How did Atta's passport actually survive?

a reply to: Jesushere

The below quote is not from a debunking site. I don’t agree with the groups views on the WTC. I do agree in that the conspiracists that don’t understand all the evidence at the pentagon points to a large commercial jet impact are killing the truth movement’s credibility. Unfortunately, seeing the need to salvage the truth movement’s credibility was too late.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 | Editor's Picks, Essays, Science, US |

Most rank and file members of the 9/11 truth movement take their cues on the Pentagon from well-known speakers, writers, and acknowledged leaders of the movement. The quickest way to end the ongoing damage to the movement’s credibility and bring closure would be for these prominent individuals to publicly repudiate their former endorsements, views, and statements on the Pentagon event and acknowledge the scientific method and its conclusion of large plane impact. In the absence of public repudiations, the damage caused by false Pentagon hypotheses is likely to continue indefinitely, even if those who fueled their spread cease to promote them. Consequently, the surest way to end the debate and enhance the credibility of the movement is for each individual to study, without bias or prejudice, the evidence for themselves.

The recent papers by scientists, engineers and others showing large plane impact at the Pentagon have been collected together on a website that invites feedback and discussion. Comments can be sent to the Scientific Method 9/11 website which specifically invites feedback on many of the papers listed below.

The truth movement could have been a beautiful thing if It exsposed the true incompetence of the government, and the WTC sacrificed safety for cost.

But the con artists hijacked the truth movement and sacrificed credibility for donations, books sales, and likes for a target audience.

neutronflux. Know I understand what you said, doesn't make sense though. The plane has to be off the ground when levelled and as came in and hit the Pentagon. This ok means the height of the plane is higher than the first floor on E ring (12 to 14 feet) the lower part of the plane will strike the first floor and the upper half of the plane will hit the second floor on E ring. I don't see much damage on the second floor all I see is a T shaped looking hole, I can't see how the upper part of the plane went through there?

You still have not answered the question about the two other exit holes on C ring.

a reply to: Jesushere

One, why does it have to be level?

Two, the contact damage shows the left wing hit the ground at the base of the pentagon.

There, all evidence shows it was descending into the pentagon.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

When the left engine hit the wall it was a few inches above ground level at that point. The wall sits on a high point, and this explains why the engine did not gouge the surrounding lawn as it traveled over the lawn.

After a a long turn made with a speed of about 200 knots, flight 77 was 4 miles from the pentagon and had an altitude of 2000 feet. Over 30 seconds the throttles were worded to full, and the nose pitched down by controls.
www.ntsb.gov...

There was no magical flight 77 trying to fly parallel to the ground. The pilot was trying to descend into the pentagon.

a reply to: Jesushere

When you base your questions on what physical evidence actually shows, what is actually recorded, and not basing questions from false narratives, your questions might warrant an answer.

a reply to: Jesushere

What do you not understand flight 77 was descending into the pentagon?

Photographs provide further support for the FDR data as they show the felled and severed poles becoming progressively shorter toward the Pentagon, consistent with the observed final impact point, close to the ground.23
www.journalof911studies.com...

a reply to: Jesushere

You're making the error of thinking of the plane as being of uniform density when the fact is that most of the plane's mass and densest parts are actually below the cabin floor level. Things like fuel tanks, engines, landing gear, wing box etc etc IE the parts that act like a battering ram whereas, above the floor level is just a relatively lightweight shell sufficient to maintain temperature & pressure at altitude for the passengers' comfort.

So you need to work out where the cabin floor level was at impact compared to the top of the ground floor of the building.

a reply to: Jesushere

Maybe you should actually read the “official account” instead of conspiracists spoon feeding you false narratives?

Might start with trying to discredit the 100 plus witnesses that have recorded accounts of see a large commercial jet hit the pentagon. And none of the damage at the pentagon corresponds with missile or bomb damage?

a reply to: neutronflux

Why do you make it your mission to debunk all alternative views on this issue and promote the official line ?

a reply to: Fermy

Seems you are concentrating on the poster instead of the topic which is kinda frowned upon here. Alternative views are fine but, if they can't stand up to scrutiny, impartial or otherwise, perhaps the proposed theory needs a bit of work or it could be just plain wrong too.

a reply to: Fermy

So? Which has more credibility than a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon?

