Reformed no-757 theorists weigh in here

Good work all... Snoopy, welcome - Ultima, good Qs - Oreilly, maybe a point or two, I'll have to look closer later.
I had my internet turned off a day early and have been unable to get back on. Sorry for seeming to cheese out. I will be back on regular ASAP and will catch up then. Peace, all.

Originally posted by Damocles
has anyone done a FOIA on it yet? cuz you are very correct in this statement. just wondering if anyones actually tried to get these reports.

Well i believe the families of the victims have filed lawsuits and FOIA to get documents and evidence to show what the government did or did not do that day.

This footage from CNN was broadcast only once. Unfamiliar of course with Boeing 757-200 planes that are designed so that their 124 ft 10 in wings automatically fold back neatly and disappear through 16ft holes whenever required to do so, the reporter stated categorically that he saw no evidence of a plane having crashed near or into the Pentagon on 9/11. Well, at least that was one journalist who was honest in his reporting on events that day. No surprise therefore that we never saw the footage aired again!

I wonder whether the reporter still works for CNN? If he does, no doubt he has been re-assigned a job where he does not need to trust his own eyes.

www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com...

micspi,

Great catch!

First reports are always the most accurate, before they start to censor them. The poor guy must be reporting on pro wrestling now..

I agree that the tail section and lots of hunks of the wings should have been lying about in front of the building; it makes no sense at all that they'd liquify. They'd slam up against the facade and be found lying before it. We don't even have a good trace of the vertical stabilizer on the facade.

We've all seen planes after they've crashed against mountainsides and there's lots of large, recognizable debris left--above all the tail sections, which are highly re-enforced.

Found site I reffered to with photos by first responders.
http:www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm
Lots of stuff to go through, the pics with little to no debrie on the lawn are 20 to 30 pages in. I will concede what I thought would be a clear shot of your 100ft hole, is once again inconclusive.

Hope your O.K., did you review the link I left in above post? I'm curious to know what you think of this site. Until next time, good luck InfinityO'Reilly

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You might want to look at the photos of the inside of the Pentagon, a plane that was in millions of small pieces would not have done the amount of damage done.

Yes it absolutely would. For some reason you think that because the plane was in pieces that it would do less damage. But it's just the opposite. The plane still has the same mass, but can now move in a fluid manner. This is how and why it was able to weave around columns. Something a missile or bomb couldn't do.

How did the small little pieces punch the hole through the other side directly in line with where the main airframe ? The little pieces would have spread out all over and not left a path straight through.

Is was the landing gear that punched the hole. And again, it's because of the liquafication that is was able to do this. Something not possible with a missile.

Or maybe it wasn't a 757 of flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

OK, so they planted some other plane there in front of millions of people? And yet people such as employees of the airline were brought in to help identify the plane and determined it was indeed flight 77.

Originally posted by gottago

First reports are always the most accurate,

WOW this couldn't be further from the truth. A two second search shows just how inaccurate that statement is: www.google.com...

Look at the pet food problem that we have right now; as yet another example. In the preliminary report the cause of the pets kidney failure was determined to be a restricted Rat poison, but after some study into the problem-- it is now believed to be melemine that was part of the fertilizer. First reports are often times the LEAST accurate.

We've all seen planes after they've crashed against mountainsides and there's lots of large, recognizable debris left--above all the tail sections, which are highly re-enforced.

The big difference is, the pilots of those planes were doing everything in their power not to crash... In the case of 9/11 the pilots were doing everything in their power to crash at full speed. It is like the difference between a car getting hit by a Mack truck head on with no warning..and a car seeing a mack truck comming and slowing down and swerving to try and get out of its way. On the scene of those two collisions you can really see a difference in damage...multiply that by 300 mph.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by GwionX]

We can talk till we are blue in the face, but some people just dont get it.
And never will. Thier problem is they cant belive our own Goverment pull off something this big and got away with it!
When our Gov lies to us over and over and over why would I belive anything else they have to say.
If any of you 911 debunkers ever read the 911 commission report the BOOK.
you wouldnt be in here bashing the Cospiracies theorists for trying to find out what really happend.
For you Debunkers, if it were not for Conspiracies theorist police departments couldnt solve some of their best criminal cases.
What I am saying is, when you have nothing or out landish lies.
A conspiracie is a good way to get to the truth.

I only have one small area of clarification to bring to this particular discussion as it is, for the main, pretty well covered already.

It was said earlier in the thread that an aluminium airliner could not be compared with an F-4 made of steel. In fact it can, the F-4 is also made of aluminium with steel only used in in the keel, for strength, and in the rear section for heat resistance. This is the common way to build aeroplanes, or it was before composites appeared, as an all-steel aeroplane would be too heavy and an engineering nightmare. This last part is not conjecture as the Bristol company in the UK built an all steel 'x-plane' called the Bristol 188, its problems ensured that plans to build the Concorde out of steel were abandoned immediately by Bristol.

Hope this adds to the discussion in some small way.

The walls the plane had to go though were three foot thick reinforced concret. what ever hit the pentagon went through five three foot thick walls. It could not have been a plane.

