757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by ANOK
you can't prove anything using just eye witness reports.

Nope, but as correlary evidence it holds up, ad with reports this wide we can STRONGLY indicate there was an AA painted big plane present. What we need is physical evidence:

Originally posted by darkbluesky
The only real physical evidence available to the public that indicates a 757 hit the Pentagon is the pictures of 757 parts.

Aaand the objects on the flight path, damage to bldg consistent roughly at least w/757, the Black Boxes showing their journey there (except for that silly animation), etc.

And they have been proven beyond any resonable doubt they are 757 parts.

Really? I'd like to see where - so far I'm just saying likely/probably - landing gear strut and wheel are the most identifiable, but I don't know my planes well enough to rule out others...

the physical evidence for anything other than AA 77 is non existent. The entire "no 757 theory" is based on hearsay, speculation, extrapolation, and no small amount of simple misinformed opinion. At least we 757 believers have a few snapshots.

AND a positive ID. Truck bomb? No go. Missile? Doesn't count for plane parts. Global Hawk? Just silly. A3 Sky warrior? Doesn't even use JT8D engines. Anything else? ... well. it sure WASN'T a 757. How can you know that with no god guess on its replacement? It sounds like someone is influenced by the official account and hellbent on claiming its opposite. Yeah, what he said but "NOT!"

Originally posted by Realtruth
I think everyone is forgetting this 2 Star Army General who spent his life observing footage like this every day, then was in charge of the entire program himself.

What did he say about the 757 and the Pentagon? See the Vid.

That man is confused and angry. Perfect spokesman! Okay here's my take: Despite his whatever credentials, Stubby is plain wrong. When he's not blowing up sheep with his brain or walking through walls, he's probably influenced by others and sloppy with his double-checking, or consciously misreading the data. (were Soviet equipment analysts ever paid or trained to misread data and boost defense budgets?) The hole is too small is his whole case, and that has been covered well enough in this thread even (p 2). You cannot take a 16-foot part of the 100-foot damage and just say "that's the hole and its too small."

So wrong analysis plus some kinda credentials means he's right and the official story is blown outta the water?

Good work on those.

Why go to a tech school or learn science from the government
when you can't use what you know and the OPs people run things.

Helium isn't good of anything and over unity machines don't exist.

Bush: don't listen to those conspiracy theories

Opposite.

A shaped charge is the only thing to make a perfectly round hole in
the Pentagon. Didn't finish seeing the videos.




[edit on 4/19/2007 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
The only real physical evidence available to the public that indicates a 757 hit the Pentagon is the pictures of 757 parts. And they have been proven beyond any resonable doubt they are 757 parts. I know...I know...too few parts (opinion and speculation). I also conceed thet its theoretically possible they were planted or secretly brought in. Other forms of "non physical evidence" cited by "no 757 beleivers" Hole is too small.....(speculation), no burnt grass (speculation). Other aircraft seen (hearsay - no pics in air or in pieces) You get my point.

You're absolutely correct when you say nothing can be proved or disproved based on eyewitness accounts. You're also correct that the availabe physical evidence for a 757 is weak. However, the physical evidence for anything other than AA 77 is non existent. The entire "no 757 theory" is based on hearsay, speculation, extrapolation, and no small amount of simple misinformed opinion. At least we 757 believers have a few snapshots.

[edit on 4/19/2007 by darkbluesky]

So where are the FBI and NTSB reports that match the numbers to the parts found at the Pentagon to Flight 77 ? Please show reports to support your theory.

Couple of points.
1. Why didn't the fire department use AFFF foam instead of water. Water just makes a fuel fire worse.
2. Nose cone on this aircraft is reinforced fiberglass. How did it make it through this much concrete, to punch a perfectly round hole.
I think this is what was flown into the WTC and Pentagon.

Remote controlled flying bomb made to look like a plane. Possibly some sort of cloak, hence the weird shadow. Looks very similar to the plane that was flown into tower two.

Originally posted by stompk
Couple of points.
1. Why didn't the fire department use AFFF foam instead of water. Water just makes a fuel fire worse.

They did use foam, as the photographic evidence provided on page 12 of this thread illustrates.

2. Nose cone on this aircraft is reinforced fiberglass. How did it make it through this much concrete, to punch a perfectly round hole.

Why do you conclude the nose cone caused the breach? Why not a large structural piece of the cockpit or the nose gear and wheels? It seems logical to me that any object of sufficient mass accelerated into a masonry all at high enough velocity would punch out a roughly circular hole. I have seen photos with a large piece of curved fuselage and a wheel lying amongst the debris on the outside of the punch out hole.

I think this is what was flown into the WTC and Pentagon.

Remote controlled flying bomb made to look like a plane. Possibly some sort of cloak, hence the weird shadow. Looks very similar to the plane that was flown into tower two.

You know...now that I think about it, you're probably right.

Case closed.

