9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord This topic continues to defy logic, even when logic has been clearly outlined.

It has not be clearly outlined. Like american courts, you must prove without reasonable dought. This has not happen.

I feel, for some reason you have made this your truth. I cant believe you are so easy to believe it was a 757.

Anyone with full color vision, eyes that can see, and a clear head, can see there is NO IDENTIFYABLE 757 IN THE PENTAGON'S OWN FOOTAGE. The only clearly identifyable shape in the pentagon's video is a white shape which looks remarkably like the camelback shape of a global hawk with what looks like the jet intake bulging out as it does on the global hawk. Isn't it AMAZING . . . On a clear and sunny day a light colored 757 with color stripes DISAPPEARS into the background while a white shape at the same depth is brilliantly white. ITS A GOOD THING THAT A NOVICE PILOT KNEW ABOUT THE NEW CLOAKING DEVICE ON 757s AND USED IT ALONG WITH TURNING OFF THE TRANSPONDER. So Skeptic and Cat herder, keep that brain locked in place, don't articulate and speculate based on observable facts. Take that which you have great emotional attachment to believing and blindly stick to it. After all i wouldn't want to scare you about the government underwhich you live. Or question your ability to independently and objectively evaluate. The truth does not care what one thinks one knows, or what one thinks one is certain of. Truth is NOT about connecting the dots, Truth is about seeing which dots are ALREADY CONNECTED. .

Originally posted by slank Anyone with full color vision, eyes that can see, and a clear head, can see there is NO IDENTIFYABLE 757 IN THE PENTAGON'S OWN FOOTAGE. The only clearly identifyable shape in the pentagon's video is a white shape which looks remarkably like the camelback shape of a global hawk with what looks like the jet intake bulging out as it does on the global hawk. Isn't it AMAZING . . . On a clear and sunny day a light colored 757 with color stripes DISAPPEARS into the background while a white shape at the same depth is brilliantly white. ITS A GOOD THING THAT A NOVICE PILOT KNEW ABOUT THE NEW CLOAKING DEVICE ON 757s AND USED IT ALONG WITH TURNING OFF THE TRANSPONDER. So Skeptic and Cat herder, keep that brain locked in place, don't articulate and speculate based on observable facts. Take that which you have great emotional attachment to believing and blindly stick to it. After all i wouldn't want to scare you about the government underwhich you live. Or question your ability to independently and objectively evaluate. The truth does not care what one thinks one knows, or what one thinks one is certain of. Truth is NOT about connecting the dots, Truth is about seeing which dots are ALREADY CONNECTED. .

Slank, go buy a $50 35mm camera at Walmart tomorrow. Then, go outside and take a photo of ANYTHING 8 feet in front of you (focus on it). Then, go back to WalMart and see how clear the stuff in the distance is. Then, go to this website and learn why the stuff in the distance is out of focus, not as bright as you remember, and hard to make out. And, unlike you and many like you, I didn't form an opinion on the 757 hitting the Pentagon until I had literally read over 100 different websites with content regarding the Pentagon attack on 911 (hundreds of pages, photos, videos, audio, etc.). I STARTED with the flash video that claims a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon (I didn't even know there WAS a conspiracy until 2 weeks ago when I ran across that flash video). After reviewing everything, looking at every single item and article with an objective open mind, after talking to a few different people on the phone who's opinions on objects in the photos I trust, and after reasoning with myself logically I came to the only fathomable solution. By golly, a 757 rammed into the side of the Pentagon. See, I didn't watch it and go "Well holy crap, look at that, if it's got all that information, and all those quotes, and a catchy tune, it MUST be real!!" NO, I said, "Woah, is this true? I better look into this, this is too important to just accept until I know more." Deny Ignorance - educate yourself.

