The Pentagon was not hit by an airlainer

reply to post by benoni

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy. A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

Now here is the section that is almost always cropped and twisted...

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon. Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.......

Now I wonder, WHY would truthers omit that part of the quote.......


transcripts.cnn.com...

"

Actually, the OP video is a poor one. The narrator makes no mention of the original small hole in the Pentagon and only shows pictures after the collapse. The best way I've found to determine the OS is wrong is the Hotel video released. You only see an explosion, but according to the OS flight path and based upon the vantage point of the released Hotel video explosion, you should see the "plane" flying on that video. But you can't, so either the OS flight path is wrong(proved by CIT) or there was no plane. Good luck with that one OSer's!!

reply to post by freedom12


OR the assumptions made about the camera are wrong. Again, why do so many people assume a business would spend money on cameras...and then point them at the building a half mile (or so) away?

reply to post by freedom12


Would that be the 'Doubletree' (I think) video?
(I don't have a copy or link to it just now)

It appears to show just the tail of the plane on the other side of the elevated highway as it zips across the final several hundred feet before impact. I know, it's a hotly contested point by those favoring the 'noplane' theories but it was recorded despite the fact that no evidence will be ever be sufficient for some.

reply to post by thedman


Yes, I know it didn't hit the ground before. Judging from the ONLY video that they released though (which isn't proof of a g'damn thing either way, other than they don't want anyone to see what happen for some reason) it was what.. 10 to 20 feet above the ground.. if that? That was the point. Box cutter wielding jihadists managed a perfect maneuver like that without even scratching the perfect lawn.

And yes, every point that you quoted could be wrong, in your opinion. That's why there are so many people on either side of the argument that feel as strongly as they do. The main point that you managed to miss was that we need full disclosure of all evidence confiscated from that day.. But that won't happen because the tapes at all of the gas stations and other various buildings are probably ashes in a dump somewhere.

I agree... If there is nothing for the government to hide then why not release the tapes that collaborate the OS? There will always be people looking for the truth if evidence is not sufficient... but i suppose that is a sin in America.. Its independent investigations like the video posted that gives me some faith in people. Thank god some people will not take merely the OS as truth.

reply to post by Astraios


I don't know why, I just know that it did, as the video evidence shows this. Since everything follows the laws of physics, there is an explanation. So if you really want to know, you should be able to find it. Or maybe another ATSer can answer this.

reply to post by -PLB-


-PLB-, to reiterate (in case the responses, earlier, were overlooked) there is NO FUEL in the horizontal stabilizer of either the Boeing 757-200, NOR the Boeing 767-200.

Jet fuel/air explosions examples are readily available on the Web, in videos.

THIS one (tragically) was caught on camera, and pre-dates "9/11". A B-52 (no connection, but also built by Boeing) is comparable to the exposive nature ofthe jet fuel seen on "9/11".

This next video is only ONE version of this tragic crash. This version is short, but there are longer (and perhaps better video quality) examples:



I wish to add, after re-watching this....at 0:36, note the angle of bank the pilot "cranks" the jet into....AND, he continues, in my opinion, to "show off". THIS was his ultimate undoing, and reason the airplane stalled, and crashed. "Showing off", and dropping below the airplane's safe operating envelope. A steep bank angle increases the stall airspeed. IF YOU PERSIST, you can get "behind the power curve"....and not be able to INCREASE your speed, in order to regain aerodynamic flight control.

That has NOTHING to do with the airplanes involved in "9/11", of course....since none of those airplanes flew slowly enough to stall. I just added that comment, for clarity to non-pilots out there who may have wondered WHY that B-52 crashed in that manner.

The FUEL explosion IS the point, though.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I wouldn't know about the 747's, but I helped build the horizontal stabs for both the 757 and 767 aircraft.

reply to post by JIMC5499

...but I helped build the horizontal stabs for both the 757 and 767...

Great!! Is this on the Boeing production line, or at one of the contracters who supplied the components?? (I recall, some contracters were in Kansas, but that might be old news...)

Point is....YOU would know, regardless of plant where they were built, whether the B-757/767 horizontal stabilizer structures included fuel tanks....(they didn't, I already know this). YOU can verify.