I am curious as to what you think it was then, as it could not have been anything else. The US rapidly developed a special free fall bomb from old tank gun barrels with high penetration capability for use in the Gulf because there is no missile that can do the trick. Even now another, specialised, updated free fall bomb is being developed for the same reason.

So if it could not be a plane, and could not be a missile, what was it?

Originally posted by snoopy
Is was the landing gear that punched the hole. And again, it's because of the liquafication that is was able to do this. Something not possible with a missile.

If it was the landing gear that pounched through the outer wall how come the only photo of a landing gear we have seen is inside the building ?

I'm sorry I've been gone so log - sorry not as an apology but as an expression of sorrow. Insanely long-internet disruption just now back on.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Hope your O.K., did you review the link I left in above post? I'm curious to know what you think of this site. Until next time, good luck InfinityO'Reilly

That site being:

Retraced

Found site I reffered to with photos by first responders.
http:www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm
Lots of stuff to go through, the pics with little to no debrie on the lawn are 20 to 30 pages in.

Neat, so you found the elusive original source? some "expert's" page with another copy of one of the photos we could see anywhere buried dozens of pages in? Good deal. Sorry I didn't actually double-check it myself - time constraints ya know.

Most of the debris was inside, BTW, and just about zero parts visible on long-shots of the 300-foot wide lawn - that's some basic, non-expert photo ananlysis for ya there. .

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by cashlink
For you Debunkers, if it were not for Conspiracies theorist police departments couldnt solve some of their best criminal cases.
What I am saying is, when you have nothing or out landish lies.
A conspiracie is a good way to get to the truth.

Yes! It's Mike Ruppert's "cop instinct" thing, It's the heightened state of awareness type of paranoia. It can't be ruled by mystery and negative evidence and blind guesses, though. It has to both account for the evidence and look beyond it to work right.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by snoopy
Is was the landing gear that punched the hole. And again, it's because of the liquafication that is was able to do this. Something not possible with a missile.

If it was the landing gear that pounched through the outer wall how come the only photo of a landing gear we have seen is inside the building ?

Duh! Are you serious? The Landing gear (supp, I"m not totally sure) punched the INNER hole, where the shaft was found just inside, and the wheel and tire and some other fuselage out of the A-E Drive. The entry hole is the one cause by le package total.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Neat, so you found the elusive original source? some "expert's" page with another copy of one of the photos we could see anywhere buried dozens of pages in? Good deal. Sorry I didn't actually double-check it myself - time constraints ya know.

Most of the debris was inside, BTW, and just about zero parts visible on long-shots of the 300-foot wide lawn - that's some basic, non-expert photo ananlysis for ya there. .

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

So you didn't do the research because maybe you've seen it on one of ingnoranceisn't bliss's sites already? You did leave a post there. It pokes alot of holes in many of the photos used by Pentagon debunkers to proove a 757 hit the building. Including the chunk of fuseloge that appears to have the American Airlines logo on it. Seen in numerous photos from up close to far away, from 5 or 6 different angles, but somehow the part always seems to be facing the same way. Wish you would take a closer look. After all vigilence is part of your signature. Also I never claimed to be an expert, just an observer.

Originally posted by micpsi
This footage from CNN was broadcast only once. Unfamiliar of course with Boeing 757-200 planes that are designed so that their 124 ft 10 in wings automatically fold back neatly and disappear through 16ft holes whenever required to do so, the reporter stated categorically that he saw no evidence of a plane having crashed near or into the Pentagon on 9/11. Well, at least that was one journalist who was honest in his reporting on events that day. No surprise therefore that we never saw the footage aired again!

I wonder whether the reporter still works for CNN? If he does, no doubt he has been re-assigned a job where he does not need to trust his own eyes.

www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com...

I don't know how many times CNN re-played this - I think they put it in the DVD America Remembers," clearly a sign they want us to forget this damning slip! I believe Jamie McIntyre still works for CNN - his account, which you have misconstrued, is irrelevant as evidence of no plane - says nothing but small parts were visible outside - as photos show, as everyone knows. Since the plane crashed into the building, McIntyre probably knew the big parts would be INSIDE, not entirely absent... in fact he takes the absense of recognizable debris outside as a clue that "the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon." Huh! No wonder they "covered it up" so thoroughly. Quick! Everyone download a copy before it's erased!

Originally posted by Paul3
The walls the plane had to go though were three foot thick reinforced concret. what ever hit the pentagon went through five three foot thick walls. It could not have been a plane.

Three rings WOULD equal six walls actually, untuil you realize the ring divisions only go down from 5th floor roof to second floor roof. Floors one and two have only two such walls between impact and the A-E Drive, where the lasnding gear "punched out."


Double-check that - you can see it by looking at almost any ahndful of Pentagon attack/aftermath pictures. It had one main wall ony to deal with, which t did a good number on, and then weaker internal walls and support columns, which were first destroyed by the plane and then gradually destroyed it back so nly the last scraps made it to the drive.
Or at least that's the official story. Now what in that doesn't make sense?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Duh! Are you serious? The Landing gear (supp, I"m not totally sure) punched the INNER hole, where the shaft was found just inside, and the wheel and tire and some other fuselage out of the A-E Drive. The entry hole is the one cause by le package total.

So what punched the outer hole ???????

[edit on 6-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]