Evidence Of Damage At Pentagon Hoax

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
CITGO security video
Shows no plane, but a key silver flash at 4:45 - upper right, that's Lagasse from the PentaCon. The flash is under the canopy, reflected from somewhere else. Note that all the action starts then and after Lagasse pulls out the video ends. That flash is clearly from something shiny somewhere related to the crash that day.
Any sleuthers wanna figure that one out?

I'm trying to orient myself in the Citgo video. Take a look at the images below. Have I placed the car in about the right area? This car catches the flash on its port side, which might help at least narrow down its origin.

Aha! I had been looking at Lagasse's trunk, but the flash seems to originate on the south-facing side of the black-n-white that peels out. I think your location is probably right - it's very hard to read, but theres the line marking South Joyce. I'm doing some photo analysis of it I'm not ready to finish and post just yet. I'm sure you understand - implications. Feel free to run ahead with it tho if you like -

More Eyewitness Accounts of the Pentagon Crash

Extract from Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself:
The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.*** at least 45
The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases there's no indication the witnesses were talking about a small jet. at least 25
The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening. at least 22
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the the highways. at least 19
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane went full throttle only at the last seconds. at least 12
The amount of eye witnesses who stated the plane had it's flaps up (not deployed). Witness 1 saw a 757, witness 2 and 4 both saw an American Airlines, witness 3 saw an American Airlines 757. No known witnesses stated the opposite. at least 4
The amount of witnesses who reported the plane was pretty quiet. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock. Another one saw it was an American Airlines jet, saw it had its gears up and saw light poles being knocked down. Others were in their cars, all windows up and the radio on) at least 4
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had its gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole) at least 1
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant! 0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash. 0
The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash. 0



i have multiple photos of wreckage from the Pentagon.. im sure you have all seen them before, or maybe all of this was in the diggers bucket as well?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Yes, Ultima. The videos are not available for us to show you. Sorry this one didn't work for you, lemme check my discs.... nope, just these. And what does your wishful thinking see in the white blur?

I guess that white blur is a 757, thats wishful thinking for people that believe the official story.

Show me photo taken from the secrity camera video that shows the 757 of Flight 77. If not it will show that the official story is wrong and you are just a closed minded child who believes what the media feeds you.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
i have multiple photos of wreckage from the Pentagon.. im sure you have all seen them before, or maybe all of this was in the diggers bucket as well?

Its just too bad you can not show an official FBI and NTSB report that matches the parts found to the 757 of Flight 77.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 13-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I guess that white blur is a 757, thats wishful thinking for people that believe the official story.

Show me photo taken from the secrity camera video that shows the 757 of Flight 77. If not it will show that the official story is wrong and you are just a closed minded child who believes what the media feeds you.

Hmmm, that sounds like a double standard to me. If you can not determine that the white blur is not 757 does that make the official story true?

We can all agree that somewhere in the world a tree fell over yesterday although we have no pictures, no video and no eyewitnesses because the nature of things is that trees fall over from time to time and by statisics were can deduce that out of billions of trees in the world that one did indeed fall over yesterday.

So, because you (or anyone) can not determine the blur is (or is not) a 757 does not make the official story any more (or less) true.

I don't know exactly what your job is but I can safely speculate that your access is not high enough read anything that is classified above your clearance. I can also make an educated guess that you do not read reports before anyone in the cabnet does, but I may be wrong there.

If the official story is true and was a result of intelligence failure, a fully detailed report might point out all those failures and in intrest of national security of not wanting to expose those flaws remain classified above your current clearence level.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
If the official story is true and was a result of intelligence failure, a fully detailed report might point out all those failures and in intrest of national security of not wanting to expose those flaws remain classified above your current clearence level.

It was not an intelligent failure, foreign intelligence along with our own intelligence warned against something major happening and that it might involve planes being used.

If it was major incompitence among any of the agencies like NORAD, why was no one punsihed. In fact the people at NORAD that were involved were promoted and given awards.

Minniesota FBI sent repeated requests to search the laptop of Zacarias Moussaoui but DC headquarters refused to grant a search warrant even FISA warrent that could not be used as evidence against him was not issued. Despite French Intelligence reports of Zacarias Moussaoui connections to all kinds of things and that he had been on French watch lists for years and would be barred if he tried to enter France. All that was in August 2001. FBI HQ responded that the details were too sketchy to issue a warrent.

But I do agree that the airlines, FAA and NORAD dropped the ball too in their slow reactions. However I am not sure the military would have shot down civilian airlines without direct orders or information of the terrorist's plans. Again that would have required CIA, FBI or NSA to inform in a timely mannor.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Feel free to run ahead with it tho if you like -

Well, I had a look but I'm stumped.

This is as far as I got before being unable to figure out how to proceed.




