Reformed no-757 theorists weigh in here

Originally posted by Damocles
problem with hypothesising on how to blow the plane to bits on impact and yet not have it be an obvious explosion is kind of tough. too much you wipe out the building immediately, not enough and youve wasted your time.


honestly, id just let the jet fuel do the work for me.

I would think the best thing to do is make the jet fuel into a fuel-air mix bomb. Like heat up the jet fuel so it becomes more volitile.

You also have a lot of things on the plane that could help.
1. Qxygen generators
2. Oxygen tanks
3. other hazmats on the plane could make it a flying bomb.

Luckily the 757 / 767 do not carry Uranium for counterweights like the older 747s or you would have had a lot more to worry about then just the jets composite materials causing heath problems.







[edit on 19-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by gottago
Damocles,

No, it wouldn't be swayed much, because that is but one worm in a brimming can.

Whether it was cordite or C4 or something nifty cooked up from the trillions we've been pouring into black-ops since the end of WWII, really makes no difference. I listed almost a dozen reasons why the whole thing is bunk. I really don't know if the 757 did hit the Pentagon or not, but even conceding it did for the sake of argument, everything around it simply strains credibility beyond any reason.

Begin rant:

You'll get no disagreement here. Let me be clear: I am not a Screw Loose Change type debuner. I agree that everything about 9/11 is fishy, just not EVERY part of it is opposite what the government said. Not even touching the WTC, where I remian a skeptic on demos, 9/11 was an inside job, at best allowed. A 757 is consistent with this, whether terrorist-flown or remote control. And I'm not 100% certain it was a 757. Just 97% after much research. 97 is very high for me! NOT looking at the same old fraud sites with incomplete evidence they claim as a lack of evidence they then take as proof of non-existence. Many of these people know better and are manipulating you all.

So keep harping on the few remaining mysteries while dancing around the big evidence. Where's this one exotic part I know of that hasn't been seen yet? Where's the videos? Where did the wings go? No, not those scraps of alluminum, that could be from anything...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I would think the best thing to do is make the jet fuel into a fuel-air mix bomb. Like heat up the jet fuel so it becomes more volitile.

You also have a lot of things on the plane that could help.
1. Qxygen generators
2. Oxygen tanks
3. other hazmats on the plane could make it a flying bomb.

Luckily the 757 / 767 do not carry Uranium for counterweights like the older 747s or you would have had a lot more to worry about then just the jets composite materials causing heath problems.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

overall i must agree totally. especially about the counterweights.

i jsut wouldnt worry too much about it if i was in on it as once the planes hit and the tanks shred, the fuel would likely aeresolize and you'd have an inpromtu fuel air bomb anyway.

now, if you really wanted to add to the punch, find a way to have some packets of powdered magnesium deploy as the fuel was flying in the air and you'd get a really pretty effect...

the O2 tanks is a good angle. i doubt they had much net effect on the fire, but it had to help a bit in that first couple seconds.

Damocles,

I still have a big problem with kerosene/jet fuel essentially vaporizing a jet that size. There are some major structural parts that just wouldn't shred against the outer wall unless there was some other sort of HE to do the job. The mess there was just way too neat.

Jets have run straight into mountainsides at top speed and when you find them you find a smashed up jet, all the stuff you'd expect to find, tail sections and broken wings and luggage and drink carts and all the rest, scattered about in a smoldering heap. Why didn't this occur only at the Pentagon and Shanksville?

What suspended logic and all the weight of previous empirical evidence of what jets do when they crash? I just don't buy kerosene.

and i wont claim to disagree with you on that matter in reality.

however, ive yet to see convincing evidence of bombs.

so, if you were me, what would that leave you with?

--Skepticism.

I guess we're just on either side of that word in the end.

lol the old "agree to disagree" thing.

i can live with that. in the end its unlikely that either of us could prove our positions anyway.

the real test is this. if given evidence contrary to your opinion, would you consider it with an open mind? thats the real test many on this board fail.

i like to think i would be open minded about it, but it would have to be prety compelling evidnece honestly.

--There we're in total agreement.

My thinking on the Pentagon has evolved quite a lot with recent threads, and I've been trying to synthesize all the disparate information into a logical framework. That's why I'm testing this blow-it-up-on-impact scenario. It has logic to it if you want to fit the evidence out there, and my view of the perpetrators.

Right now I'm now quite willing to consider the reality of the 757 crashing, but it has to jive with all the other elements of the equation (which I listed earlier).

One thing is certain, the whole question fails the Occam's razor test miserably.

If you were the supposed green hijacker who couldn't even tie his shoe, you'd just point that thing into a dive and hit the broadside of a barn. You don't try pirouettes at 500+ mph and 20 ft of altitude. Right there you know somethings dead off. So you go on the premise that it was controlled, and if they're doing that, they're obviously going to do a thorough job all round...

