The Pentagon was not hit by an airlainer

Originally posted by Nick_X
reply to post by MrRed

 

The STRUCTURE of the Pentagon is a ton stronger - but Jet Fuel still burns quite violently.

The video illustrated the lack of burning which would typically be associated with commercial airliner crash.

True,

But Conspiracy therorist and truther alike have long STATED that the fuel in the Planes that hit the towers was not enough to bend and brake steel and cause that much damage.

But now, they are saying the opposite. It cannot be both ways. It goes to prove that the structure of a building matter when attacked. Not to nit pick but truthers are known for changing stories mid sentence.

reply to post by eiefar


Since when do missiles have seats in them - airline seats as discovered by the firefighters?

Mark Willams: "When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him'

It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.'
.

[ex"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.
]

Explain if missile how all that debris from a 757 was littering the area

i hope the picture worked, first time at trying to embed a picture

Hey i found this picture on a internet form, of which i know nothing about. There seems to me like a alot of fire damage there, i was thinking whats different about the towers than 9/11. Im not an expert but the pentagon is built in segments and has a gap between each part of the pentagon as you work your way to the center of the building. If that makes sense. Jet fuel may have spilled into these open areas and ignited outside and damaged the outside of the buildings, this you can see on the other side of the ruined section of the pentagon.

I was searching for pentagon pictures taken on 9/11 and this was a find. Im not arguing and saying it was a airliner, im on the fence with the whole 9/11 events. I wouldnt mind hearing what some of the motorists saw as they drove along the road when whatever it was flew over and hit the pentagon.

Im not trying to debunk anything here, infact im on a very high fence about the whole 9/11 subject and personally i would of thought a passenger jet would of done more damage

WHERE THE HAIL has logic gone to, in this world today?

I agree!
So where are all the chunks of concrete in the foreground? If it was a missile exploding you should see chunks of concrete blown in all directions. But you don’t!
So why is so much of the facade scorched? Missiles don’t burn they explode. Have you seen video of missile hitting structures?

I'm partial to the UAV theory - a UAV laden with explosives,

They explode too. They don’t burn.

That video does bring up good questions.

Well one anyway. They creator seems to admit that planes hit the towers. Doesn’t that go against the woo woo theories?

Plane did not hit pentagon. That is common knowlege now! I am glad this video has been released and people will wake up to this video.

Prove it! What are your qualifications?

I haven't seen one person say OMG I saw a plane zip over 66. Not one.

The news media did interview drivers. The news media showed pictures of street light poles knocked down by the plane. Name one expert that will say a missile will knock down a light pole and still hit it’s target?

reply to post by Astraios


The video shows an aerial view of the Pentagon post-collapse but while the narrator fervently claims a 125' wide 757 doesn't fit the damage complete with a plane image overlaid, if you look carefully at the damage near ground level in comparison to the plane image it actually does fit quite well . It's disingenuous to ignore that obvious damage beyond the ~65' wide section that collapsed and even amazing that intelligent people would believe the narrator's claim with such contradictory evidence on display.

The unburnt office equipment claim comes up regularly but there's nothing really strange about it at all as that part of the building was an expansion joint and, as the section collapse happened some 20 minutes after the impact, those upper offices on the left were never subjected to the fire.

reply to post by -PLB-


Why would the fuel be right above the building though? If I'm not mistaken, the fuel is held in the wings of the aircraft, and it holds up to 3,300 gallons of fuel in the horizontal stabilizer allowing it to fly an additional 350 nautical miles. One would think it would make more of an explosion with that amount of fuel, and more fire damage than what actually happened.

What can we do about it ?? even with all this proof, we cant do nothing.. while the elite is laughing at us and planing the next scam. This is not going to end well at all.. I see a war, us against them, get ready

reply to post by MrRed


I haven't heard anyone hear say that it is the opposite. They are saying that there is no burning, scorch marks, there is unburned fuel (read books and furniture) that don't even have scorch marks where there shouldve been thousands of gallons of jet fuel brurning....