The red circle is the car. The blue line is the sun, coming in from the lower right. The red line seems to me to be the ~northen-most flightpath given that the flash strikes the port side of the car. The yellow line is ~the official flightpath.

So, with the aircarft between the sun and the car, what part of the aircraft is reflecting the sun onto the car? The only answer I could think of was the undercarriage. If this is right, what does this tell us about the plane's altitude given that the sun was at ~50 degrees at shortly before 09:40?

If it's not the undercarriage doing the reflecting, then what is?

In any event, if an aircraft is causing the flash, then it seems to be coming from either directly over or south of the Citgo station. I cannot see how a more northerly flightpath could cause a flash on the port side of the car. Of course, it's possible the flash has nothing to do with an aircraft, I guess.

Haven't read the whole thread. But I skimmed a little and noticed people were asking about the walls and such. I just wanted to say that all pre-cast/cast-in-place etc. concrete walls would have steel rebar. This is an engineering fact. The reason is that concrete has no strength in tension. The steel rebar is placed so that the steel takes the tension load off the concrete. So when talking about a concrete wall, even if not mentioned, you can assume with certainty that the wall is a steel reinforced concrete wall. Just clearing things up.

I'll probably regret adding my two cents to this thread but here goes:

I think this whole debate is rather useless. Anyone of us can come up with any number of theories and not be right. What usually happens is that we take one piece of evidence and run with it. Everyone seems to have their pet theories and I don't think you can find 5 people on ATS that can agree on one complete theory.

You can't definitely prove that a plane did or didn't hit the Pentagon because there's hardly any evidence that it happened at all. I've always found it rather strange that we've never seen anything that leans one way or another. We have no footage of the plane, not even a camera phone shot, nothing. I find it hard to believe that someone would see a jetliner flying 15 feet above their car and not take a picture of it. Before anyone goes off on me, I'm not saying it didn't happen.

I am saying that the lack of evidence is extremely.......odd, to say the least. I mean, shouldn't somebody, somewhere, have something that would corroborate the official story? I just think it's weird that a place with such population density and surveillance as Washington D.C. that we have nothing.

The government couldn't have taken EVERYTHING. There's no possible way they could've tracked down everyone in Washington that day and make sure they don't have any footage, pictures, sound recordings or ANYTHING regarding a giant freakin 757 flying through their neighborhood.

But we've never even seen a fake purposely photoshopped image of a 757 flying low through DC. We haven't been shown or told anything except "That's how it happened, shut up already."

There's just too much thats unsettling about the whole thing for me to just agree with the official story. That's a big freakin plane!! And we have nothing to show for it!!!

If this were the other way around, that the official story was that it never happened at all and the CT was that it did, we would be laughed at and called hoaxers if we presented everything that we have.

I dunno, I think it's pretty useless arguing with eachother trying to find out who's little pet theory is right. We'll never get anywhere like this and chances are your theory is wrong in at least one respect no matter what you believe since we've never been told the truth about anything.

I'm close to giving up on this one.

Originally posted by Fowl Play

A Boeing 757, like other similar airplanes, is a hollow structure of aluminum, which is considerably weaker than the granite and reinforced concrete that the building is made of. There has been considerable testing of flying planes into structures made of reinforced concrete, and the end result is essentially the same (provided the concrete structure is well made) - the plane is obliterated. I don't mean that it is just crushed, I mean that it is obliterated. The largest piece you would find would likely be small enough to fit in your pocket. This Plane flew so fast into an unforgiving impact. The design of the structure of the Pentagon did its job and saved lives within and totally obliterated the Plane.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying that the plane is considerably weaker than the walls and the plane would be obliterated after hitting the wall? If this is right, then how did this "hollow structure of aluminum, which is considerably weaker than the granite and reinforced concrete" manage to penetrate all the way through all the rings of the Pentagon and leave pieces much larger than the "largest piece you would find would likely be small enough to fit in your pocket". Just curious.

Because even with the "hollow structure of aluminum, which is considerably weaker than the granite and reinforced concrete", you're talking several hundred thousand pounds of weight, moving at 500mph+. That's a LOT of force impacting a relatively small area of concrete. Unless the concrete is several FEET thick, there's no way it's going to stand up to that impact and NOT break apart.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Because even with the "hollow structure of aluminum, which is considerably weaker than the granite and reinforced concrete", you're talking several hundred thousand pounds of weight, moving at 500mph+. That's a LOT of force impacting a relatively small area of concrete. Unless the concrete is several FEET thick, there's no way it's going to stand up to that impact and NOT break apart.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by Zaphod58]

I agree with you Zaphod. I just wanted to elaborate a little more. You can actually drop an egg from as far as you want and have it not break if it hits in the right spot. It is called a vernicular structure (which the nose cone would be). If hit in the correct spot, the nose cone could have dispersed the load around it to actually penetrate. This is just speculation on my part.

