9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Aris

Originally posted by vandalizor Not that the evidence to support this isn't voluminous, but maybe you haven't been paying attention to the goings on in Iran of late?

Of course I have. What does Iran have to do with "Radical Islam is the fascism of the modern world"? Many claim that the US is the fascism of the modern world. So?

Non muslims must were identification so they can be distinguished from muslims? Does this ring a bell? Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. Does this not sound like Islamic fundamentalist governments? Mullahs preach hartred and intolerance of non muslims in the name of the religion of peace? Granted there is more to it than this, this is only the beginning, if you want to debate this I would be happy to, start another thread and post a link. [edit on 23-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Yes it does and I appreciate you bringing it up so as to clear it up for me. Could you source that for me? And I don't mean an outlet that's reporting from another outlet. I want corroborated, verified proof that this is actually occurring

I hope that what you are referring to isn't along the lines of Saddam's plastic shredders and incubator babies BS. You know, baseless, intentional propaganda that was thoroughly debunked. And even if what you claim is occuring, I still fail to see how it would justify bombing a sovereign nation.

Originally posted by Aris I hope that what you are referring to isn't along the lines of Saddam's plastic shredders and incubator babies BS. You know, baseless, intentional propaganda that was thoroughly debunked. And even if what you claim is occuring, I still fail to see how it would justify bombing a sovereign nation.

Are you talking about bombing Iran or Iraq? I do not advocate bombing Iran. I don't think I said anything to imply that. [edit on 23-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Originally posted by Aris Yes it does and I appreciate you bringing it up so as to clear it up for me. Could you source that for me? And I don't mean an outlet that's reporting from another outlet. I want corroborated, verified proof that this is actually occurring

Well I am looking online, but I didn't read this online so it may take some time. not verified Heres the Jerusalem Post article Actually they have retracted the story now. Here it is. Iran thouroughly denies it. Still does not change my opinion one iota.

Iran. The goings on in Iran, is what you were mentioning, correct? First you mentioned how radical islam is the fascism of the modern world. When I commented on that not being credible, you mentioned "the goings on in Iran of late" to support your statement. When you clarified with an example, I asked for verification and also mentioned how that, even if true, would justify bombing Iran, because that is where such comments lead to, don't they? To tilt public opinion into accepting a first strike, which is what the topic of Iran is all about lately.

Originally posted by Aris Iran. The goings on in Iran, is what you were mentioning, correct? First you mentioned how radical islam is the fascism of the modern world. When I commented on that not being credible, you mentioned "the goings on in Iran of late" to support your statement. When you clarified with an example, I asked for verification and also mentioned how that, even if true, would justify bombing Iran, because that is where such comments lead to, don't they? To tilt public opinion into accepting a first strike, which is what the topic of Iran is all about lately.

Yes I did, but I also stated other reasons why I believe radical islam is the fascism of the modern world, not just Iran. I would be happy to debate this, start a thread and send me a link. I do not advocate bombing Iran. You have an itchy trigger finger? I think Iran would have to demonstrate something a little more significant of a threat than just being a fascist government. I have to leave now, but don't worry I will be back. [edit on 23-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Originally posted by vandalizor Well I am looking online, but I didn't read this online so it may take some time. not verified Heres the Jerusalem Post article Actually they have retracted the story now. Here it is. Iran thouroughly denies it. Still does not change my opinion one iota.

Ahhh, so one of the initial outlets spreading this propaganda is the Jerusalem Post, but you also found that the story has been retracted. Of note, from your link of retraction: "Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said in an interview from Los Angeles that he had contacted members of the Jewish community in Iran -- including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian parliament. They denied any such measure was in place." Meir Javdanfar, an Israeli expert on Iran and the Middle East who was born and raised in Tehran, said yesterday that he was unable to find any evidence that such a law had been passed. "None of my sources in Iran have heard of this," he said. "I don't know where this comes from." So, Israeli interests plant wild stories that are later on retracted and debunked by the IAJF itself, yet you admit that the propaganda that shapes your opinion, even though when debunked, still does not change your propagandized opinion. And you wonder why I say that your credibility went out the window? You just proved it yourself, foot in the mouth to the knee. I do appreciate, though, your honesty in linking the debunking. Others may have committed a lie of ommission in your place.

Originally posted by vandalizor Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. Does this not sound like Islamic fundamentalist governments? Mullahs preach hartred and intolerance of non muslims in the name of the religion of peace? Granted there is more to it than this, this is only the beginning, if you want to debate this I would be happy to, start another thread and post a link. [edit on 23-5-2006 by vandalizor]

I didn't see this edit, sorry. Sure, there are repressive Islamic fundamentalist gov'ts. They also tend to be western allies, btw. As for mullahs preaching hatred and intolerance of non-Muslims, well I'm no expert in this field but that's more propaganda. Does Islam have its share of mullahs preaching hatred? Sure. Does Christianity have its share of reverends that preach hatred? On your shores alone there are several that are in the most public of spotlights, no less. As a religion, Islam is hardly "fascist" in its orientation. Your gov't just twists it that way so you can have your boogeyman so as to justify the wars of aggression and relinquishing of basic human rights, all in the name of security, supposedly. If you'd like to debate this, I'd be more than happy to in another thread like you offered. Since I'm leaving for the day now, though, I'll be back tomorrow (just so you're not waiting for more posts from me today).

