9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Did you bother to read what I posted last night about the alert fighters that were armed and ready to launch on 9/11? Do you REALIZE how many fighters were covering the ENTIRE UNITED STATES on 9/11? Do you know where they were based at? There were a grand total of SEVEN BASES with FOURTEEN FIGHTERS ready to launch.

No this is not the case in wasinton dc. The hole idea is based on military coresponders. If it does not have a military signature it will be intercepted right away. Any thing that does not have a military signal will be intercepted. There is a hole area that is no fly area and it is design by that. And it is made so fighters from a near base will have time to intercept. It just hapens they didint send them from that base but from a base in the middle of the us and second in stead of sending them to wasinton dc they ploted a course for the pacific ocean. This is in the oficial statement go read it. So maybe you think i am sayng something else What i am tryng to say is that the plane had a military signature. that's why it passed and that's why it wasent a boeing. If it was a boeing it would be intercepted from that base and not some where in the middle of us. So they made a oficial statement that they did send planes but from the middle of the us and in the rong direction. the radar thought it was military so the statement is made so you will say hey they did send planes. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Oh my god. It's hopeless. You are in your own little world. If that was the case than EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIAL FLIGHT landing in DC would be escorted. On 9/11 THERE WERE NO ARMED FIGHTERS at Andrews AFB. The closest ones were in Virginia. The entire city of Washington DC is NOT a no fly zone. Near the Capitol, and the White House are no fly zones, but if the entire city was there is no way they could be landing commercial airline flights there, because none of them have military transponders.

Read this very very slowly and carefully pepsi. Actually read it, not just see what you want to see. The following is a list of WHERE there were armed fighters on 9/11 that could have intercepted Flight 77, or any other flight. And how many fighters were armed and ready to launch on 9/11. NORAD confirmed it had only eight fighters on the East Coast for emergency scrambles on Sept. 11. Throughout Canada and the United States, including Alaska, NORAD had 20 fighters on alert - armed, fueled up, and ready to fly in minutes. Four years earlier, NORAD could count on having 175 jets ready to scramble, including two on the tarmac at Atlantic City's airport. www.prisonplanet.com... Here are the bases with armed fighters ready to intercept planes on 9/11: Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Panama City, Florida Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon March ARB, Riverside, California Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas www.the7thfire.com... If you do not have armed fighters ready to take off it takes up to TWO OR MORE hours to arm them and get them in the air. Funny, I don't see Andrews in DC on that list. Do you? [edit on 11/16/2005 by Zaphod58]

comercial planes fly a strict patern any brakeing off from patern will result in excort. Dont take my word for it go see . That with them not haveing planes on andrew base is not acceptable. They are there day/night and they did intercept other planes The fact they say duh we dont have any is just a farce. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Prove that they did pepsi. For a long time they did. Then the cold war ended and defense spending was slashed, so guess what got cut. Almost all of the alert fighters. Including the ones at Andrews AFB. Commercial planes are NOT automatically intercepted if they deviate from course.

In wasinton dc they are very strict paterns. If you want to belive that a magic fairy crashed a boeing in to the pentagon go ahead.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Actually it was about a 20 foot concrete wall designed for use around a Nuclear Reactor, not a kevlar reinforced concrete wall. So I certainly hope it didn't.

See you missed the point, if the fusalage was strong enough to punch through the pentagoon walls, it would not have vapourized into nothing.

It would have. What do you guys expect 100+ tons, or however much the plane weighed at impact, travelling at 500 mph to do when it hits a wall? Bounce off? Suddenly stop and explode? It was torn apart hitting the wall, and the fuel exploded in a confined area, causing what was left of the fuselage to shred. It happens in any plane crash. [edit on 11/17/2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 What do you guys expect

Some disernable wreckage maybe, release of the security camera tapes, the truth...Is that too much to expect? Untill ALL the holes in the official story are filled in then we will question. Is that wrong Zaphod? Would you rather everybody shut up and just except every official story we're told? History proves that would be uterly stupid and ignorant. Who's side you on anyway? Governments cannot be trusted, period! They have shown us this over and over, yet people are still willing to spent a lot of their time (yes you) trying to convince us that all we've learned about how governments lie and decieve to get their way is all wrong. Why are you doing this? You have nothing better to do? Or do you just like to argue with no point to it? And Pepsi don't argue with him it's pointless. If he wants to live in a comfortable illusion then that's his loss.

Oh, I'm sorry I must be on the wrong website. I THOUGHT the point of this site was to deny ignorance, and express our beliefs, etc. Stupid me, I didn't realize I was supposed to change my beliefs to match yours and only post what you believe in. Let me go find the right website to be on then.

Zaphod stop acting like a Shill-Pickle ...

Whatever. I'll just let you guys insult me, and throw names at me and not reply then since anything I say I'm acting stupid, or whatever.