Originally posted by Damocles
overall i must agree totally. especially about the counterweights.

now, if you really wanted to add to the punch, find a way to have some packets of powdered magnesium deploy as the fuel was flying in the air and you'd get a really pretty effect...

the O2 tanks is a good angle. i doubt they had much net effect on the fire, but it had to help a bit in that first couple seconds.

Thier is a thermite fuel air device called a Hellhound, very dangerous.

Well all the wheels are made of magnesium alloy. Remember oxygen generators have been responsable for bringing down a plane that was carrying them as cargo.

if your going to make a statement like that show your evidence and how you came to this reasoning. have you seen the pics released by the first responders, 2 trucks that happened to be in the area, who arrived at the Pentagon within 10 mins. please show me on one of these photos where your hole is.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by infinityoreilly]

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
if your going to make a statement like that show your evidence and how you came to this reasoning.
[edit on 19-3-2007 by infinityoreilly]

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE AND WHERE DO YOU KEEP COMING FROM?
Or am I misreading you?
Note: I have abandoned "Realtruth's" thread, and promised not to try and ruin your fun there, so be aware all shots at me, as I saw from you, a bit dumb - I won't answer there, so have at it .
I do not usually recycle Cat Herder's cartoons BTW. I do my own mostly. Some of Cat Herder's stuff is wrong, and mine is updated from that late 2004 stuff, more thorough, though I can onlyput so much up here at a time - and time - again.

Oreilly, in your infinite wisdom, did you not SEE the evidence I provided with my explanations? That's 90% of what I provided: a clear view of something VERY DIFFERENT from a 16-footer. If you ARE visually impired that's fine, jut please don't say such dumb things about what you cannot know. I don't claim to read your mind cause I an't. If you can't see the evidence don't tell me I didn't show it. Perhaps my graphics are not as compelling as the photos you described to me, but at least I have shown them.

There aren't many more I can show to illustrate the 100-ish-foot hole, since the initial damage was only captured in pre-collapse photos, so within 20 min of the explosion. The damage is in fact so wide, it is not captured well any one photo! From a distace all one sees is this:

so I have to use these two, almost the only ones available. (ignore the CG plane made by Purdue Univ. if cartoons bother you)

The big photo 757 deniers hate to show you - no fire spray covering the main span of damage.

Usual tactic: A 757 denier insists without showing a 12-16-foot hole with no wing mrks on either side. when presented with this, they pick a random 10-20 foot spot, usually in the middle, see no wing damage on either side, and insist the damage on either side was done with bombs to mimic a plane's damage. Which isn't done right, since only the ten foot hole is the real hole and toosmall fora B757, rinse and repeat...

Where's Swampfox and Caustic, my guess is they got tired of saying the same thing over and over without showing any real proof to thier statements! Name some names Swampfox, who will go on record! Show something other than catherders debunked cartoons Caustic! And by the way Caustic have you seen the pics. from the fisrt responders to the Pentagon? The 2 firetrucks putting out fires on either side of the impact zone, with the pristeen lawn and only the tire marks left from the trucks. I don't see any debrie in these photos. Please debunk for me.

(Other thread)

have you seen the pics released by the first responders, 2 trucks that happened to be in the area, who arrived at the Pentagon within 10 mins. please show me on one of these photos where your hole is.

(this thread)
Since you asked nice... I'm not sure which pics you are referring to, but it's true there are photos that show first responders, fire engines and ambulances. Some show no large debris. others do. Some show timy bits of aluminum, possibly the scraps of exploded wings - but because somebody said the wings should've fallen off whole, that is all that many folks will accept as wings and cry foul. Planted tinsel! Where's the wings? Here's a basic one:

This photo shows no building damage! OMG! How does a 757 leave a zero-foot hole? There was O building damage!
Some others:

Post-collapse, perhaps the photo you meant? The initial 100 foot damage are in this shot is pretty much buried beneath that rublble. From a good distance, we can't see much debris! OMG! How does a 757 leave no debris? There was NO debris!
Here is another shot from closer to a fire truck. OMG! Where did that fake planted piece of debris come from hey its not all burned up like it was in a fire for an hour!

I'm sorry I cant explain everything from my hundreds of hours of research to you instantly, but the distillation of much of it can be found here:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... terlist.html
Not too technical - accurate but not precise is my credo - and it's at least semi-readable
Additional Pentagon evidence and explanations of the intensive no-757 disinfo campaigns so many here have fallen prey too can be found here:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

Here's something else you maybe didn't know: One of the fire trucks you were wondering about was actually already in position BEFORE the plane hit!
Want to know how and why?
Be nice and ask and I will reveal this telling mystery... It's actually interesting.

numerous edits
[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Quackmaster
I have read hundreds of posts on this topic, lots of reasearch and I believe a 757 hit it, but the government in there usual manner handled it in secure manner that created suspicion.

