9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by diggs That is definitely not a tail print! If it was, the vertical tail would have made the same imprint on the 3rd story.

I see from that comment that you were there and could see at what angle the tail struck?

Well it's pretty important, tails just don't disappear.

No, tails don't necessarily disappear. They don't always get photographed in situ by the media, either. Sometimes they're moved to allow firefighters clear access without the hazard of falling over them all the time, too.

Why would he care to put of a smokescreen? That doesn't make sense to me. I'll take the words of his many flight instructors who said he sucked.

That's fine by me ... unless, of course, they're disinformation agents, too. After all, they're FAA accredited, aren't they? Edited to add: Edited for clarity. [edit on 4-6-2006 by Aotearoa] [edit on 4-6-2006 by Aotearoa]

Originally posted by Dansker

Originally posted by diggs How could the witness notice that when it went 530mph? These witnesses there sure had some killer eyesight!

It not hard to notice when it practically happens right in front of you.

So a big plane is about to crash right in front of you and you don't wince your eyes and duck for cover?

The plane should have been going down at an angle, so if the left engine hit a 2ft wall at that velocity, well do the math.

All I've seen describes the plane as travelling parallel to the ground right before it struck the Pentagon. Where did you hear that it was going down at an angle? Ok think about it, we were told this 757 hit the TOPS of some lampposts that were sitting high on top of a highway that was sitting high on top of an embankment. The Pent's lawn sits a lot lower than the highway. The 757 was said to be going 530mph and hits through the 1st floor. Do the math. [edit on 4-6-2006 by diggs]

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by Aotearoa 911research.wtc7.net...

That is definitely not a tail print! If it was, the vertical tail would have made the same imprint on the 3rd story.

You're right, that's not where the tail hit.

Well it's pretty important, tails just don't disappear.

No, but there ain't gonna be a lot left of one after smashing into a steel and kevlar reinforced concrete wall at speeds in excess of 300 mph. There was a lot of damage to the exterior wall and the blastproof windows above the main fuselage hole, consistent with the tail smashing into the wall. see this post: www.abovetopsecret.com... from page 154 of this thread.

Originally posted by Aotearoa

Originally posted by diggs That is definitely not a tail print! If it was, the vertical tail would have made the same imprint on the 3rd story.

I see from that comment that you were there and could see at what angle the tail struck?

I'm going by how officials said it crashed.

Well it's pretty important, tails just don't disappear.

No, tails don't necessarily disappear. They don't always get photographed in situ by the media, either. Sometimes they're moved to allow firefighters clear access without the hazard of falling over them all the time, too.

There were lots of photos taken over the whole area and no where is a large 757 tail found.

Why would he care to put of a smokescreen? That doesn't make sense to me. I'll take the words of his many flight instructors who said he sucked.

That's fine by me ... unless, of course, they're disinformation agents, too. After all, they're FAA accredited, aren't they?

Riiiiiiight.

Originally posted by diggs So a big plane is about to crash right in front of you and you don't wince your eyes and duck for cover?

Here's part of the quote again. I guess you missed it the first time:

The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze. "I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, 'Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'" He dove to his right.

Ok think about it, we were told this 757 hit the TOPS of some lampposts that were sitting high on top of a highway that was sitting high on top of an embankment. The Pent's lawn sits a lot lower than the highway. The 757 was said to be going 530mph and hits through the 1st floor. Do the math.

How about this? Note: The above is not particularly accurate or to scale. It's just a quick drawing to illustrate a point.

Why is important that a tail peice be found? Why is that the only evidence that proves a plane hit the pentagon? What about all these peices? www.911myths.com... Even if we found a picture of the tail, wouldn't some say it was planted anyway? It makes no sense that the tail is the clincher when so much evidence clearly points to a 757.

Originally posted by Dansker

Originally posted by diggs Well it's pretty important, tails just don't disappear.