Jaden

What can we do about it ?? even with all this proof, we cant do nothing.. while the elite is laughing at us and planing the next scam.

They are laughing at how gullible a subset of the population is. You need look no farther than your local tv news. Heard any stories of leaked sexting pictures? People cannot keep secrets.

Ask yourself how many people would it take to pull off the event?
All of these people are now facing pre meditated mass murder charges. Doesn’t NY still have the death penalty? Someone would have snitched to save his life by now.

The only scam is from the people selling DVDs and running websites.

Originally posted by Astraios
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Why would the fuel be right above the building though? If I'm not mistaken, the fuel is held in the wings of the aircraft, and it holds up to 3,300 gallons of fuel in the horizontal stabilizer allowing it to fly an additional 350 nautical miles. One would think it would make more of an explosion with that amount of fuel, and more fire damage than what actually happened.

There is no fuel stored in the horizontal stabilizer. The weight of that much fuel would change the center of gravity, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.

Everyone needs to see National Security Alert.

It shows a plane was there but did not hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by Astraios


BRAVO!

The video + common sense = the truth

Don't let anyone on this board tell you any differently.
Trust your instincts and ignore the disinfo agents (AKA TWISTERS) on this thread

S&F!

reply to post by JIMC5499


This would be a 747 ...

You are correct that a plane did not destroy the pentagon that day.
Here's a live broadcast from 9/11:

www.youtube.com...

"No sign of plane debris"

Originally posted by samkent

WHERE THE HAIL has logic gone to, in this world today?

I agree!
So where are all the chunks of concrete in the foreground? If it was a missile exploding you should see chunks of concrete blown in all directions. But you don’t!
So why is so much of the facade scorched? Missiles don’t burn they explode. Have you seen video of missile hiting structures?

quote]
I'm partial to the UAV theory - a UAV laden with explosives,

They explode too. They don’t burn.

That video does bring up good questions.

Well one anyway. They creator seems to admit that planes hit the towers. Doesn’t that go against the woo woo theories?

Plane did not hit pentagon. That is common knowlege now! I am glad this video has been released and people will wake up to this video.

Prove it! What are your qualifications?

I haven't seen one person say OMG I saw a plane zip over 66. Not one.

The news media did interview drivers. The news media showed pictures of street light poles knocked down by the plane. Name one expert that will say a missile will knock down a light pole and still hit it’s target?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See the above video dude...
From the day it happened and NO signs of a plane.

I agree!
So where are all the chunks of concrete in the foreground? If it was a missile exploding you should see chunks of concrete blown in all directions. But you don’t!
So why is so much of the facade scorched? Missiles don’t burn they explode. Have you seen video of missile hitting structures?

The grass in front of the building was perfect directly after. If a giant plane swooped down at 500+mph and hit light poles, wouldn't the wings be ripped off? Or have debris far from where it happen? If you watch the EDITED (removed frames, revealing almost nothing of the crash) footage of the 'plane' hitting the building, it was almost perfectly at ground level. Can you explain the punch hole 5(?) walls in? Hmm.. I heard missiles cause those..

Well one anyway. They creator seems to admit that planes hit the towers. Doesn’t that go against the woo woo theories?

You got some of us there (loonies, dis-info agents.. crackheads) I'm pretty sure everyone saw planes hit the towers. Whether they're the same ones they're claimed to be though.. who knows? It's not like they did an in-depth investigation or anything.

Prove it! What are your qualifications?

I think what he meant to say was, "The official story is wrong. That is common knowlege now! I am glad this video has been released and people will demand an independent investigation!."

The news media did interview drivers. The news media showed pictures of street light poles knocked down by the plane. Name one expert that will say a missile will knock down a light pole and still hit it’s target?

I will find the video, just for you, that interviews the guy that had a light pole slammed through his windshield, with almost no damage to the car itself. They make a great argument as to the poles being knocked down the night before. (there were only like 6 downed poles I think?) They would be easy to miss.

