757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by ANOK
Are you just going to 'stick to your story' like Zaphod..

Its not my story, its from government and professional research sites. Also do not talk to me like you do Zaphod, i also have experience in avaiton.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm fed up with the lack of respect, and with having to be with one side or the other, and BOTH sides attacking each other.

I don't not want my thread derailed by disrespect, lets please try and not get personal and stay on topic.

Let's also try to collect facts that are solid, and analyze them from both points of view. I have appreciated the level of input and intelligence so far in this analytical debate.

I know for a fact that a few heavy hand Mods have already handed out warnings and at least one permanent bans in this thread alone, so they are watching closely.

Debates will get heated for sure, but lets try and keep it respectful of each other.

Regards,

RT

Originally posted by Realtruth

Debates will get heated for sure, but lets try and keep it respectful of each other.

Regards,

RT

Yes, i agree. Their are some sites i have been to that wont even let you post a 911 thread, as soon as you do they lock it.

So we have to a least keep the threads going that will let us post debates on 911.

I agree, and am looking into you guys' info with a more open mind. I have some questions about the 16-8 foot hole, tho I need to whip up a graphic. You may be onto something, but I'd like some clarification... back soon

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Its not my story, its from government and professional research sites. Also do not talk to me like you do Zaphod, i also have experience in aviation.

Then why don't you address the issues I bought up? It's not the first time I've tried to discus this natural thermite theory with you, and you still haven't tried to convince me I'm wrong. When someone makes an extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary evidence, and there is none for 'natural thermite' reactions.

So I'll ask again...

What does your research site say about the high temp needed to start a thermite reaction?

How did the thermite find it's way to the columns in the right places? You know it takes skill to place explosives in the right places to bring a building down to its foundations.

How does building seven fit into this theory?

How do you explain the lateral expulsion of tons of steel up to 600 ft.?

How do you explain the tilt and rotation of the South Tower, and how does your 'natural thermite' theory fit into this anomaly (it's only an anomaly if you buy into the no CD theory).

You really need to address these issues if you want me to believe your theory.

I wasn't talking to you like Zaphod, but it seems when I question your theory you act like Zaphod, and get defensive. People only get defensive when they're presented with questions they can't answer. And why cling to a theory that's full of huge holes? Adress the questions or give it up.

[edit on 22/4/2007 by ANOK]

The main problem on accepting that a 757 entered such small hole and did not leave any marks of wings or tail watsoever, is that even the 757 fuselage is not that small to start with, so lets dissect the whole thing:

Here is the size and ingo of the plane:

757 basic stats

Now the size of the fuselage is 12 feet 4 inches wide and 13 feet 12 inches high, lets think for a second the event were like this:

00:00 the nose of the 757 touches the pentagon
00:00:20 the nose begins to crush against the reinforced wall adn the plane suddelnly deacelerates sarply cusing bucling of the aluminium fuselage beetween the nose and the wings.
00:00:30 the plane bends and the first 9 meters of the nose destroy the Pentagon Wall and the plane begings to enter the impact zone
00:00:550 the wings begin to touch the outer wall of the pentagon

00:00:70 NOW the wings are much larger than the fuselage and the important part the empenage is the bulge where the wing joins the plane and therefore is the STRONGEST PART OF THE PLANE, the more metal, heavy, fuel ladden, and the main sparts and strengh extendes basically to the zone of the powerplans that weight a lot, so this part is heavy, strong, reinforced and ATTACHED firmly to the fuselage and it is at least 24 feet wide!...if a 757 crashes at 00:00:70 there the moment the wings disintegrate against the outer pentagon wall a huge explosion would occur (NOT BEFORE) since the front of the 757 doesnt carry any fuel, so the huge wing explodes and crashes against a wall with 2 big engines that weight tonnes and explode in the process

So its imposible for the wings or the empenage:

To have disapeared.
To leave the outer wall with no marks whatsoever.
For the engines to have disapeared and left no impact zone on the lawn or on the pentagon face wall.
If they entered the building and ergo, disapeared, we would have a larger hole or a larger impact hole PERIOD.
We would have lots of pieces OUTSIDE in the IMPOSIBLE case of the wings NOT penetrating the outer wall, why imposible? because the aluminium fuselage up to the row 16 is quite flimsy compared to the wings, and if were going to believe the nose punctured the Pentagon , then WHY NOT THE WINGS and ENGINES that are way more strong than the cabin?

