IT'S OFFICIAL: Even conspiracy web sites acknowledge it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon

reply to post by purplemer


Yeah....that composite image, shows the extent of the impact point (WAY MORE than "16 feet wide"!!).

The text labels are ridiculous, though...intentionally deceptive. Laughably wrong, in many places....this is, sadly, typical of the sorts of exaggerations seen at the vast number of "9/11 conspiracy" sites. Exaggeration AND just plain WRONG info. For instance, on your diagram there, they circle the points where the engines entered (you can see, clearly, that the engines caused a great deal of damage to the building....AND, they are well more than "16 feet" apart!). BUT, they describe the engines as "6-ton engines"!

Come on...this is exactly what I mean!! These "truth" sites LIE all the time....six tons is 12,000 pounds, right? Each engine that AAL 77 was equipped with (The Rolls Royce RB211-535) weighs about 7,300 pounds. N OT "6 tons"! AND, have you ever actually seen the way jet turbine engines are constructed?? I have pictures, they are posted in many other threads.....but, will just give the link, this time:



Pay note to the actual diameters, of most of the internal components.

en.wikipedia.org...

When people merely accept the crap they spew, without checking...well......


Now....the exterior of the Pentagon was heavily damaged, especially from the span of engine-to-engine, since the most MASS of the airplane is centered there. Outboard of the engines, the wings are relatively fragile, and mostly fragmented on impact...with some pieces entering the building, wherever there were gaps, and momentum carried them forward. The weight of the fuel, too, had some mass and effects.

Here is a better diagram, from the Pentagon Building Performance Report. I highly recommend you read that, to get a much more technical (and ACCURATE) understanding of the full extent of the building damage:



An oblique view:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83d1b092d3f8.jpg[/atsimg]


Here's just one image I have, of an up-close view to show the impact effects of the outboard wing portions:


That sort of damage isn't seen, in the wide shots, taken from farther away.


You see....there are a LOT of facts, and evidence, that are deliberately omitted by the "conspiracy" sites...even as they also LIE as well. It is a BIG BUSIINESS for them, and they don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs....of gullibility, in the poor people they pull this con job on.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Still carrying that "PilotsForTruth" banner?? Well, sorry but.....they are sadly, sadly inept and fast becoming irrelevant....

I suggested before Weedwhacker..
Why don't YOU post in pilotsForTruth and tear their arguments apart for everyone to see..
Hell, I'd pay to watch it..

Much better than posting here when everyone that argues with you seems to get banned..
I must of missed their posts that caused their bans though..
They seemed civil enough to me.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Oh, crap....still stuck in 2008, are you??

Still carrying that "PilotsForTruth" banner?? Well, sorry but.....they are sadly, sadly inept and fast becoming irrelevant....

Each and every assertion they have offered is shown, time and again, to be flat out wrong.

In your desperate attempts of bad mouthing PilotsForTruth you have never debunked a single claim from them. As we see, none of these experts Pilotsfortruth support the OS as you do.

No plane crashed at Pentagon, and all those photos all over the internet of airplane parts prove absolutely nothing. (My “opinion,” they are bone yard scraps)
You debunkers only have the word of the government nothing more. We have been going around in circles for years and none of you can bring any proof to back your OS and that my friend is a fact. You Debunkers can make all the excuses into defending the OS but that is all they are, excuses.

"pilotsfortruth"

Comedy troupe, they are......tragi-comedy....

What is a comical is you making all theses ridiculous claims against all these experts Pilotsfortruth and yet, you cannot back them up.

reply to post by impressme

What is a comical is you making all theses ridiculous claims against all these experts Pilotsfortruth and yet, you cannot back them up.

When it comes to people who think saying they are an experienced pilot makes their opinion more credible than others despite the fact they show no proof of said experience.
In their minds it's far easier to be a big fish in a small pond rather than a small fish in a big pond..

Me?? I call it cowadice...
Debate similar minds with similar qualifications where mere BS doesn't cut it...