A) a missile used as a kinetic weapon?
B) a missile exploded?
C) a bomb?

Logic dictates two out of the three very different theories are already wrong.....

If you cannot cite a more credible explanation than a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon as attested to by over a hundred plus eyewitness you cannot discredit, then what is there to debunk?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

What do you not understand flight 77 was descending into the pentagon?

Really?

How odd, because the CCTV frames clearly show what ever hit the pentagon came in at ground level, running parallel to the ground,



the photos from the pentagon also show 0 impact marks on the ground

a reply to: Pilgrum


I feel that particular posters motive is relevant. But clearly they will never answer so for reasons of not bending the rules I will stop now.

a reply to: Fermy

Problem is all of those "alternative theories" is that none of then conform to reality as defined by eye witness
and physical evidence left on the ground and from the Flight data recorder recovered from the scene

Want to purpose a theory ? Go ahead - just make sure can backed up by hard evidence, not personal conspiracy
fantasy......

a reply to: firerescue


Sure. Miracle passports, citizens nonchalantly ambling around with their hands in their pockets looking for clues in the rubble.

a reply to: Fermy

Miracle passports,

I don't see how it's a miracle considering it was in the cockpit far ahead of the fuel.
Using your thinking no paper should have survived the Columbia re-entry. But it did.

Also why was paper blown out of the buildings windows at impact?
Shouldn't it have been burnt too?

a reply to: Agit8dChop

You do understand the you are referring to a camera that is an extreme fisheye lens and severally distortions perspective. Is the object captured between two frames from the same camera to determine if the jet was not descending? The camera’s main point of focus was a security checkpoint, not objects in the background. So, the frame is not clear enough to see that it is flight 77? But you can determine from a distorted image captured by a fisheye lens that is supposedly too blurred to see what the aircraft is with only one reference frame the object is flying level?

The contact damage between the navel annex antenna, the light poles, the clipped trees, the low concrete wall, the generator trailer points to the jet was descending. Which is backed by witnesses. That is backed by radar the jet add to drop 2000 feet to hit the pentagon in 4 miles while accelerating to over 500 knots.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

And conspiracists claim that flight 77 should have crashed to the way to the pentagon, but it is impossible it was descending into the pentagon?

a reply to: neutronflux

Are you really suggesting that a ''fish eye lens'' cctv is the reason the ''craft'' going parallel to the ground at ground level is in fact diving into the Pentagon.. ?


boy oh boy thats a stretch..

good luck with that!

a reply to: Agit8dChop

This should really be in a 'Pentagon' thread but the 757 was travelling at around 700' per second and it was captured in a single frame on each of 2 separate cameras, the frames being about 140mSec apart. So the distance covered in that 140mSec is around 100' which makes it something like extremely difficult to impossible to discern the descent rate if it was at all a noticeable nose-down attitude.

The best guess would be to draw a line from the nose in the latest frame to the known point of impact. It wouldn't need to be nose-down to still be descending if the pilot was pulling out of the final dive and trying to avoid hitting the ground in the final milliseconds. Pretty much as described by the eye-witnesses who thought it had to have hit the ground.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: neutronflux

Are you really suggesting that a ''fish eye lens'' cctv is the reason the ''craft'' going parallel to the ground at ground level is in fact diving into the Pentagon.. ?


boy oh boy thats a stretch..

good luck with that!

It’s a stretch that I applied the definition of fisheye lens? For a camera using a fisheye lens for a short focal length who’s primary subject was to keep objects in focus at the security checkpoint?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image.[1][2] Fisheye lenses achieve extremely wide angles of view. Instead of producing images with straight lines of perspective (rectilinear images), fisheye lenses use a special mapping (for example: equisolid angle), which gives images a characteristic convex non-rectilinear appearance.

Like to create any more false arguments by innuendo and implication?