00:00:85 if we are still in wonderland and the fuselage entered the pentagon, and the wings vaporized leaving no mark and leaving almost no trace of themselves on the lawn, due to the HUGE EXPLOSION, we still have a problem..the tail at this moment the tail has 4 options:

A)Keep going with inertia at 320 knots and crash the wall leaving huge marks and bouncing a lot of pieces on the lawn.
B)Enter a hole in the pentagon wall smaller than its size without making any mark
c)Disappear completelly in the explosion and vaporize itself to oblivion (and by some miracle the FDR survises the ordeal enters the hole making a great goal LOL.)
d) B and C that are the official version. LOL

so there it is, as the post title states NO 757 Crashed the Pentagon on 9/11... period
and dont get me started on the part of the lawn because that is NO 757 Fuselage part...

Originally posted by kix
...the tail at this moment the tail has 4 options:

A)Keep going with inertia at 320 knots and crash the wall leaving huge marks and bouncing a lot of pieces on the lawn.
B)Enter a hole in the pentagon wall smaller than its size without making any mark
c)Disappear completely in the explosion and vaporize itself to oblivion (and by some miracle the FDR survises the ordeal enters the hole making a great goal LOL.)
d) B and C that are the official version. LOL.

Good post Kix, did you catch this?



Looks like the tail of whatever it was went over the top. There are no pics of this piece of wreckage and no pics of the damage, if it caused any, where it landed. Why is it so dark looking, an AA 757's tail section is white, when it should be lit up and reflecting the light from the fireball?

It's either in shadow, which is odd like I said it should be reflecting the light, or it's painted black??

Just interested in what people think about this. What do you official story believers think?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for spoiling my whole weekend ANOK...

Hehe sry John. I'd forgotten about it myself, Jack Tripper pointed it out a while back now, and no one has bought it up since. Came across it again looking for something else early this morning.

Yeah if it was a big part of a 757 I'm pretty sure they would have released pics of it to make their fairy story more solid.

Also if it was shiny silver how come the fire ball isn't reflecting off it?
It's either a dark colour or just in shadow, but it's right next to the fireball shouldn't it be lit up?

The white smoke trail is visible in frame1, frame 3 and frame 5. Its possible that it fired a missile an instant before it hit and the concussion blew the tail and part of the engine up and over the Pentagon.

I need a copy of frame 3 if anybody can post it (hint, hint, mirageofdeceipt)!). I will then outline the white smoke in 1, 3, and 5.

I have no explanation why its dark in color. But in any case it is way to small to be from a Boeing 757. Possibly some talented soul could post the actual size of what a 757 tail would look like compared to the object we are seeing.

I know that there will be those that will deny that this is a piece of tail sailing through the air so to save them a post I will post in advance what they are going to say: "Its obviously a bird. You can see it flapping its wings.

I have seen the "parts" on the video, but the trouble is that in tha case of the smal right one we have no way of judging the distance, if we assume that its as far as the crash we may have a "size" but that piece could be moving towards the camera , and be closer, so may be a small fragment of the Pentagon facade, the very few rames availiable make it very complicated to judge the size or the trajectory of those 2 big debris (well big enough to get on the tape).

John, that remark about the bird is soo funny, you beat me to it! LOL

If we assume that part of the tail is shown on the tape, why they did not take pictures, that would put a lot of the controversy to rest, but I think that its imposible to destroy a big airliner wing center without any mark or hole....so I dont think that part belongs to a 757.... and I have yet to make neasurements on the wing pilon and right engine, because I think that a REAL 757 would have struck the big wire rolls just outside the window and they would have been sprayed with fuel and buning pieces (hence burned badly) HAD a real 757 crashed there.

John,

Again I don't know much about vapor or contrails from a jet, but it was sure strange to see the whitish/gray vapor trail before impact.

Would a jet create that much white smoke at full throttle?

And even so if it was a jet, it still does not explain how the parts all seem to squeeze through a 16 foot hole.

Originally posted by johnlear

The white smoke trail is visible in frame1, frame 3 and frame 5. Its possible that it fired a missile an instant before it hit and the concussion blew the tail and part of the engine up and over the Pentagon.