No, but there ain't gonna be a lot left of one after smashing into a steel and kevlar reinforced concrete wall at speeds in excess of 300 mph. There was a lot of damage to the exterior wall and the blastproof windows above the main fuselage hole, consistent with the tail smashing into the wall. see this post: www.abovetopsecret.com... from page 154 of this thread.

And I wouldn't doubt there wouldn't be a lot left, I just doubt it would obliterate against the wall without leaving a mark as these close-ups show: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by diggs And I wouldn't doubt there wouldn't be a lot left, I just doubt it would obliterate against the wall without leaving a mark as these close-ups show: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The damage is right there behind and around the big question mark in the first of your pictures in that post. Did you even look at the link I posted? It has a larger, more detailed image of the same area. There are broken windows and obvious damage to the wall.

Originally posted by Dansker

Originally posted by diggs So a big plane is about to crash right in front of you and you don't wince your eyes and duck for cover?

Here's part of the quote again. I guess you missed it the first time:

The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze. "I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, 'Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'" He dove to his right.

So he dives right after he sees the engine disintegrate against a wimpy 2ft wall. Riiiight.

Ok think about it, we were told this 757 hit the TOPS of some lampposts that were sitting high on top of a highway that was sitting high on top of an embankment. The Pent's lawn sits a lot lower than the highway. The 757 was said to be going 530mph and hits through the 1st floor. Do the math.

How about this?

Note: The above is not particularly accurate or to scale. It's just a quick drawing to illustrate a point.

1st off, pretty good job for doing it so quickly, but no way in hell it could do it at that angle. It's too steep at the beginning to fit any of your witness descriptions (unless they were all wrong about that too!).

Originally posted by LeftBehind Why is important that a tail peice be found? Why is that the only evidence that proves a plane hit the pentagon? What about all these peices? www.911myths.com... Even if we found a picture of the tail, wouldn't some say it was planted anyway? It makes no sense that the tail is the clincher when so much evidence clearly points to a 757.

Because all the wings and tails supposedly contacted the building based on all the reports we are being told. The vertical tail should have left a mark on the wall if the wall obliterated it. The missing tail evidence IS the smoking gun that a 757 didn't hit there. All those other pieces were obvioulsy planted (notice the lack of burn marks on most of them!).

Originally posted by Dansker The damage is right there behind and around the big question mark in the first of your pictures in that post. Did you even look at the link I posted? It has a larger, more detailed image of the same area. There are broken windows and obvious damage to the wall.

Yes I did, and look that it's consistent with a blast/shockwave damage, but not a 1 ton tail slamming into it (or however much it weighs). Didn't you notice the little column still hanging down from the 2nd story small square hole? How did that survive?

Originally posted by diggs So he dives right after he sees the engine disintegrate against a wimpy 2ft wall. Riiiight.

No, he saw the engine disintegrate after he dove right:

He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away. The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.

no way in hell it could do it at that angle. It's too steep at the beginning to fit any of your witness descriptions (unless they were all wrong about that too!).

I specifically mentioned the possibly gross inaccuracies in my drawing. I don't know the height of the highway above the Pentagon lawn or the exact height of the light poles. If you have them, I'd be happy to make an attempt at a more accurate illustration. The point is that there is no reason to believe that whatever hit the Pentagon travelled in a perfectly straight line, maintaning a constant angle relative to the ground from cutting the light poles to hitting the exterior wall.

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by Dansker The damage is right there behind and around the big question mark in the first of your pictures in that post. Did you even look at the link I posted? It has a larger, more detailed image of the same area. There are broken windows and obvious damage to the wall.

Yes I did, and look that it's consistent with a blast/shockwave damage,

Those windows are made of 2 inch thick, blast proof glass.

but not a 1 ton tail slamming into it (or however much it weighs).

So what kind of weight do you think it is consistent with? No, I don't know how much the vertical stabilizer from a Boeing 757 weighs either, but I'm willing to bet it's not a ton. Why don't you find out?