Originally posted by Aris

Originally posted by vandalizor Well I am looking online, but I didn't read this online so it may take some time. not verified Heres the Jerusalem Post article Actually they have retracted the story now. Here it is. Iran thouroughly denies it. Still does not change my opinion one iota.

Ahhh, so one of the initial outlets spreading this propaganda is the Jerusalem Post, but you also found that the story has been retracted. Of note, from your link of retraction: "Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said in an interview from Los Angeles that he had contacted members of the Jewish community in Iran -- including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian parliament. They denied any such measure was in place." Meir Javdanfar, an Israeli expert on Iran and the Middle East who was born and raised in Tehran, said yesterday that he was unable to find any evidence that such a law had been passed. "None of my sources in Iran have heard of this," he said. "I don't know where this comes from." So, Israeli interests plant wild stories that are later on retracted and debunked by the IAJF itself, yet you admit that the propaganda that shapes your opinion, even though when debunked, still does not change your propagandized opinion. And you wonder why I say that your credibility went out the window? You just proved it yourself, foot in the mouth to the knee. I do appreciate, though, your honesty in linking the debunking. Others may have committed a lie of ommission in your place.

I often put my foot in my mouth, but I am man enough to admit it when I do. I only learned that Iran actually denied the story and the news agencies were back pedalling today. In fact the very moment when I went online to find what the onlines news sources were saying to provide you with the links you requested. It is not the only thing that forms my opinion, just something I remembered that happened recently. Though Iran has denied it, they have stated that muslims will all dress according to muslim tradition in preperation for the coming of the "hidden imam". This essentially accomplishes the same thing in visually being able to distinguish muslims from non-muslims, so I would not be so quick as to dismiss the entire basis as false. I base my opinion on much more than that one instance though. It's based on the years of oppression documented by the world regarding the rule of radical Islam. I hope you understand the distinction I make, I do not fault the religion itself, and have no ill will towards muslims in general. I fault the people that use the religion as an excuse to commit atrocities in the name of their religion. Much like the Christians of the middle ages and the Crusades, though they carry it out differently, the end result is the same. I do no dispute that we have reverends here doing the same thing, but most Americans don't listen to them or take them seriously. In fact when they make public statements that preach idiocy they are openly criticized and blasted for it.

May I gently lead you both back from religious propaganda items to the intention of the title of this "very long" thread. And thus save you from the wrath of any moderator in a rightious rigid mood.

(from Vandalizor a few posts back) Anything else would could easily be written of as fabricated. A mock 757 painted up to look like the one from AA Flight 77 could be substituted very easily and you would not be able to say with any degree of certainty that it is infact flight 77.

I dare to disagree. All airplane parts in the world are imprinted with specific manufacturer identification numbers. One reason behind this, is to be able to distinct between the many manufacturers and their hundreds if not thousands of subcontractors, many levels down their subsequent manufacturers lines, so, in case of f.ex. an air disaster, the FAA or anyone else involved in finding out the reason behind the cause of the disaster, will be able to pinpoint any faulty plane part and trace it back to its specific manufacturer. Can you find one online or offline mentioning of any identification number imprinted on the wreckaged 9/11 plane parts shown for years now to the amazed public? So we all could identify without a shred of doubt, the exact type, make and owner of that specific plane. EVERY plane manufacturer and its owner both have access to their fleets plane parts identification lists, and some regulatory agencies also have them in their posession, ordered by law, so no one could falsify any lists, to escape from immense expensive lawsuits. I have yet to see ONE such number. Don't need to be spoonfed with more cash and cary bought security camera videos. Just show me a few plane part numbers. So called hard evidence. Case closed if they match flight 77 and it's registration number.

Originally posted by LaBTop May I gently lead you both back from religious propaganda items to the intention of the title of this "very long" thread. And thus save you from the wrath of any moderator in a rightious rigid mood.

(from Vandalizor a few posts back) Anything else would could easily be written of as fabricated. A mock 757 painted up to look like the one from AA Flight 77 could be substituted very easily and you would not be able to say with any degree of certainty that it is infact flight 77.

I dare to disagree. All airplane parts in the world are imprinted with specific manufacturer identification numbers. One reason behind this, is to be able to distinct between the many manufacturers and their hundreds if not thousands of subcontractors, many levels down their subsequent manufacturers lines, so, in case of f.ex. an air disaster, the FAA or anyone else involved in finding out the reason behind the cause of the disaster, will be able to pinpoint any faulty plane part and trace it back to its specific manufacturer. Can you find one online or offline mentioning of any identification number imprinted on the wreckaged 9/11 plane parts shown for years now to the amazed public? So we all could identify without a shred of doubt, the exact type, make and owner of that specific plane. EVERY plane manufacturer and its owner both have access to their fleets plane parts identification lists, and some regulatory agencies also have them in their posession, ordered by law, so no one could falsify any lists, to escape from immense expensive lawsuits. I have yet to see ONE such number. Don't need to be spoonfed with more cash and cary bought security camera videos. Just show me a few plane part numbers. So called hard evidence. Case closed if they match flight 77 and it's registration number.