No Zaphod58 it's not that. It's just you turning things it to what is not posible. It's you arguing with your self . First you picture the engine and you tell me what a pice of junk it is and how crapy it is and that birds will ruin it and stuff will fall out and that it's sensible and you make statements about it than when i ask you about the other stuff you use the engine to say how grate it is and how much damage it can make. And i told you if a pice of the engine did that at the other end than it sould make a biger mess on first impact with the first wall of the pentagon. When i was sayng about the very strict patern i was refering to wasinton dc and not the hole america but you like inflateing things. I need to ask you a question and please answer with a honest answer. Do you belive that arabian terorists where behind the 911 event? answer a or b A yes the terorists are behind it B no it was just a evil plot by the goverment . [edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by defcon5 I never said it was the exact same part, I said similar. If you were not just scraping to try and continue an argument then perhaps you would realize from the stapler in the picture that this component is smaller then the one on the 757, and therefore so are the holes in the sides of it. I would have to guess that the one in this photo is for a personal jet or a military jet. The structure is similar though, is it not?

I'm not scraping anything, my friend. Showing me a component that vaguely resembles something hardly makes them similar. Tell you what, just to satisfy your point: it is round and has some holes so, yes, it is similar So what's your point?

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Aris Then you see their tactics: - "The plane would have hardly been full of fuel" - "Planes don't usually carry unnecessary fuel anyway" - "cough cough, BS. Pilots love to add some extra fuel"

So what does this prove? Two of these posts where from Zaphod and one from me. I believe that Zaphods experience is more in the military where fuel cost is not an issue and mine is civilian. There is no disparity when you look at it from that view point. Taking posts from two different people and acting like they are conflicting statements made by one person is trolling at a whole new level IMHO.

You still don't get it, do you. That post was not meant to indicate that your and Zaphod58's posts conflicted. Here is what that post indicates: 1) Zaphod makes an assertion 2) I complement his assertion with an addition that is factually correct 3) Just so you can play the expert, just so you can try to make it seem like I'm saying something wrong, you go and make an irrelevant to my point claim. Zaphod58 and I were saying something and you popped in and pounced on my addition by distorting it with something that was totally irrelevant to begin with. That's what that post indicates: your tactic of trying to discredit me with points that are irrelevant to the ongoing discussion, simply because you have no compelling counterargument to present on your own. As for the trolling accusation, considering how I've written essays in here for my first 20-30 odd posts, developing and continuing assertions with sources, research and effective counterargument, I simply laugh at the BS accusations you make about me. Got it? Good.

Originally posted by defcon5 Somewhere in this thread is a movie of an F-4 or some fighter hitting a wall at high speed and literally disappearing. I suggest you find that video and check out what we are trying to explain to you. As another example, have you ever seen the old footage from the first failed mercury missions were the rocket literally just disappears into the ground in a fireball? [edit on 11/16/2005 by defcon5]

I saw that video of the F-4 months ago when I was reading through the 80+ pages (then) of this thread. Problem #1: The F-4 hardly disappeared. You do know the difference between disintegrate and disappear, don't you? Problem #2: How can an explosion be ferocious enough to "disappear" an entire 757? Do you realize how much energy and what type of temperatures are needed so as to instantly "disappear" a 64 ton (empty) airliner? Why don't you go run this moronic claim by a physicist and see how fast he laughs in your face? Problem #3: Let's assume that we're watching the Sunday morning funnies and the plane disappeared from the fireball explosion. You've seen the picture of that one piece of fuselage with red and blue paint that's laying on the Pentagon lawn, I assume. Now, if you read my lengthy analysis a few pages ago (on page 106), you would have read this: copy/paste: My analysis on ST 7: Inconclusive and highly suspect. As www.physics.ca summarizes: “Has American Airlines invented a new kind of indestructible paint? This fragment has allegedly been violently flung out from an explosion which reduced a giant airliner to dust and ashes and unidentifiable tiny fragments... And yet the paint is as shiny and new as the day it was applied. Does it take more energy to peel and blacken paint, than to destroy 100 tons of aircraft? Clearly painted sections survive most crashes, as shown in the crash photos. But in those cases, no one is alleging an explosion catastrophic enough to vaporize 100 tons of plane. They break up and perhaps burn a bit. In really fierce crashes, some of the plane may actually be destroyed, but even in these cases, tons of reasonably intact wreckage remains. So these scenarios are consistent with the recovery of painted sections, even in bad crashes. The allegation that this brightly painted fragment survived is irreconcilable with the claim that 99.99% of the plane was vaporized. The metal is also shiny and new looking, and there is no sign of grass singeing from the heat in the area where it landed. It is quite impossible for this to be from an aircraft which had just been reduced to a pile of ashes. And as another member astutely pointed out elsewhere in this thread, “The single piece of 757 part, the painted section, is the most suspicious of all. Why doesn't it appear in any wide shots, pre-collapse? See the Pentalawn site, for example. Why isn't it burned? How did it fly so far from the Pentagon, being that light, and shaped the way it is? Why aren't the rivet holes torn? I'm afraid that photo is the most suspicious of the lot. Come to think of it, the position it is in is the least likely position for it to land in. Things usually land heavy side down... this looks like it was carefully placed there. That is a large number of unresolved issues. Problem #4: Let's keep assuming, for the moment, that we're watching the Sunday morning funnies and the plane disappeared from the fireball explosion. How did 60+ tons of an airliner instantly disappear due to an explosion yet gov't officials positively identified 63 of the 64 passengers' DNA? So, investigators could find and positively identify 98% of DNA samples but they couldn't even find 2% of the airplane that carried the aforementioned DNA?!?! defcon5, can you say bullsh**? Wait, I know you can, you throw that word against others' comments when you are way out in left field and have nothing constructive to add to the debate. edit for paragraph enumeration [edit on 17/11/2005 by Aris]