One thing I would like to ask all the 'passionate' commentators of this event... for all your shouting, pontificating and mud slinging - what have you actually done about your beliefs and theories? If it is all so obvious and provable that a 757 did not hit the pentagon - why is the majority of any of your efforts confined to the safety of a little forum?

Carry on squeeling....... if you stand still long enough perhaps the world will start revolving around you?

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Quackmaster]

Excellent post QM. My thought exactly.

Originally posted by Damocles
lol the old "agree to disagree" thing.

i can live with that. in the end its unlikely that either of us could prove our positions anyway.

the real test is this. if given evidence contrary to your opinion, would you consider it with an open mind? thats the real test many on this board fail.

i like to think i would be open minded about it, but it would have to be prety compelling evidnece honestly.

Gottago, Damocles: Exemplary contributions! Indeed, reasonability is the test so many fail. It's a Human trait, and Humans seem scarece on here. You two give me hope.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by gottago
My 2 cents: I still don't know what happened at the Pentagon.
[...]
And why haven't we all seen the various security films from the Pentagon and Citgo? What exactly is being hidden, and what advantage is there to allow exactly this speculation to flourish?

Sounds like an open mind, a reasonable response to conflicting reports. We don't know what's being hidden, since it's - well, hidden. My best guess: a 757 strike, with perhaps some etra features they might want covered up. What advantage is there? Look, if we're a dangerous fring, threatening to close in on the truth, wouldn't it be wise to create a distraction to cause infighting and suck energy? The lack of video shows a lack of video, no a lack of plane. File an FOIA request or ignore the video and look at the other evidene if you want to see positive evidence of what actually happened. We can't see nothing starig at a blank screen wondering why there's no video on it.
Yet somehow we keep doing this, and then it becomes proof of no 757... and then we have to fight because I don't surrender to idiocy.

And then there is the question of the FDR and the weird anomalies of that hijacker resetting the altimeter at 18000 feet spot on, using barometric information that could only have come from a flight controller in real time; the testimony of professional pilots who simply cannot believe it could have been done, even by an experienced, first-class 757 pilot, let alone someone who had only had a few hours of flight-simulator training, was a pathetic flight student, and who hardly spoke English.

You show a good grasp of the facts there. These things seem odd, but So does the data, mostly filtered to us by P49T and not indep. verified. The animation/CSV discrepancies, unclear paper tral, all the confusion. I wish I could debate this point better, you prob know as much as me, and I'm still not sure. I am meaning to sort this out better when I have time.
Some quick logic tho: Recall the FDR was supp found inside the Pentgon. If so, its own data proved it was planted, since it flew over for both northerly path an alt. reasons and if it was planted, why not with the "correct" data inserted first?

Then there is the conflicting witness testimony; the most damning of which are the two Pentagon police officers who were at the Citgo and offered a different flight path.

So we can see why the Pentagon might want to spur no-plane speculation, we see previous arguments weakening some, common sense threatening to win, and suddenly two Pentgon cops insist on a path that made the official impact impossible (without themselves admitting it flew over, because then they'd lose their "Pentagn cop" credibility). 2 + 2 = ?

Maybe, I lean right now to a bit more than possibly, a 757 did hit the Pentagon, but if so, it's clear everything else about the official story is bunk. The pilot wasn't a green Arab hijacker, the plane was probably fitted with explosives (lots of reports of cordite smell from military witnesses who should know) to destroy the evidence, i.e., the plane itself, and it was probably remotely controlled and pre-programmed.

So, even if it was a 757 that went into that hole and vaporized, how it did it and why ain't nothin' like the official story.

All valid lines of inquiry. I've wondered on 'em all, still find bomb on board possible, (a pipe bomb tho? nod to Damocles). Remote piloting would help explain a lot, but it raises questions. Besids the FDR clues, which remain unclear to me, Ican't totally rule out an ace Arab pilot who simply ACTED bad a few times for some instructors. I just don't know. But to imply the al Qaeda also punched a hole in our air defenses that should've been able to stop at least THAT plane from hitting is a stretch, and considering who benefitted, no matter how xactly it was done, I consider someone in these borders ultimately guilty.

And I think a 757 hit the Pentagon.

…aaand the rest: Sorry all so late, keyboard problems. no responses till AM I’m sure but ah well.

Originally posted by 137
It was no 757.
There are many points why it was no 757 but ill keep it short.
A 757 cant go trough multiple layers of extra reenforced pentagon even if it was going maximum speed..

I’m guessing, correct me if I’m wrong, the six walls of three rings, each 18” thick, nine feet total?