Edit: I was going off of memory of classes 12 years ago, so I'm not sure of the spelling or even if that's the correct term also as I can't find any information in wicki or dictionary.com. It is a special type of structure though where all members are in compression and if it is a mirrored structure they cancle out.

If I'm wrong here, please correct me anyone.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Yes, Ultima. The videos are not available for us to show you. Sorry this one didn't work for you, lemme check my discs.... nope, just these. And what does your wishful thinking see in the white blur?

I guess that white blur is a 757, thats wishful thinking for people that believe the official story.

Show me photo taken from the secrity camera video that shows the 757 of Flight 77. If not it will show that the official story is wrong and you are just a closed minded child who believes what the media feeds you.

DODGE! What do YOU see with YOUR wishful thinking? A "not 757?" Could you please scan a sketch of this and share it? Looking at all evidence I've ventured a guess, childlike or not. What do you have but insults?
(don't worry, somehow they don't sting a bit)

Originally posted by Fowl Play
i have multiple photos of wreckage from the Pentagon.. im sure you have all seen them before, or maybe all of this was in the diggers bucket as well?

Its just too bad you can not show an official FBI and NTSB report that matches the parts found to the 757 of Flight 77.
skip... skip.... skip.... skip....
Normally I would have looked into that and figured out why by now, but I just enjoy seeing you wobble on the turntable. Cheers!

Originally posted by Griff
Haven't read the whole thread. But I skimmed a little and noticed people were asking about the walls and such. I just wanted to say that all pre-cast/cast-in-place etc. concrete walls would have steel rebar. This is an engineering fact. The reason is that concrete has no strength in tension. The steel rebar is placed so that the steel takes the tension load off the concrete. So when talking about a concrete wall, even if not mentioned, you can assume with certainty that the wall is a steel reinforced concrete wall. Just clearing things up.

Cool! That helps. So concrete - yeah, it does always have re-bar. In Plane Site says the walls were 18" of steel-reinforced concrete, makes it sound like a super DoD material, and some debunkers say it's just brick-n-limestone. The CIT I think says 24" of both, which sounds closer. The ASCE talks about the concrete frame being behind the brick (and I guess poured over the columns? they have a "concrete casing." Anyway, here's my earlier pic again - note limestone gone, frame around brick, two layers of brick, and beneath that concrete stained from the bricks that fell away. Upper left - looks like the brick-stained concrete layer has yet another behind it. The bottom has the rebar mesh exposed, two layers, seeming to be 6-10" apart. So this looks like 5" limestone + 8" brick + 6-10" concrete = 19-23" or so all in all. Pretty good wall. The right outer wing would not knock this in, but an engine would.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
Hey Shadowflux! I'll probably regret adding my two cents to this thread but here goes:

no regrets, please.

I think this whole debate is rather useless. Anyone of us can come up with any number of theories and not be right. What usually happens is that we take one piece of evidence and run with it. Everyone seems to have their pet theories and I don't think you can find 5 people on ATS that can agree on one complete theory.

And that's good. There's a lot of variety of opinions here, as well as different ways to read evidence. Your inputs are welcome.

You can't definitely prove that a plane did or didn't hit the Pentagon because there's hardly any evidence that it happened at all. I've always found it rather strange that we've never seen anything that leans one way or another.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion of what the evidence says, but to say there's no evidence out there is a little, erm, misinformed? Maybe just "not much," but that's relative.
"Definitely prove" is a very steep hill I'm learning. We have photos of key 757 elements inside the building, numerous eyewitness accounts, at least 89 published of whom believed the plane hit the building. We have the Performance report and various other photos and video of the site evidence fairly consistent with what I would expect. Sure there are areas f remaining mystery the PTB are doing their part to perpetuate, but we have all this, and some presented right in this thread for your convenience. Is the evidence fake? Misread?

As far as the numerous missing pieces of the puzzle:

I am saying that the lack of evidence is extremely.......odd, to say the least. I mean, shouldn't somebody, somewhere, have something that would corroborate the official story? I just think it's weird that a place with such population density and surveillance as Washington D.C. that we have nothing.

The government couldn't have taken EVERYTHING. There's no possible way they could've tracked down everyone in Washington that day and make sure they don't have any footage, pictures, sound recordings or ANYTHING regarding a giant freakin 757 flying through their neighborhood.

And yet they refuse, and we're left with only 95% of the evidence, a few key video frames keeping milions from accepting the fairly obvious, or at least from acknowledging their suspicions could be wrong and adjusting. The current case for a 757 is quite strong.

But we've never even seen a fake purposely photoshopped image of a 757 flying low through DC. We haven't been shown or told anything except "That's how it happened, shut up already."