No aris it's like this First the plane impacts with out makeing any damage to the front wall but it makes a mess inside going all the way and makeing a hole on the other side, atention it does not vaporise until the last pice (the engine hits the end of the last wall makeing a big round hole)only after that it can vaporise and not before no not at the moment of the explosion and only after that. And how did the engine get inside with out living a mark on the wall? Well flashforget what i said. OH how stupid of us how can we ever denny it, what was in my mind it makes perfect sence(in the quantum mecanics where every thing is posible). [edit on 17-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Don't forget that the wings folded into the fuselage and went in through the hole the fuselage opened, just like the engines did, before it all came to a rest and then subsequently vapourized I emailed this thread's link to my uncle in Volos who's a high school physics teacher (not saying he's an Einstein of an astrophysicist but his degrees, knowledge and education on physics are very good) and you know what his reaction was when I called him later on in the night for comments? He was laughing his ass off with much of the stuff in here that tries to explain and defend the official story

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Oh, I'm sorry I must be on the wrong website. I THOUGHT the point of this site was to deny ignorance, and express our beliefs, etc. Stupid me, I didn't realize I was supposed to change my beliefs to match yours and only post what you believe in. Let me go find the right website to be on then.

But you're the one getting all upset cause we don't believe the official, or your interpretation of it, version of the events. You're the one trying to shut people up and make them believe what you do, the "official story". You're not expressing your true thoughts IMO. You are just trying to justify your belief in an obviously questionable incident. You don't want your beliefs to be shattered by having to admit to yourself the real truth. The last time I looked denying ignorance was NOT just buying the official story. It IS questioning why we are not getting the full story. I don't care if you believe the official story or not, what I do care is that people QUESTION and not just except what they're told. Especialy when what they're told is so flimsy a 3 year old could see through it, and then try to make everything fit so you can be comfortable in your illusion, and then get mad when other people won't join you in your fantasy. Sorry if that sounds harsh but if you calmed down and though with your brain instead of your emotions you might see the point.

I get the point nicely anok. What irritates me is when people like Pepsi decide that THEY know the truth no matter HOW much evidence of ANYTHING they are shown, and REFUSE to believe anything else. And don't tell me that I'm trying to shut people up. I'm trying to show people some of the areas they are wrong about, such as the interceptors coming from the middle of the country because it was a cover up, when the truth is that there weren't any from anywhere else. It's called Fact vs Opinion. Yes I might be wrong about what happened, and if I am, and it's proven then I'll be the first to step up and apologize to anyone I offended and say I was wrong. But this is what I BELIEVE based on what I KNOW about planes, radar, and the military. But apparently since you guys BELIEVE what the "truth" is, it's all irrelevant.

Zaphod58, you did not answer my last question I asked you and answer would be appreciated, since you were making an assertion to me. Let me copy/paste the question for you so as to refresh your memory:

Originally posted by Aris Let me even give you the benefit of the doubt and concur that no part would remain recognizable. Where are all these non-recognizable parts? Where is this confetti? You see an airplane-turned-confetti anywhere in the Pentagon crash? Do you see 50 or so tons of unrecognizable parts anywhere? Fifty or so pounds maybe, so to speak, but nowhere near 50 odd tons that should be scattered like confetti eh.

So, since I see that you have enough common sense to realize that 50-100 tons of an airliner don't just simply vaporize and disappear, and since you claim that those 50-100 tons turned into itty bitty pieces, do you see, in all the pictures combined, 50-100 tons of unidentifiable pieces? Do you see even 1 ton? A rough, visual guesstimate, from all the pictures you see, is what I'm asking for.