Cross-section of plane’s impact, right to left, count the dark gray lines of reinforced external walls: One. Two. Oh. 36”. And only the landing gear made it thru the second wall.
Thank you much for not being longer. I appreciate it.

Originally posted by Echtelion
Cat Herder has a big history here for being a con. The evidence is inconclusive. THe fact that most debunkers come up with false arguments, and that the government still has'nt released the security camera footage they are holding since 9-11 simply implies that there,s something going on in there that we don't see.

Okay let’s see: baseless ad hominem attack, gross distortion of the meaning of the word “inconclusive,” uniformed opinion stated as incorrect fact, no illustration, no useless video links (that’s a plus point BTW), appeals to negative evidence (absence of evidence as evidence of absence), leading appeal to mystery. Ooohhhh, we don’t know a few things! It’s all mysteriooouuusss. You sir, or ma’am, I’m guessing sir, are a disgrace to Godzilla.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
You don't think folks would've been asking questions if trucks showed up and people started planting debris at the scene.

And the rest of your points…

Props for that! And this, folks, is how a properly functioning Human mind reacts after having sorted the real evidence from the fake using Common Sense as a guide. Some can see it, some can't. And the problem here, whichever side (if either) is to blame, is the impermeability of the membrane between the two. No one will change their minds it seems, which is a clue that reason is failing. For example, when I try and concede a point to lead by example, others latch onto my inch and try to pull a mile. It’s just not reasonable. Go and read some of the threads to see what I mean.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I would think the best thing to do is make the jet fuel into a fuel-air mix bomb. Like heat up the jet fuel so it becomes more volitile.

You also have a lot of things on the plane that could help.
1. Qxygen generators
2. Oxygen tanks
3. other hazmats on the plane could make it a flying bomb.

Keep looking into these things, it could e a valuable insight. I would venture it's possible just a plane crashing into the buildng would be fuel-air bomb enough to do the trick, but certainly can't rule out that something was added. They all knew it was gonna happen, someone did, they had time to prepare whatever they might've wanted or needed.
[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]


[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Here's something else you maybe didn't know: One of the fire trucks you were wondering about was actually already in position BEFORE the plane hit!
Want to know how and why?
Be nice and ask and I will reveal this telling mystery... It's actually interesting.

I'm listenin'!!!

Hey! didn't expect anything tonight (it's still night for me. It's actually not super-telling, just odd and interesting, and since the infinite one got me going on fire trucks, it's gotta wait till I hear back. Feel free to Google it tho if ya gotta know. "Alan Wallace" is a good start, "helicopter," and an awareness that 9/11 was the exact 60th anniversary of the Pentagon's groundbreaking. Maybe that one's not related, I dunno...

Oops. G'nite.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Caustic Logic,

Thanks for your remarks, they are balm on the soul after having to deal with all the all-caps nutjobs that troll this board. Thankfully this thread hasn't been hijacked by trolls because it is offering excellent food for thought.

One thing that just stares me in the face, the kind of it's-so-obvious-you-don't-even-see-it piece of evidence that really hasn't been addressed (maybe it has long ago on another thread, but I didn't see it) is this (I've posted it before, but I believe it's a very important question):

Why didn't the noob hijacker just plunge the plane into the Pentagon from above? Just point and shoot.

Why the amazing flying skills? Like that classic SNL sketch about the Bond movies: "Just shoot him, for Chrissakes."

There's not the slightest plausibility of the flightpath being the one the hijacker would take. It's absurd on its face.

However, as for the idea that the pilot could have been an Al Quaeda flying ace, this doesn't seem at all realistic. The Pentagon is an enormous structure, easy to hit as pie. You don't need the Saudi version of Chuck Yeager to do that, you get a pliant noob. And such a pilot would be an incredible asset for Al Quaeda (assuming it exists), they wouldn't waste him trying to hit the side of a barn in broad daylight.


[edit on 20-3-2007 by gottago]

I put a short post up in an already continuing discussion of the Pentagon crash in a forum where mostly those who believe the official story go. Here is what I put:

Story 1:

Official flight path. Aircraft knocks down light poles on way in. CCTV of the event confiscated. Government paid employees testify that the aircraft approached as per the official story.

Story 2:

Alternative flight path. Aircraft too far west to knock down light poles. Civilians with everything to lose state the aircraft was where they claim it was, and not where the official story puts it. CCTV footage exists of said civilians at the time, and corroborates their story. Physical evidence further proves they couldn't be mistaken in their claims.

Which story would you believe?

The response I got back was:

This could go on forever, so I'll make this my last comment.

Why??? I know this is unrelated to this thread, but the point was, when hit with some provable alternative vs. the unprovable official story, they had no-where to go and backed out instantly. That is why this thread is so quiet.

GREAT POST!

[edit on 20-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Its just too bad we do not have any official reports matching those parts to a 757 or to flight 77.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]