It never got to DC - tooke off west of there at Dulles, went west, came back to the Pentagon right by there. But anyway - there was no radar, and no warning. No one knew it was coming till they heard it. No time to grab cameras it seems. Nothing but security cmeras, always on but pointed wherever, dumb as a boulder, they don't turn to look at a 757. The ones at the Pentagon do exist, at least 3 or 4 on the outside that would've seen it all. And no release. Someone loves mystery...

I dunno, I think it's pretty useless arguing with eachother trying to find out who's little pet theory is right. We'll never get anywhere like this and chances are your theory is wrong in at least one respect no matter what you believe since we've never been told the truth about anything.

No truth about anything? Did 9/11 happen on a Tuesday? Is that not what the gov. has always said? Step bacj here... it doesn't have to be opposite on every single point. But yeah, pet theories do have a way of dying off, with this issue especially. Eric Hufschmid's Global hawk theory, for example. So by all means, don't bother offering a counter-theory that exlains the available evidence that's any better than mine. Just contend that there IS no evidence and just PRETEND the pet theory the government pushes but fails to 100% prove is starving to death. It'l bite you in the butt, it's a lot tougher than I thot when I started from doubt and mystery like yours.

I'm close to giving up on this one.

Giving up on what? What are you doing on this one?

Sorry if I seem mean, I'm just baffled.

Originally posted by Griff
I agree with you Zaphod. I just wanted to elaborate a little more. You can actually drop an egg from as far as you want and have it not break if it hits in the right spot. It is called a vernicular structure (which the nose cone would be). If hit in the correct spot, the nose cone could have dispersed the load around it to actually penetrate. This is just speculation on my part.

Edit: I was going off of memory of classes 12 years ago, so I'm not sure of the spelling or even if that's the correct term also as I can't find any information in wicki or dictionary.com. It is a special type of structure though where all members are in compression and if it is a mirrored structure they cancle out.

If I'm wrong here, please correct me anyone.

Dunno what it's called, but it's the same concept behind the Roman arch in architecture. As opposed to post-and-lintel, it could hold up more weight nd enable multi-story buildings. Pressure everted downward is passed from the keystone to the other arch stones, and then down into the supposrt columns. Works for arches, eggs, aircraft nosecones, bullets, dildos, etc.

So that's why the plane pierces this thick wall. It had flat and with no such structure, so it gave along its multimple internal fault lines.

[edit on 6/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
DODGE! What do YOU see with YOUR wishful thinking? A "not 757?" Could you please scan a sketch of this and share it? Looking at all evidence I've ventured a guess, childlike or not. What do you have but insults?
(don't worry, somehow they don't sting a bit)

Originally posted by Fowl Play
i have multiple photos of wreckage from the Pentagon.. im sure you have all seen them before, or maybe all of this was in the diggers bucket as well?

Its just too bad you can not show an official FBI and NTSB report that matches the parts found to the 757 of Flight 77.

skip... skip.... skip.... skip....
Normally I would have looked into that and figured out why by now, but I just enjoy seeing you wobble on the turntable. Cheers!


1. Its not wishful thinking on my part, it good research into the security camera video that it does not show a 757. Can you show an actual video or photo of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon ?

2. I challenge anyone to show any official FBI and NTSB report that matches the parts found at the Pentagon to Flight 77. Also where the parts found were taken.

This animation I think is pretty close to what you would expect to see from high priced security cameras, you know the kind the DOD would buy. The superimposed 757 appears just a tad bigger than it should, IMO

technical difficulties, will try again

[edit on 6/13/2007 by infinityoreilly]

[edit on 6/13/2007 by infinityoreilly]

[edit on 6/13/2007 by infinityoreilly]

man I will probably take a red tag for this cause it 's got almost crap all to do with this thread, my beef is with you people that don't know how to post a freaking photograph, or a link and can't resize the F-n thing. I'll be damed if I have to curse to the right. When I click on a ATS forum link I expect to be able to read it the freaking page. When I see this crap, I don't bother wasting my time.
You want to be creditable, start by trying to formating your freaking post.


[edit on 13/6/2007 by Sauron]

Originally posted by Sauron
man I will probably take a red tag for this cause it 's got almost crap all to do with this thread, my beef is with you people that don't know how to post a freaking photograph, or a link and can't resize the F-n thing. I'll be damed if I have to curse to the right. When I click on a ATS forum link I expect to be able to read it the freaking page. When I see this crap, I don't bother wasting my time.
You want to be creditable, start by trying to formating your freaking post.

[edit on 13/6/2007 by Sauron]

I'm taking that as at me, and I'd request no warn also. I undesrtand - I just have a big screen and forget the frustration - is there a way to change the posted size without having to upload a whole new pic? It's too late to edit this one, but for future ref... Thx for any tips. Peace. Seriously.