[edit on 4/19/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1So where are the FBI and NTSB reports that match the numbers to the parts found at the Pentagon to Flight 77 ? Please show reports to support your theory.

I realize other aircraft use Rolls Royce RB-211 engines, and possiblly the same wheels as 757's, however I can state with certainty that none of the aircraft the "no 757" crowd crows about (tomahawk cruise missile, global hawk, A3, F-16, C-130) utilize the engine and wheel rims found and photographed amongst the Pentagon wreckage.

I cannot show any proof the parts photographed at the pentagon come from AA 77, but they seem to come from a 757. Are you suggesting they come from another 757 or another type of aircraft? If another type...which?

[edit on 4/19/2007 by darkbluesky]

TextTextText Black That hit was fishy right from the start. Their were photos of where the "object" hit right before the pentagon and there are mad tracks and skid marks. Funny enough a satelite taking photos day prior proved the mark they claimed were from the "object" were already there. Also planes don't do that much damage. Everything that happend in the towers was bogus, there was more to it. Bombs and other explosives. Especially when the tower imploded. Haven't read the thread fully sorry if this was already said. Just throwing in my voice.

-ta

Once again we arrive at the dead end of not enough evidence to proove either side of the arguement. Ask yourself "did the people in charge do thier jobs that day?", and if you answer yes please explain it to the rest of us how you can defend them rationally.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

I realize other aircraft use Rolls Royce RB-211 engines, and possiblly the same wheels as 757's, however I can state with certainty that none of the aircraft the "no 757" crowd crows about (Tomahawk cruise missile, global hawk, A3, F-16, C-130) utilize the engine and wheel rims found and photographed amongst the Pentagon wreckage.

I cannot show any proof the parts photographed at the pentagon come from AA 77, but they seem to come from a 757. Are you suggesting they come from another 757 or another type of aircraft? If another type...which?

In regards to 'our' (no 757) crowd 'crowing' about Tomahawk cruise missile, Global Hawk, A-3, F-16, C-130, I think we can be reasonably certain that the same people who photographed the 'alleged' RB-211 engine parts would be smart enough to avoid taking pictures of the tomahawk cruise missile, Global Hawk, A-3, F-16, C-130 parts laying around inside the Pentagon.

Of course, you have no obligation to post you current or previous employment or education. I only asked because it might give us a clue as to why you are here in the sole capacity of supporting the government hoax of a Pentagon Boeing 757 hit. Your argument has been reduced to "thats my story and I'm sticking to it" (that is YOUR quote by the way). You might as well have gone on to say, "Don't confuse me with the facts."

I think you have done an excellent job of presenting the governments case seeing as you have neither the facts, the evidence, the video or the aeronautical engineering, accident investigation or piloting experience background to help you. Great Job!

Originally posted by johnlearI think you have done an excellent job of presenting the governments case seeing as you have neither the facts, the evidence, the video or the aeronautical engineering, accident investigation or piloting experience background to help you. Great Job!

These statements represent Johnlears opinion and are offered to promote discussion. They are not stated as fact.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

These statements represent Johnlears opinion and are offered to promote discussion. They are not stated as fact.

Particularly where I commended Darkbluesky for a Great Job! That is my opinion. It is not a fact.

Originally posted by johnlear

In regards to 'our' (no 757) crowd 'crowing' about Tomahawk cruise missile, Global Hawk, A-3, F-16, C-130, I think we can be reasonably certain that the same people who photographed the 'alleged' RB-211 engine parts would be smart enough to avoid taking pictures of the tomahawk cruise missile, Global Hawk, A-3, F-16, C-130 parts laying around inside the Pentagon.

What a junkyard it must've been in there. Good thin the photographers (or at least the screeners of their snaps) knew enough about engines to shoot the planted 757-ish parts and ignore the remains of the (whatever). So we have a span of culprits from a Global Hawk (6-foot penetrating core) to a C-130 (64-foot core engine-engine)? Wow. With a 757's engine-engine core at 50 feet, and the hole seen as too small, you're still willing to see an even larger C-130 inside? Or was that just hyperbole?

Of course, you have no obligation to post you current or previous employment or education. I only asked because it might give us a clue as to why you are here in the sole capacity of supporting the government hoax of a Pentagon Boeing 757 hit. Your argument has been reduced to "thats my story and I'm sticking to it" (that is YOUR quote by the way). You might as well have gone on to say, "Don't confuse me with the facts."

THE FACTS. People can't be confused with misconstrued "facts?" Hasn't the gov done that with theirs? And I with mine and DBS with his? Luckily yours are immune from wrongness and still qualify as "the" facts? Wow, one of unsung the perks of pilot status... You want my qualifications for this? None but the research I've put in, and of course I'm "wrong" via your "facts," so it shows!

I think you have done an excellent job of presenting the governments case seeing as you have neither the facts, the evidence, the video or the aeronautical engineering, accident investigation or piloting experience background to help you. Great Job!