I need a copy of frame 3 if anybody can post it (hint, hint, mirageofdeceipt)!). I will then outline the white smoke in 1, 3, and 5.

I have no explanation why its dark in color. But in any case it is way to small to be from a Boeing 757. Possibly some talented soul could post the actual size of what a 757 tail would look like compared to the object we are seeing.

I know that there will be those that will deny that this is a piece of tail sailing through the air so to save them a post I will post in advance what they are going to say: "Its obviously a bird. You can see it flapping its wings.

Originally posted by Realtruth
... it still does not explain how the parts all seem to squeeze through a 16 foot hole.

How do you know that the hole was 16 feet?

Could it have been a Global hawk after all?...



Vertical stabilisers and engine section from a Global Hawk, conveniently painted black for us, and a 757 Vert/horiz stab to compare.

What do you all think?

[edit on 22/4/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Realtruth
... it still does not explain how the parts all seem to squeeze through a 16 foot hole.

How do you know that the hole was 16 feet?

Thanks for the timely reminder -that's also my question.
Here again is a composute of photos lined up to represent the damage area - 100 feet of columns removed on the first floor (with some debated over the semi-vertical items in zone G), and a 16-18 ft section removed on floor 2 (the dangler there is also not a column).

I keep looking at this and seeing the outline of a 757, but others keep talking about a single 16-18 foot hole. Rather than dismiss this math, I wonder if anyone could clarify for me which spot in this damage is the 16-18 foot hole w/no wing damage on either side that you all have identified as too small for a 757? Is it area A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, or elsewhere?
And also how do you propose the other damaged areas adjacent to the supposed entry wound were caused?

Caustic here is another thing to think about. See all those spools/empty wire reels?

If the plane had actually come through this area it would have blown those 300 to 500 pound empty reals into the next county, with either the jet engines or sheer wind velocity of the wings, but John would be the expert in this area. I am just guessing about the thrust of an incoming plane.

The reel are even standing up in a fricken rolling position.

Anyone ever blow on an empty fishing line reel or thread spool?

I have seen someone on a construction site back into one of those suckers, at about 15 mph and it rolled on grass for over 200 ft. Once those thing get rolling they really go like heck.

Here is a clip I think all of us need to watch, it will help all of us.

I understand what you pointing at, but I still don't understand why in the heck with all 85 video tapes they had, they only released 1 or 2 angles. Why?

I and I am sure the rest of us want to see all the rest of the camera footage that was taken in and around the pentagon that day. If the plane did hit the Pentagon, what do they have to hide?

www.pentagonresearch.com...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Thanks for the timely reminder -that's also my question.
Here again is a composute of photos lined up to represent the damage area - 100 feet of columns removed on the first floor (with some debated over the semi-vertical items in zone G), and a 16-18 ft section removed on floor 2 (the dangler there is also not a column).

I keep looking at this and seeing the outline of a 757, but others keep talking about a single 16-18 foot hole. Rather than dismiss this math, I wonder if anyone could clarify for me which spot in this damage is the 16-18 foot hole w/no wing damage on either side that you all have identified as too small for a 757? Is it area A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, or elsewhere?
And also how do you propose the other damaged areas adjacent to the supposed entry wound were caused?

Originally posted by Realtruth
John,

Again I don't know much about vapor or contrails from a jet, but it was sure strange to see the whitish/gray vapor trail before impact.

Would a jet create that much white smoke at full throttle?

And even so if it was a jet, it still does not explain how the parts all seem to squeeze through a 16 foot hole.

No, a fan jet does not create white smoke. Its does not create any smoke at all. There is a good post on the types of engines that do produce white smoke and I will have to research back and find it. I do not believe it is in this thread, it is in another thread. I believe the post says that white smoke is only produced by rockets or missiles.

Caustic that hole you keep showing is not in fact a hole. Look very closely you can tell that it is just the wall that has blown out wards, not in wards.
And the columns are still standing also.

All that rubble you see in front is what's left of the reinforced wall.

It's also way too low as we've been saying for ever now. The engines would have have hit the ground first, very hard, if the plane was that low.
As there is no wreckage on the lawn, or damage to it, there is no way it could have hit that low.