Originally posted by slank Anyone with full color vision, eyes that can see, and a clear head, can see there is NO IDENTIFYABLE 757 IN THE PENTAGON'S OWN FOOTAGE. The only clearly identifyable shape in the pentagon's video is a white shape which looks remarkably like the camelback shape of a global hawk with what looks like the jet intake bulging out as it does on the global hawk. Isn't it AMAZING . . . On a clear and sunny day a light colored 757 with color stripes DISAPPEARS into the background while a white shape at the same depth is brilliantly white.

In another thread I posted a link to an interview with a AA flight attendant who was sent in with a team of experts from AA to verify that it was in fact their aircraft. She talked about how she recognized pieces of wreckage that could only have come from a 757 type aircraft. She even recognized pieces of equipment that she was very familiar with (seats, coffee pots, etc.) I leave it to you to use the search function to find that article, I have already wasted enough time on this topic. Deny ignorance, do not embrace it.

Originally posted by CatHerder I said, "Woah, is this true? I better look into this, this is too important to just accept until I know more." Deny Ignorance - educate yourself.

Why dont you try to find out why building 7 fell?

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by CatHerder I said, "Woah, is this true? I better look into this, this is too important to just accept until I know more." Deny Ignorance - educate yourself.

Why dont you try to find out why building 7 fell?

Building 7 ..... this also has been beat to death... there were no explosives used in building 7... None... two big buildings next to a smaller building fall down and nothing is supposed to happen to the smaller building...

Originally posted by elevatedone there were no explosives used in building 7... None... I didnt say there was. two big buildings next to a smaller building fall down and nothing is supposed to happen to the smaller building... They where not that close. There where buildings closer that recived less damage.

Originally posted by CatHerder ...and before it hit this it hit a very heavy desil generator in front of the wall, and a steel steam vent pipe (each engine hit an object before the plane hit the wall - the starboard engine hit a very substantial object).

This is where the conflict arises for me. If it hit very substantial objects outside, why weren't there more parts outside? That doesn't make sense to me. I mean, we're talking about aluminum here, which is a relatively soft metal, which should have easily sheared off upon contact with anything. Where did all the debris go? Did it all burn completely, instantaneously? Why have we saved crash debris from other crashes for years, yet all debris from 9/11 crashes seem to have been disposed of, as quickly as they could clean up the mess? Shouldn't this have been investigated much more thoroughly than other plane crashes? (What was the last flight that went down in the ocean? TWA 800?) They still have all the parts of that one in a warehouse, don't they? Why was there such a rush to dispose of all evidence? [edit on 16-9-2004 by Damned]

Why won�t the Pentagon release the video from the gas station I think it would put the question of a 757 or Global Hawk issue to rest? I wonder what�s in the box? Taken from the Pentagon crash site/ Photo shows a group of uniformed military men carrying away a large tarped box, obviously not very heavy

Originally posted by Nygdan

damned Who says whatever hit the building wasn�t custom built

Why would it be a different custom built plane?

I was thinking more along the lines of a missile made to look like a AA plane.

Were the passengers really found and identified

Yes.

Where can this info be found? Was there an investigation on this, too? I mean, it seems that we spent more time on TWA flight 800 than this, doesn't it? IMO, this is much more important.

Why was the security video that was confiscated never released/shown

What difference does that make?

Are you serious??? You're asking me what difference the most conclusive piece of evidence available could make??? Apparently, it doesn't matter to our government what people believe or don't believe. Nor does it matter to those who have already made up their minds.

Witnesses that were close to the Pentagon are less likely to have seen much at all

Hence their inability to say what flight number it was, and the variance in size estimates. Also, some of the people were far enough away to see that it was a plane.

As I understand it, there are also a good many people who claim to have seen a missile. They're testimony is all but ignored, apparently.

damned Wings shear off when planes enter holes,

At least you are stating reasons, unlike some of the jokers here. Infact, thats a perfectly sensible question, however, its addressed in the analysis links provided. From what I understand of it, upon impact, the thing was terrible smashed up , like CH said [well, paraphrased0 it acted like a liquid, and poured (in a sense) thru the holes. The wings weren't sheared off, and if that was the claim, you would expect there to be lots of wing on the lawn. But, in plane crashes, even regular ones, the bulk of the debris is often squished up in a lump beyond the impact site. Remeber, the item is traveling, with an incredible intertia, in a single direction.