I happen to know (or believe) from my family,friends and co-workers who knew/know people who work/worked at the pentagon that not only was there no plane, but it was no explosion caused from a commercial plane crash. Not only was there no commercial plane parts in the wreckage, anyone who does the math knows it doesn't fit. If you've talked to anyone who ACTUALLY worked there at the time, and you know you can actually TRUST them, you might think a lot differently than the OS.

reply to post by vipertech0596



This is your second picture you linked to.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eb25c38e99c2.jpg[/atsimg]

What side of the Pentagon is on?
Is this supposed to be to the left of of the same side where the plane allegedly crashed into?

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

This is your second picture you linked to.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eb25c38e99c2.jpg[/atsimg]

What side of the Pentagon is on?
Is this supposed to be to the left of of the same side where the plane allegedly crashed into?

What??? Can't you see that HUGE freakin hole that the 124' wide plane entered??
Are you nuts and blind??

Originally posted by vipertech0596
3. Have you not ever seen pictures that show pieces of straw sticking through trees after tornados hit?

I have. Do you know how, in theory, that this happens?

Intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens and the crack tightens shut again. All bizarre damage effects have a physical cause inside the roiling maelstrom of tornado winds. We don't fully understand what some of those causes are yet, however; because much of it is almost impossible to simulate in a lab.

Explained to me previous by ANOK.

reply to post by GoodOlDave




Well heres the summary i got

Its a mystery to a degree, it is most likely AA Flight 77
There is nothing wrong with supporting the parts of the “official story” of 9/11 that are most likely true
Yes, Dr Legge is only interested in what he can prove to be true. No one else!


I always love the diagrams that put the 757 on the lawn at impact. Not i great way to start a diagram.

Ok...It has just clipped 5 poles on the leading edge of the wings and still without rupturing fuel tanks (in the wings) or interupting flight control at top speed, still defying aerodynamics with "0" ground effect. Level flight is achieved just off the ground
Just amazing.

If you want answers, ask a pilot..I did.

reply to post by Sherlock2009

Well Weedwhacker says he is a commercial airline pilot (and I actually believe him). I appreciate the info and perspective that he brings to the discussion when speaking about the planes.

What I'd like to know from him is if he has ever flown the simulation flight of AA77. And if so, How difficult was it to duplicate the flight? Also, how many times did he have to fly the simulation?

I mean think about it. At the time of impact the top of the fuselage was 20 feet above ground, and when the video camera first picks it up, the guy was at about the same height and approx. 320 feet from impact but yet the ground effects are minimal for that distance. That must have been one helluva piece of flying.

Which makes me want to ask Weedwhacker also, at what height do ground effects take place when traveling at @460 knots?

reply to post by FoJAk


It was a bomb(s) and a missile and I will tell you why.

Like why not go with the "official story"? How about Rumsfeld being connected to Aspartame for starters.

No really what's going on? First, why didn't the Pentagon completely collapse in 2.6 seconds into its own footprint? Because no one individual had any insurance on the thing.

I first started posting on here because of Dave. (Hey Dave) I read some of his stuff and wondered how anyone could think some of those things he was thinking and saying. Seriously. I never knew Dave from other threads either, just one thread and I had to join. I tried putting forward at that time a theory of sorts about how to look at the "attacks". It seemed to me then that Dave accepted the boxcutter option completely and I still could not see it. I thought it's either really lucky terrorists with a bit of planning or really thorough criminals with a whole bunch of planning.

My money was on the latter.

But what troubled me about official story people is/was their ready acceptance of what was presented to them on tv and in reports, of even what they found themselves on the internet etc.

Like Dave seemed convinced that "terrorists" did it, he probably still does. I don't know yet exactly who did it but my point to Dave then was simply, that if you just merely accept what you are first told then you won't even think to look for the second right answer.

Like, a plane crashed here a few years ago and they gathered up nearly every scrap and glued it all to a mock up wire mesh skeleton of the plane in a hangar till they had a pretty good idea what caused the plane to crash. But on 911 there were 4 plane crashes, but hey, it was "terrorists" everybody knows it we don't need to glue any planes back together. Or, hey, the WTC fell down, it was "terrorists", using PLANES, everybody knows that, saw it on teevee so hey, ship all that steel right on out of here!

Calling it a "terrorist attack" should in no way negate a thorough investigation. (Unless of course that ain't exactly what it is.)