You may and I will get back on topic. You are correct, however I don't feel it would alleviate much of this debate. This evidence is not indisputable, one could easily say that it was planted post accident, or it was switched when the pieces were carted away. I don't have an answer to why nothing is mentioned about this. It would have been very easy to release authentic numbers matching up to the parts of the plane or on the conspiracist side, if nothing else it would have been easy for the government to fabricate and present as Prima Facie evidence to clear the "air".

Ok, first off i probaly wont be posting here often, im going around and posting this in fourms all over and hope you do to, this is VERY important. First of george bush is a terrorist. Also Watch This Video Please. And make sure you watch it all. video.google.com... To me thats more then Solid Proof.

Originally posted by ANOK

Huh? Were did you get 75 feet from? Try more like 20...

You seem to have a failue to grasp that the 20' figure is from the "height' Of the hole made by the plane. NOT the width. Try reading many of the reports that came out about the Pentagon crash. The width is far bigger than 20'.

LOL so the soft nose is stronger than a titanium alloy engine? Get real dude... I didn't say they were indistructable.

Your failure to grasp simple physics is mind numbing.

You have obviously not looked at the pics before the building collapsed.

The pentagon collapsed? no, just one side of the building collapsed. That happens when you have thousands of pounds of jet fuel burning at over 1000 centigrade for hours. STrucutres weaken under heat and weight.

Now go away, do some research, get caught up with the rest of us then come back and try again...

Take your own advice.

Originally posted by RoxFox Ok, first off i probaly wont be posting here often, im going around and posting this in fourms all over and hope you do to, this is VERY important. First of george bush is a terrorist. Also Watch This Video Please. And make sure you watch it all. video.google.com... To me thats more then Solid Proof.

would PEOPLE quit using this "proof" as solid proof? IT ISNT'. its been debunked and anyone with an iota of intelligence know that its nothing but conejcture, speculation and the loose tying of some fact to support a conclusion that is beyond preposterous. ITS BULLcrap. [edit on 23-5-2006 by Wizy]

Originally posted by Wizy You seem to have a failue to grasp that the 20' figure is from the "height' Of the hole made by the plane. NOT the width.

I have no idea where you are getting this BS from but it pisses ppl off when ppl spread lies....Look at this image. www.geocities.com... How wide is the hole?

Your failure to grasp simple physics is mind numbing.

Oh could you pls expand on this comment? Are you one who believe the wings folded back and were sucked through the 20' foot hole What simple physics am I not understanding, pls explain... How do you explain a 757 hitting the pentagon at ground level when the engine shrouds sit a good 6' bellow the fuselgage? Why is there no damage to the lawn? Why were the engines not ripped off when they hit the ground? Where did the engines and wing spars go?

The pentagon collapsed? no, just one side of the building collapsed.

You know what I'm talking about, the whole section above the impact point collapsed. I didn't say the whole building doh! [edit on 23/5/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK Oh could you pls expand on this comment? Are you one who believe the wings folded back and were sucked through the 20' foot hole

[edit on 23/5/2006 by ANOK]

The good folks at Perdue university stated that. Not sucked, but carried through by their own inertia. How did the engine get inside the building? And please enlighten us then... What did hit the pentagon... [edit on 23-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Nice picture,, a 757 fits exceedingly well! Saves me the hassle of putting one together and I was looking for this one but couldn't find it.. Boeing 757:

Basic Dimensions Wing span 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m) Overall Length 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) Tail Height 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m) Interior Cabin Width 11 ft 7 in (3.5 m) Body Exterior Width 12 ft 4 in (3.7 m)

Hole width : 18 ft Span of damage : 141ft A 757 fits! Don't forget when you get upset about the wings, the difference between an object 115ft long plowing into something (the cabin) and the wings/tailfin which were, what, a few feet?

Again Smith I ask you if the 757 hit that low, what happend to the engines? Why didn't they plow into the lawn and rip the wings off, or at least leave some nice obvious gauges. The impact is too low for a 757 to have done that imo...Escpecialy when you look at the vid and see how low and flat the flight path was.

Have you been in an airliner? I suggest you look out of the window and see how much the wings flex, you see an aircraft is not a rigid body, it is pretty flexible. When we were in a 747 last year you could see and hear even the main fuselage flex. The pictures people use are of aircraft on the ground (ie the drawing especially) or maybe sometimes travelling at low speeds (ie to land). When travelling at the high speed this aircraft was the wings will have been a steeper angle than when stationary, while your enigne may just about touch in the drawings, they will have been significantly higher in high speed flight. When I've flown light aircraft, you can even then see the wings flex depending on airspeed and the maneuvers you are carrying out. If he was pitching to the left (as eyewitness accounts and the damage suggests) there will have been more lift generated by the right wing than the left, so it will have been at a different angle to the body than the left one (even comparative to the body of the aircraft, not just the relationship to the ground), especially when conducting such sharp maneuvers at high speed.