In that video, they also interview about a dozen people. Police officers, Pilots, other people you can believe, and some regular people.. they all corroborate the same story. That the OS is wrong. Would someone please post that one please.

We just want a new investigation. We want them to release all of the tapes that the FBI took from the area.. Ones that would COMPLETELY prove 'truthers' WRONG, right? Why the hell did they release a video that didn't show anything but the explosion if they have nothing to hide?

I'm not even saying it's an inside job. I'm just saying that they're hiding A LOT. No matter what the motive is.

reply to post by TasteTheTruth


It is always funny to see truthers post that snippet from CNN. Appearantly they get too lazy to look up the full clip on which the very same reporter talks about seeing pieces of the airliner. The oft used misquote was his response to the report the jet had hit the lawn first then the building.

got a link viper??
thanks

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Astraios
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Why would the fuel be right above the building though? If I'm not mistaken, the fuel is held in the wings of the aircraft, and it holds up to 3,300 gallons of fuel in the horizontal stabilizer allowing it to fly an additional 350 nautical miles. One would think it would make more of an explosion with that amount of fuel, and more fire damage than what actually happened.

There is no fuel stored in the horizontal stabilizer. The weight of that much fuel would change the center of gravity, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.

Correct, JIMC5499

Neither the Boeing 757-200, nor the 767-200 carry (nor any variants of those models that I know) have fuel in the Horizontal Stabilizer, to alter CG inflight....as SOME versions of the Boeing 747-400 (and, I assume, the upcoming Boeing 747-8 ---[new designations, from Boeing....they are changing to a single numeral designation, to denote variants]--- ). OTHER manufacturers may also consider these design innovations....but, the [perceived] benefits of such systems usually outweigh the costs penalties.....due to their compexities.

I can only assume that the ATS member who posted that assertion did so because of some familiarity with a MicroSoft PC-based Flight Simulator program....or, had seen the assertion on some "9/11 conspiracy" website, that may have incorrectly assumed such claims, based as mentioned.

It is a COMMON problem, on this topic.....the incredibe amount of BAD "information" that, once posted on the Web, tends to become "accepted" as "truth". By people who are NOT pilots, but merely laypersons. Sad, really...when these claims can be so easily verified, and shown to be false.

reply to post by jessejamesxx

The grass in front of the building was perfect directly after. If a giant plane swooped down at 500+mph and hit light poles, wouldn't the wings be ripped off? Or have debris far from where it happen? If you watch the EDITED (removed frames, revealing almost nothing of the crash) footage of the 'plane' hitting the building, it was almost perfectly at ground level. Can you explain the punch hole 5(?) walls in? Hmm.. I heard missiles cause those..

One the plane didnt hit the ground before smashing into the Pentagon - it hit a trailer outside the wall first

Witnesses who observed the final moments of the crash stated that the plane banked left (some saying that the left wing hit the heliport) and that its low-hanging engines hit objects on the way in: the right engine hitting a generator trailer and the left engine hitting a low retaining wall. Post-crash photographs of the yard fit these accounts and show a pattern of damage consistent with the paths of the engines of a 757 based on the other data such as the light-pole path.

Two light poles are designed with break away bases to lessen impact forces - saw one just this weekend in my
town, Pole lying on ground after being hit by car - sheared cleanly off at the base.

Three - a plane hitting a masonry exterior wall at 500 mph will throw debris considerable distance

Four - Where did you get 5 walls from - or you are parroting some idiotic web site. The two lowest floors of the Pentagon have no partitions between the exterior (E Ring) wall and the exit hole in C Ring

On the first and second floors, the Pentagon has continuous interior space extending from the facade to the inner-facing wall of the C-Ring, joining the C-, D-, and E-Rings. This is because the light wells between the C- and D-Rings and between the D- and E-Rings only descend to the bottom of the third floor. The only structural elements interrupting this space are columns apparently spaced on 10-foot centers along the direction perpendicular to the facade, with each first-floor column having a square cross-section measuring 21 inches on a side.

Every point you made is wrong.....