When you all were kids did you ever get blamed for something you didn't do? Did you ever do something and then blame it on one of your siblings? Well that kind of thing can go on and on into adulthood for some people. Did your parent or parents believe you and punish your little brother for something that you did and they were fooled into believing you didn't do by you feeding them a clever cover story? Sure. Hey we all been there.

If you think it's "terrorists" then you might think simply, "Wow they nailed us at the Pentagon, damn!" Or "Look at that, two towers, two planes, one plane per tower! crafty boxcutter Willies!" Suffice to say if you just think it's "terrorists" you probably think they were aiming at what they could, had a bit of a plan and got lucky, and now we lost some citizens and some landmark buildings and well, life goes on.

And that's one way to look at it. A little planning, luck and timing, and like NORAD looking the other way on an extended coffee break, you know.

But look at it this other way, and try looking for the second right answer.

That would involve not small planning lucky "terrorists" but big planning skillful "criminals".

911 not as a Massive Suicide Attack but rather a Massive Bank Job.

Not an MSA but an MBJ.

What was that movie called where they robbed the bank and all 4 guys wore presidential masks? I can't remember, but did Ronald Reagan rob that bank? No! It was a clever disguise!! Like that.

So I don't think a 757 slammed into the Pentagon, why? Because 911 was a very high precision Bank Job that's why. And a 757 is way too imprecise to be very criminally effective. Oh, it's fine for run of the mill lucky terror strikes. But if you're a master career criminal it's a very crude tool to actually use. 'Oh but planes were used on the Twin Towers I seen them!' Yes. But how? Not how you seen them but how were they used? Think more carefully.

You know it's funny right? Strange etc. Like it might be cool to them "terrorists" to take one or both of those towers down all the way. But all available information on them at the time indicated they could probably take a single plane hit. So why not two planes into one tower, one the back side of the first hit? Wasn't done. Interesting. Why not hit the towers at the same place on each but on different sides maybe? Wasn't done. Why not target both about 1/4 the way up so that the sheer weight on each base would surely topple them? Wasn't done. Hmm.

Let's look at what was done. Tower One hit 7/8s way up on Island side, Tower Two hit about the middle on the harbour side. Interesting. Why? Well if it's just "terrorists" then even hitting one or both of the towers is Mission Accomplished! Just hit it, it don't matter where. You hijacked a passenger plane and managed to get it to New York City, just hit something. Right? It's so obvious. Obvious and simple. And deceptive.

But if it's "criminals" on a Bank Job... You watch any bank job type movies? They don't like or want any accidents, everything is planned etc. If ANYTHING happens on a well planned bank job you can bet it was made to happen just like it does. All of it. Total purpose-driven control, or as much as possible (some stuff may go wrong, flt 93 etc., but I mean over all) not haphazard, lucky to be there, hit anythingism. Right?

Everything for a reason... think carefully now...

Why would a bunch of "terrorists" crash a passenger jet into the Pentagon? No, really? WHY? It makes zero sense. Well, they're terrorists, do you know how hard it is to hijack a plane get by NORAD and all the cameras on that building?! No no, the White House is just over yonder... the Pentagon?! The newly renovated and reinforced side of it too, man, Donald Rumsfeld's office isn't even there, where? RIGHT WHERE THE 'PLANE' CRASHED IN.

Well then, what offices were in that part of the building on 911 anyway now that you mention it?

I'm glad you asked. Why don't you try asking Rumsfeld I bet he knows... he works there, though NOT on that side, I saw him picking plane parts up off the lawn he had some aluminum in his hand, I think it might've been a diet Coke actually.

You want to know why the "terrorists" never hit the White House with their hijacked passenger plane?

Here's a hint: What terrorists or passenger plane...

Peace

reply to post by The Baby Seal Club


It is not apparent from the security gate frames but the flight data recorder indicates the plane was still losing height. If you have a look at the Legge/Stutt paper :-

www.journalof911studies.com...

You will see, in the para below Fig 7, that they calculate, by reference to the final radio altimeter reading, that the wing was 25-26 feet off the ground when it hit lightpole 3.

reply to post by backinblack


I don't want to give them the traffic, frankly:

Why don't YOU post in pilotsForTruth...