[edit on 22/4/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
Caustic that hole you keep showing is not in fact a hole. Look very closely you can tell that it is just the wall that has blown out wards, not in wards.

And the columns are still standing also.

Check out what a thermobaric warhead does to a building. Notice the orange circle from the initial impact with a wall in this sequence of pictures. I've seen that orange blast circle from the pentagon video. What follows could be a thermobaric exposion pushing the walls out and the roof up on the penatgon.

Thermobarics aren't just a more powerful version of normal high explosive. The term encompasses a range of different types of warhead from fuel-air explosives, which release a cloud of flammable material and detonate it, to metallized explosives whose expanding fireball takes in oxygen from the air. What they have in common is that they produce blast which has a lower overpressure but a longer duration than normal condensed explosives. In effect it is a shove rather than a punch: a thermobaric explosion does not smash a hole in a wall, it pushes the wall over.

www.defensetech.org...

[edit on 22-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by kix
00:00:70 NOW the wings are much larger than the fuselage and the important part the empenage is the bulge where the wing joins the plane and therefore is the STRONGEST PART OF THE PLANE, the more metal, heavy, fuel ladden, and the main sparts and strengh extendes basically to the zone of the powerplans that weight a lot, so this part is heavy, strong, reinforced and ATTACHED firmly to the fuselage and it is at least 24 feet wide!...if a 757 crashes at 00:00:70 there the moment the wings disintegrate against the outer pentagon wall a huge explosion would occur (NOT BEFORE) since the front of the 757 doesnt carry any fuel, so the huge wing explodes and crashes against a wall with 2 big engines that weight tonnes and explode in the process

This is good - a structural explanation that makes sense, looking at a realistic analysis of the plane's construction rather than trying to pretend a 125-foot wingspan = a 125-foot cardboard cutout, and 44 foot height with tailfin and landing gear down means the hole would have to be 44 feet high. These make me say duh, your description at least shows you are visualizing... However...

So its imposible for the wings or the empenage:

To have disapeared.
To leave the outer wall with no marks whatsoever.
For the engines to have disapeared and left no impact zone on the lawn or on the pentagon face wall.

Agreed. I've heard it said there were no such marks at the Pentagon. As "mark" implies something like damage on a wall, and al walls there were obliterated, I guess it's true...

If they entered the building and ergo, disapeared, we would have a larger hole or a larger impact hole PERIOD.

Period, then, huh? Larger than just the 16-foot hole or than the 100-foot area apparently caused by bombs or something?

The rest, etc. etc.

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, or elsewhere. I ask for a letter and get a couple of essays with a thesis of "well yeah, but..."

Originally posted by ANOK
Caustic that hole you keep showing is not in fact a hole. Look very closely you can tell that it is just the wall that has blown out wards, not in wards.
And the columns are still standing also.
All that rubble you see in front is what's left of the reinforced wall.

As I said there is some debate. The wall is gone. There's rubble. There's facing falling off. I can't tell what all came from where, going in or out. The area with the bubbles A-H, by my analysis is a column-free zone. There are facing-free zones to the right and above, where the outer right wing would've hit more sound structure, but those are not included as column 18 is still intact. No columns for 100 feet! This is a HOLE.

It's also way too low as we've been saying for ever now. The engines would have have hit the ground first, very hard, if the plane was that low.
As there is no wreckage on the lawn, or damage to it, there is no way it could have hit that low.

The left engine hit the ground here, the official story sez:

Note the small mark on the lawn. I've mapped it out and it all fits. Others have too, and we are not all as retarded of sheep as you may think.
My own guess since no one else has ventured one:


Left engine low, lower-mid zone E, The right engine took out column 16A near the top and so the floor slab fell there, about zone G, and the fuselage hit in zone B and was deflected down into zone C to penetrate the undivided three "rings" at the ground floor level. All heavy parts would go as deep in as they did, and Due to plane trajectory and vortex effect, most lighter parts too despite the explosion - wing scraps would be visible outside, and are in some shots (some kinda silver confetti) and the painted scraps we've seen. Talifin and stabilizer, I'd guess the same.

If it was faked it was faked well. As it would be.
You guys have nothing new. Sorry.


[edit on 23-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]