Thanks.

reply to post by freedom12


Link to this video pls?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

...but I helped build the horizontal stabs for both the 757 and 767...

Great!! Is this on the Boeing production line, or at one of the contracters who supplied the components?? (I recall, some contracters were in Kansas, but that might be old news...)

Point is....YOU would know, regardless of plant where they were built, whether the B-757/767 horizontal stabilizer structures included fuel tanks....(they didn't, I already know this). YOU can verify.

Thanks.

The 747-400 also improved on the -300 with an additional fuel tank in the horizontal stabilizer, engines with improved fuel efficiency and higher thrust, an all-new interior, revised fuselage/wing fairings and newer in-flight entertainment.

just curious...
Where did the bodies come from? the debris? was all that prestaged at the pentagon, then rapidly spread out for people to 'find'?
I'm sorry, I dont see that happening

reply to post by vipertech0596
They weren't pointed at "a building half a mile away". The explosion was caught in the background of the video, but no plane is seen and it should have been giving the government's supposed flight path of the "plane". once again, either the government's fight path is wrong or there was no plane. It's very simple.

THERE IS NOT A FUEL TANK IN THE HORIZONTAL STABLILZER OF THE 757 OR 767 AIRCRAFT!

Yes I know all caps is shouting, I meant to.

These links show the fuel tank locations in both aircraft.

Flammable material locations Boeing 757

Flammible material locations Boeing 767

The Boeing 747-400 DOES have a tank in the horizontal stabilizer.

Flammable material locations Boeing 747

Why is the 747 the subject, when a 757 hit the Pentagon?

reply to post by HomerinNC

just curious...
Where did the bodies come from? the debris? was all that prestaged at the pentagon, then rapidly spread out for people to 'find'?
I'm sorry, I dont see that happening

Right so 189 bodies were staged .....? Explain how the bodies of Pentagon exployees were staged?
The people on AA77, .....?

Map showing location of human remains

Below: location of human remains. An exhibit from the Moussaoui trial. Blue ovals show flight 77 victims; orange ovals, Pentagon workers; black ovals, unidentified (there were also fatalities on the second floor).

Try reading book "FIREFIGHT" by Rick Newman/Patrick Creed - goes into detail about search & recovery
operations at the pentagon after fires were extinguished

reply to post by JIMC5499


Why do you include 767 if 757 is the subject? lol

Originally posted by Astraios
reply to post by JIMC5499

 

Why do you include 767 if 757 is the subject? lol

Because both aircraft types were involved on 9-11.

Hypothetical question to all of the debunkers;

If I could prove to you, beyond a doubt, that the flight path of the plane was different than the official story.. and it completely missed all of the downed light poles, and the car parked on that bridge, would you question the whole situation? Would you at least want to know what really happen?

If your answer is no, then don't bother arguing with me about this. I try not to go into specifics about the events that day, as should most.. but to only ask for the missing evidence. I see the evidence and take my stance. I have not seen evidence of the official story.

If your answer is yes, then at least skim through the video below, or take my word that more than a dozen people corroborate that the flight path was completely different than the OS. Two of the police officers interviewed swore their lives on where they saw the plane and where it went. Credited witnesses interviewed include a former USMC aviator, and a heliport air traffic controller, as well as the two police officers.

www.youtube.com...

Map of first hand accounts VS the Official Story (including knocked down poles)
i14.photobucket.com...

'Autographed' map drawings (nowhere near OS)
i14.photobucket.com...

For the debunkers, if you want to convince anyone of anything, instead of picking apart tiny incidences to discredit someone, here's what you're up against. If you can tell me how this whole 'citizen investigation' is wrong, and all of the witnesses are wrong, I have an open ear.. Also, if you don't understand how the OS flight path being wrong is a big red flag of things being not as they seem.. I have bad news for you.

There's also an interview with Lloyde England at the end, the cab driver with the pole through his windshield.. now THAT's an interesting one.

p.s. I haven't seen enough evidence to claim that I know what actually happen that day, or if the plane banked and missed the pentagon or anything like that. It seems a little crazy, to even me. It's not important in this argument and it's not what this post is about.