With the exception of "the evidence," these are the things I don't have either. We do try, but its hard with all the mystery still allowed and encouraged by the gov's inability to prove its own, and apparently (physically) true case. I know it was meant for DBS tho and I hope he takes it as a compliment.

Now again, if Global Hawk/C-130/whatever is still really your best guess and you're only sure it WASN'T a 757-200 as reported, please try to narrow down one cuplrit that explains the evidence - damage, parts seen, eyewitnesses, etc (or explain why you're discounting any evidence). Flyover-n-bombs? Just let us know a POSITIVE ID - it WASN'T X because it WAS Y. I'm not expecting it to prove right, just to be a best guess to fill in the hole you've been so valiantly trying to dig.

Or decline the challenge. After all this tgread is only abut digging the hole not filling it in, right? About creating mystery, not solving it. Dare I say, about rejecting evidence and embracing ignorance?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I cannot show any proof the parts photographed at the pentagon come from AA 77, but they seem to come from a 757. Are you suggesting they come from another 757 or another type of aircraft? If another type...which?

[edit on 4/19/2007 by darkbluesky]

I am only looking for the truth of what happened. But have aircraft experinece and can do research.

Well do you need a list of planes that use the same type of wheels as a 757, but its hard to tell which plane due to the fact we have no report of the size of the wheel found.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I am only looking for the truth of what happened. But have aircraft experinece and can do research.

Well do you need a list of planes that use the same type of wheels as a 757, but its hard to tell which plane due to the fact we have no report of the size of the wheel found.

Cool! I'd love to see some possibilities narrowed down - True enuff on exact size, we can only guess at that. here's the rim found:

Not much for judging scale.
I know of no other shots of it offhand...
Joe Quinn tho had no problem deciding "“the circular rim of the landing gear wheel that is presented as evidence by the US government is too small to be part of the landing gear of a Boeing 757."

But How about design? For example:

Compared to a 757 wheel, as pictured in Loose Change.
Note: Different number of slots! eight vs. ten! Russell Pickering found out with some research, the 757-200 series uses precisely two different types interchangably - "one with 10 slots and one with 8." It's hard to say which type Flight 77 was equipped with, since, as Pickering found, "airlines are not obligated to use the same rim and gear manufacturer on a particular aircraft.” My guess is it had eight holes.

Quinn says it in fact "bears a startling likeness to the rim of the wheel of the landing gear of a Global Hawk.”
I checked on that:



Karl Schwarz sez it looks like an A3 Skywarrior wheel - if it had the wrong wheels. "This is the type of wheel hub one would expect to find as one of the two rear wheels on an A-3 refitted with current equipment rather than equipment that is no longer being manufactured."

I'll let someone else check this out. Ultima? Find any shots of an A3 with the wrong wheels?

But seriously, anything useful would be useful.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Cool! I'd love to see some possibilities narrowed down - True enuff on exact size, we can only guess at that. here's the rim found:

Well all you do is look what planes use the Dunlop or Goodrich wheels. As far as the same type their is.

727
737
Airbus A310
BAE-125

[edit on 20-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

And as was pointed out many times to you a Goodyear or Dunlop wheel does NOT make it identical to the one found at the Pentagon. All of those planes have different shapes to them than the one found at the Pentagon.

John,

This is a new report from CNN right after the impact at the Pentagon.

Listen closely to what he claims. It's what we knew all along, no plane wreckage visible.

And you should find the quote from him about what he was talking about.

"JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a
plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

"The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in.
And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough
that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing
sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would
indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon
and then caused the side to collapse.

"Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that
the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It
wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was
weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed."

If there was some plot to fabricate testimony about a 757 crash where there was none, then how is it that a top CNN reporter wound up not following the "script"??? There's no logic here. There's no way you can argue that various civilians & low-ranking pentagon folks who were already being interviewed and giving testimony to both local and national news crews about seeing the 757 were in on the plot and being coached, while a top CNN talking head somehow missed his "marching orders".

In fact, there's no revelations here, nothing new -- McIntyre's spontaneous observations about the scene at the Pentagon are actually very consistent with the testimony of a number of witnesses who said they saw the 757 impact. Namely, how the plane disintegrated into the building upon impact, how the wreckage was pulverized into small pieces (which has happened to planes in other documented cases, such as the sandia labs test crash of an F-4 fighter that is referenced by Jim Hoffman and others), and how some of them were surprised by the counterintuitive lack of big debris outside. Many of them were very specific and emphatic about this, and it's not surprising that someone who saw the scene afterwards could have impressions like McIntyre's. We've all already had the same impression from looking at various post-crash photos anyway.

www.questionsquestions.net...

BREAKING FOOTAGE HERE!

Talk about Freudian Slip!

Sorry Folks no denying this information.



[edit on 20-4-2007 by Realtruth]