether or not it was a 757 the withholding/manipulation of evidence is indicting in complicitness with the operation.

And likewise, populating the Internet with mountains of disinformation to further the debate on this question is a viable tactic to prevent investigation into other (possibly more important) issues. Not only is it viable, it's an approved and regularly occurring tactic.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I also think, this relentless focus on the 757 is in itself another conspiracy.

I agree.

In fact, if you look at the frames of the videos released, it's as if officials were trying to inspire conspiracy theories. The frames they released had obviously issues with being edited, judging by the light and shadows present on the frames seeming so unrealistic.


Look: surfaces that aren't even facing the explosion are just as illuminated by it as everything else. These frames were obviously edited.

The 9/11 Research Site puts it like this:

This evidence that the video frames were manipulated, though not conclusive, further discredits the idea that the release of these images was just a miscalculation on the part of people involved in the cover-up. The source of these images must have known that they show a vapor trail, an obscured aircraft that is clearly not a 757, and an explosion that could not have resulted from jet fuel combustion alone. It is unreasonable to think that this set of five frames is anything other than a planned part of the cover-up. They fueled theories that the Pentagon crash involved a small plane and a missile, rather than a jetliner such as Flight 77. The perpetrators have correctly predicted that controversy between people rejecting and insisting that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon would divide skeptics.

Source; emphasis mine.

We may disagree as to what they're trying to distract from, but it seems pretty clear to me, especially with books such as Thierry's and etc., that all of this relative publicity regarding the Pentagon is horrible when it comes to 9/11 as a whole. There are too many more easily demonstrated problems to address.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by ChapaevII
I am just amazed at this. Are you telling me that someone has to fly a plane that close to the ground and exactly parallel to get into that tiny hole?

In any case, the size of the hole has nothing to do with the abilities of the pilot.

It shows the entry point of the craft, and when you calculate the height the pilot had to fly, the skill level is in the stratosphere.

I am not making judgments on what happens there, I am looking and wondering. I have to look to make a thought first.

There are more problems than this in the United States, this is just distractions. Sort of like kids eating the sweeties left on the floor while the parents eat the real meat up at the table.

I mean, all this and never once was there any investigation into the deaths of 2000 humans in NYC. Who cares about what a spool is made of when all those people died with no criminal investigation, no forensics and a government that already disposed and destroyed any evidence?

I am just here to see what keeps you guys from ever getting on with doing something about the travesties and see how you get around not facing them.

Originally posted by ChapaevII


It shows the entry point of the craft, and when you calculate the height the pilot had to fly, the skill level is in the stratosphere

How do you know he wasn’t aiming for the middle of the building?



[edit on 26-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

There were several eyewitnesses that saw him skip the plane across the helipad before it impacted the building. Skipping it would account for the low impact of the building.

Why is is so hard to believe that an engine that is about 6 feet across would hit one or two spools at the most, and NOT hit the rest of them? Is it supposed to hit one, skip off them all, and then go into the building?? I'd say expecting something that small to hit all of them is more of a stretch than saying it hit one or two of them.