"They" (and, let's be honest here....there is no "they", really) aren't worth it. What you have, there, is the BOSS (Balsamo) who doesn't allow any dissension. There are no "debates" there. A lot of sycophantic back-slapping, from the truly deluded fan base. And, the same old chest-pounding and smug strutting that Balsamo displays here, when he deigns to weave another sock, and come back to spam again.

He spams himself, the same way....uses the same tired hackneyed junk, and NEVER learns. Because, he cannot "learn". He cannot let go of the delusions he has woven around the myth...to do so would mean to admit that everything he did was for naught, that he was wrong and a failure, and that beside that, a fool.

His sole purpose in life, now it seems, is to continue the charade. He is in this deep, and still (probably) keeps thinking he's ona money train....just as soon as it really "takes off"....so, he's gotta keep pumpin' and pimpin' it, over and over and over......

reply to post by FoJAk


Care to BACK UP any of this garbage?:

I happen to know (or believe) from my family,friends and co-workers who knew/know people who work/worked at the pentagon that not only was there no plane...

Because, this will come as quite a surprise to the thousands of people who were THERE and responded and saw the debris from the airplane.

And....how can you "know (or believe)"???
What the hell does that even mean? You either KNOW....or, you have "a belief". Not both.

So, WHICH IS IT? Because.....

.....Sounds like a load of BS, to me, and like you just wrote that out of thin air. In other words, a lie.
Prove me wrong.

hahahah yeah ok.... since when did planes lay down streams of smoke at 10ft off the ground? stop flagging these trolls... if it was a plane they would've shown us on one of the possible 90 cameras

reply to post by The Baby Seal Club


I would assume the ground effect would be less an high speed as the angle of attack is not as great. But really, exceeding max speed so close to the ground while hitting lamp poles and STILL getting it into the first floor without touching the lawn, just incredible

This could all end if the FBI released the CCTV footage from any on the cameras they that recorded the event. And they do exist. By not doing so, in my book there is something to hide.

I base my opinion off of common sense...

When I look at photos of the Pentagon after the attack, I dont see damage that resembles a plane.. Only a small portion of that building collapsed, PERIOD.. There were no signs of the wings colliding into the building...


Plus, those terrorists weren't trained enough to fly a 757 in that manner... The teachers who taught them even went public stating they were novice at best. Expert pilots even went public stating they couldnt of flown a 757 like that..

Also..... It has almost been 10 years and we havnt seen any video footage of a plane flying into that building. WHY?!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave.... I saw 77 hit the pentagon. I have talked about it extensively here on ATS... There are pictures of my minivan with the doors open sitting on the pkwy. I had 2 other employees with me, that saw the impact also..

Living in that area, with most of my neighbors commuting to DC every morning also, I have talked to countless people that saw the plane either impact, or saw the approach (due to their location)...

Anyone who saw it with their own eyes is a liar to the truthers.. There are some truthers that feel, if you believe any portion of the OS, then you must believe all of it.. and likewise, if you doubt any, you must doubt all.

If the OS says it was daytime, YOU MUST say it was night time.. We all know it was daytime... So maybe the 11th was just a hologram to make us believe it was daytime..

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO

I base my opinion off of common sense...

Please explain. The events of 9/11 were a one-off occurence. There is no common experience.

When I look at photos of the Pentagon after the attack, I dont see damage that resembles a plane..

Why would the damage look like a plane?

Only a small portion of that building collapsed, PERIOD..

Yes, only a small portion of one of the largest buildings on Earth.

There were no signs of the wings colliding into the building...

And are you looking for something like a cartoon cutout of an airplane?

Plus, those terrorists weren't trained enough to fly a 757 in that manner... The teachers who taught them even went public stating they were novice at best.

I don't know if that's true, be that as it may, so what? Their target was anywhere on, again, one of the largest buildings on Earth!

Expert pilots even went public stating they couldnt of flown a 757 like that..

Really? How many? A thousand? Two thousand? What professional pilots organization made those statements?

Also..... It has almost been 10 years and we havnt seen any video footage of a plane flying into that building. WHY?!

BECAUSE THERE IS NONE! JUST LIKE WE HAVE NO VIDEO OF THE CRASH IN PENNSYLVANIA. JUST LIKE WE HAVE NO VIDEO OF MOST AIRPLANE CRASHES!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


www.youtube.com...

The best there is....... and NO it was not a plain!!!!