This answer doesn't quite do it for me. See, this conflicts with everything I've ever been taught about physics, and is still the one thing I can't get over. Wings don't just flow like liquid when they hit something flat and hard. You're saying they just got sucked into the hole? That doesn't sound very realistic.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by CatHerder I said, "Woah, is this true? I better look into this, this is too important to just accept until I know more." Deny Ignorance - educate yourself.

Why dont you try to find out why building 7 fell?

Yes, please do. That's another one I have a problem with. [edit on 16-9-2004 by Damned]

In the picture, above me of the gass station. It is apparent, there are alot of light poles in the way. My question is, Was anything besides the pentagon hit? Was the plane fling with landing gear down?

Originally posted by SpittinCobra In the picture, above me of the gass station. It is apparent, there are alot of light poles in the way. My question is, Was anything besides the pentagon hit? Was the plane fling with landing gear down?

I�m not a pilot but from what I understand IMO a jet can not lower it�s landing gear until it is moving slower, otherwise there is wind shear, I�m sure one of our local pilots could answer this for us, [edit on 16-9-2004 by Sauron]

Originally posted by SpittinCobra In the picture, above me of the gass station. It is apparent, there are alot of light poles in the way. My question is, Was anything besides the pentagon hit? Was the plane fling with landing gear down?

1)Yes and 2)No. All of this has already been covered. Lightpoles where hit, sheered off at the tops, knocked over, one into the windshield of a cab. Photos provided in this thread. Landing gear was not down (and could not autodeploy due to airspeed). Plane didn't smack ground on the way in - how is that possible - see ground effect... Does anyone read before replying anymore, or is it just "AH! Here is a thread! I won't read what this guy posted, but I'll tell him what I think anyway."

Originally posted by Sauron

Originally posted by SpittinCobra In the picture, above me of the gass station. It is apparent, there are alot of light poles in the way. My question is, Was anything besides the pentagon hit? Was the plane fling with landing gear down?

I�m not a pilot but from what I understand IMO a jet can not lower it�s landing gear until it is moving slower, otherwise there is wind shear, I�m sure one of our local pilots could answer this for us, [edit on 16-9-2004 by Sauron]

It creates a huge drag. The Blue angels are the only ones that dare to fly like that.

Originally posted by CatHerder Does anyone read before replying anymore, or is it just "AH! Here is a thread! I won't read what this guy posted, but I'll tell him what I think anyway."

Dont be a smart ass, there are tons of info on this. The info starts to run together. All you have done is taken info from diffrent places and compiled it.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by SpittinCobra Dont be a smart ass,

Excuse me? Don't presume to behave as board staff.

I wasnt, I felt disrespected, I was defending myself, SIR.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord [Several people appear to be reading small tidbits at best, or ignoring wide expanses of content at the worst.

This is not the first time, why in this post are going to say something? Why are you being so protective?

Where can this info be found? Was there an investigation on this, too? I mean, it seems that we spent more time on TWA flight 800 than this, doesn't it? IMO, this is much more important.

I would have to say more time was spent on flight 800 because flight 800 went down with no known cause. In order to determine why it went down, it took lots of time. They investigated it fully to determine the cause, so they could correct any design flaws or maintenance routines to make the remaining like airplanes safer. If a terrorist flys an airplane into a building, what good is putting the airplane back together in a hanger and inspecting it piece by piece going to do. What further evidence are they going to collect other than the body parts and possibly the weapons used? If Any of these planes went down from unknown causes they would have been investigated fully to determine the cause.

There have been numerous crashes that they've spent much more time on. I at least would've expected them to save and examine the parts, instead of discarding everything as quickly as they could be removed. Same thing happened with the towers. Before anyone could question anything, all evidence had been disposed of, so it seems. That, I find rather suspicious. They investigate crashes quite thoroughly, even when they know what caused them. Why is this one any different?