757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by ANOK
Hey man I'm nor married to the parts came from another crash, I just put it up for discussion.

I know, that vine thing just deserves repeating...

It was me that pointed out the parts flying out of the fireball. Where are the pics of that large piece that looks like the tail of something? It's a huge part, if it was from a 757 they would have released pics of it.

Sorry I got you guys mixed up.
Perhaps they did show that piece. Are we sure this was too big to be the famous scrap? Remember outward-moving objects may fly towards the camera and look bigger, and there's a fisheye effect... I just don't know is all.

What rules out a 757 is the fact that where the wings supposedly hit there are still floor braces standing and you can see the wall was blown out, not in.

So zone "A" then?
And how do you know theyre blow out not in? This is not clear to me.

Where are the pieces I keep mentioning that should have survived?

The parts - yes, we have not seen them all. That does not mean they weren't there. No one has convincingly shown me the parts - esp engine parts - we've seen were either planted OR from anything but a 757. Seen it said a lot, but not demonstrated very well.

I find it funny you are totally ignoring the physics that I also mentioned...

I'll need a refresher on what physics question exactly, but I probably skipped over it cause I'm not so good at physics. My bad. I can often take a useful guess, but that could be just opinion... maybe that'd be even funnier.

Originally posted by ANOK

Take a good look at the fireball from the impact. Do you really think pieces of aluminum skin would survive that with no burn marks?

This is an argument that has been suggested by many people on many occassions. I don't know why it's never been addressed but allow me to do so now.

Jet fuel burns at 780 C
If we argue from the position the impactor was a 757 travelling at 500 mph and the skin tore away at impact and ricocheted off the concrete at only 1/2 its initial velocity (being conservative) it flew away from the building and through the fireball in about 1 or 2 seconds. So we have aluminum subjected to a kerosene fireball at 780 C for 2 seconds?...right?

Last weekend I made chili. I had a 5 gallon aluminum pot sitting over a 2000 C natural gas flame all day and saw no signs of carbon deposits (soot/burn marks) on the pot when I was finished (at least on the outside). If you doubt me, try this yourself at home....it's a fun experiment with fringe benefits.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Sorry the vid crahed my browser so no view. Debris questions have been answed repeatedly already. As for water on the fire I dunno. Was it water INSTEAD of foam or water for some parts and foam for others? If you have any info to add to this, please check my empty thread on the issue

Well actually the debris question has not been answered fully. Maybe someone can explain how 60 tons of plane just disappear when you have several parts that can survive heat and impact.

Also how the plane was was sturdy enough to punch through a reinforced concrete wall and interior collums and walls but then was so fragiole it just all vaporized in a fire.

Also I note you again dredged up the one that's well-covered and ignored that I just covered the other. swoomp - swooomp, and the parade continues.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Also I note you again dredged up the one that's well-covered and ignored that I just covered the other. swoomp - swooomp, and the parade continues.

I would like an answer. I have not seen anyone come up with a good explanation of the missing parts and debris.

1. Why have we not been able to see a FBI and NTSB crime scene report.

2. Why have we not seen any photos of the parts and pieces collected from the crash site.

3. Where were the parts and pieces taken ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well actually the debris question has not been answered fully. Maybe someone can explain how 60 tons of plane just disappear when you have several parts that can survive heat and impact.

I dont know how you get from not having pictures of all the parts to "the plane just disappeared".

All I've seen from the Blue Angels crash last weekend is a 2 ft section of blue fuselage with a yellow "B" and half a yellow "l". I'm not suggesting the rest of the plane disappeared just because I haven't seen pictures of it. Is that what you're suggesting? It seems to be what you keep saying about the pentagon crash.

Also how the plane was was sturdy enough to punch through a reinforced concrete wall and interior collums and walls but then was so fragiole it just all vaporized in a fire.

This is not the argument forwarded by serious conspiracy doubters. It's a fabricated argument used as a debating tool by conspracy believers.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well actually the debris question has not been answered fully. Maybe someone can explain how 60 tons of plane just disappear when you have several parts that can survive heat and impact.

I dont know how you get from not having pictures of all the parts to "the plane just disappeared".

All I've seen from the Blue Angels crash last weekend is a 2 ft section of blue fuselage with a yellow "B" and half a yellow "l". I'm not suggesting the rest of the plane disappeared just because I haven't seen pictures of it. Is that what you're suggesting? It seems to be what you keep saying about the pentagon crash.
This is not the argument forwarded by serious conspiracy doubters. It's a fabricated argument used as a debating tool by conspracy believers.

But at least at the Blue Angel crash site we have seen photos and have a name of the person that took the photos and a proper investigation, something we have not seen at the Pentagon.

And again the 757 is about 10 times bigger then an FA-18, so thier should be parts and pieces that survived just like from the FA-18.

I have posted a video that shows the Pentagon before the collapse and the firemen spraying water on the fires. It clearly shows the ground around the hole and we do not see any debris from the plane or marks where the plane hit the ground.


[edit on 25-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Perhaps they did show that piece. Are we sure this was too big to be the famous scrap? Remember outward-moving objects may fly towards the camera and look bigger, and there's a fisheye effect... I just don't know is all.

Watch the video. It is clearly going in a straight line in the same direction of the flight path. None of that debris has time to get close enough to the camera, in that short vid, to look bigger than what it was.

You guys will come up with any excuse to avoid the truth...

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Jet fuel burns at 780 C. I had a 5 gallon aluminum pot sitting over a 2000 C natural gas flame all day and saw no signs of carbon deposits (soot/burn marks) on the pot when I was finished (at least on the outside).

LOL, well you just contradicted your own argument. Think about it...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Jet fuel burns at 780 C. I had a 5 gallon aluminum pot sitting over a 2000 C natural gas flame all day and saw no signs of carbon deposits (soot/burn marks) on the pot when I was finished (at least on the outside).

LOL, well you just contradicted your own argument. Think about it...

I thot about it a bit and still can't see what's wrong with that.

Originally posted by ANOK
You guys will come up with any excuse to avoid the truth...

Well, anyone can scan back over the evidence and reasoning provided to see who's avoiding what, but I'm again at the border of "agree to disagree and move on" territory. That's another good way to avoid the truth, and takes less time. Cheers.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Jet fuel burns at 780 C. I had a 5 gallon aluminum pot sitting over a 2000 C natural gas flame all day and saw no signs of carbon deposits (soot/burn marks) on the pot when I was finished (at least on the outside).

LOL, well you just contradicted your own argument. Think about it...

I guess you're insinuating that if my pot didn't burn up into nothing at 2000 C then the aircraft couldn't have burned up in a 780 C fire, however that was not what I was suggesting. I was addressing your statement....
"Take a good look at the fireball from the impact. Do you really think pieces of aluminum skin would survive that with no burn marks?"

I have never suggested that the fire destroyed the aircraft. My point was the reason the aluminum fuselage pieces that have been photographed on the lawn were not burned and singed with black "burn marks" was that they were exposed to clean burning JP-1 for approx 2 seconds. Thats the reason that pieces of fuselage thrown from the initial impact were seen and photographed on the lawn with no apparent burn marks. Again, no serious conspiracy doubters claim the 757 was burned up in the fire.

If you're looking at this in a different way, and still think I've contradicted myself, please clue me in. Thanks.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I have never suggested that the fire destroyed the aircraft.

I should have been more specific. I meant the whole '757 hit the pentagon theory', not just your specific opinions.

But now the question is, if you don't think fire destroyed the plane then WHERE DID IT GO?...

Must have been one of those stealth 757's...

Yeah, "so the plane couldn't've burned up" is the only thing I could think, but I figure Anok's too observant to think you had ever made that argument. I've heard no one in fact but 757 deniers even claim that as a possibility, and they keep attributing it back to us somehow and disproving it - a holographic straw man.

Now a scrap like that INSIDE the building would burn good, but engines woudn't disappear, which may be why we've seen photos of parts from them. Taaa-daaa!

Originally posted by ANOK

But now the question is, if you don't think fire destroyed the plane then WHERE DID IT GO?...

It's my opinion it went wherever the FBI sent all the crime scene remains. And it went there in lots and lots of little pieces.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Yeah, "so the plane couldn't've burned up" is the only thing I could think, but I figure Anok's too observant to think you had ever made that argument. I've heard no one in fact but 757 deniers even claim that as a possibility, and they keep attributing it back to us somehow and disproving it - a holographic straw man.

Now a scrap like that INSIDE the building would burn good, but engines woudn't disappear, which may be why we've seen photos of parts from them. Taaa-daaa!

It still doesn't explain those reels/spools, in directly in front of the impact area, that the alleged plane seem to pass through at 400 MPH with the engines, full thrust...hmmm the reels didn't even move, but yet they were in a rolling position. LOL!

Something stinks.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Now a scrap like that INSIDE the building would burn good, but engines woudn't disappear, which may be why we've seen photos of parts from them. Taaa-daaa!

What parts? One rotor hub?

Where are the rest, about 24 of them?
Where are the rotor shafts, 2 of them?
Engine cases?... blah blah blah...

Sry one rotor hub does not make two turbo-fan engines..Taaaa-freakin-daaaa....

Originally posted by darkbluesky
It's my opinion it went wherever the FBI sent all the crime scene remains. And it went there in lots and lots of little pieces.

Ok, so now pls explain how it ended up in lots of little pieces?
Do I have to explain the physics of collisions again?

How did the engines end up in little pieces?
The tungston counter weight?

Originally posted by Realtruth
It still doesn't explain those reels/spools, in directly in front of the impact area, that the alleged plane seem to pass through at 400 MPH with the engines, full thrust...hmmm the reels didn't even move, but yet they were in a rolling position. LOL!

Something stinks.

This damn debate stinks and here I am with more time going in but that's my own doing.
Rolling position - aha! Did they roll out of the way pf the engines and fuselage?
Here is a cartoon I just made to illustrate:



Look back at the photos - the one on the far left was pushed back and tipped over and flattened a bit. What did that to your magical spools?
You can't argue with a cartoon. Which is why I'm outta here.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
It's my opinion it went wherever the FBI sent all the crime scene remains. And it went there in lots and lots of little pieces.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Then where are the reports and photos of these remains ? I can not find any and i have been looking for a while.

And yes absence of evidence is evidence.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And yes absence of evidence is evidence.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

No...absence of evidence may be suspicious, suggestive, thought provoking, and even conspiracy nurturing, but it is not evidence, especially of "absence" which was the context in which I was using the phrase.

I'm out of here too.