Didn't you notice the little column still hanging down from the 2nd story small square hole? How did that survive?

It has been ripped out at the bottom and is dangling from the 3rd floor slabs above. It maintains a presence in the physical world at that point, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it actually survived. It has pretty much seized to exist as a load bearing column. It's an ex-column. [edit on 4-6-2006 by Dansker] [edit on 4-6-2006 by Dansker]

Originally posted by diggs The missing tail evidence IS the smoking gun that a 757 didn't hit there. All those other pieces were obvioulsy planted (notice the lack of burn marks on most of them!).

Why is the tail the smoking gun? If we showed it to you, you'd just say it was planted like all the other evidence. If they could plant all that, then certainly they could have planted a tail. And honestly what did you expect? A giant loony tunes cut out of a 757? [edit on 4-6-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by Dansker No, he saw the engine disintegrate after he dove right:

oh, so he dives on the ground and then sees the left engine going 530mph and disintegrate against a wimpy 2ft wall while his head was sideways against the ground? There sure was some amazing witnesses there! What about the girl who claimed to see #'s under the wing? Believe her?

I specifically mentioned the possibly gross inaccuracies in my drawing. I don't know the height of the highway above the Pentagon lawn or the exact height of the light poles. If you have them, I'd be happy to make an attempt at a more accurate illustration.

Actually, your way would be the only way it could have come in and go parallel to the ground. Still makes it impossible for it to have done that according to the official story and witnesses.

The point is that there is no reason to believe that whatever hit the Pentagon travelled in a perfectly straight line, maintaning a constant angle relative to the ground from cutting the light poles to hitting the exterior wall.

I find it hard to believe that it was tilting that far to the left going 530mph and not turning!!!

Originally posted by Dansker Those windows are made of 2 inch thick, blast proof glass.

I don't doubt that. I doubt the tail wouldn't leave a mark there.

So what kind of weight do you think it is consistent with? No, I don't know how much the vertical stabilizer from a Boeing 757 weighs either, but I'm willing to bet it's not a ton. Why don't you find out?

Let's just say it's large and heavy enough to NOT disappear without a trace. Is a trace too much to ask for?

Didn't you notice the little column still hanging down from the 2nd story small square hole? How did that survive?

It has been ripped out at the bottom and is dangling from the 3rd floor slabs above.

Dangling from what, rope? Those Columns are attached with steel wire/poles (what are those things called?). The fuselage should have bent it inwards and it would have stayed bent.

Originally posted by LeftBehind Why is the tail the smoking gun? If we showed it to you, you'd just say it was planted like all the other evidence. If they could plant all that, then certainly they could have planted a tail.

Because large/heavy pieces like that don't just disappear without a trace and tails usually survied a crash at least in noticable pieces.

And honestly what did you expect? A giant loony tunes cut out of a 757?

Lets raise the intelligence of our questions a little bit, shall we?

Originally posted by diggs Because large/heavy pieces like that don't just disappear without a trace and tails usually survied a crash at least in noticable pieces.

Sources? I notice you used the word usually. So sometimes the tails don't survive the crash. By your logic all of those crashes must have been cruise missiles filled with airplane parts as well. Theres no need to find a tail, when there is so much other evidence that points to a 757.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by diggs Because large/heavy pieces like that don't just disappear without a trace and tails usually survied a crash at least in noticable pieces.

Sources?

Show me a crash that the tail didn't survive.

I notice you used the word usually. So sometimes the tails don't survive the crash.

If they don't survice, they leave marks. See the WTC holes.

Theres no need to find a tail, when there is so much other evidence that points to a 757.

So little other evidence that is all under dispute.

Originally posted by diggs Show me a crash that the tail didn't survive.

Show me a crash where a Boeing 757 ploughed into the recently renovated steel reinforced concrete wall of possibly the most solid building on the planet.

If they don't survice, they leave marks. See the WTC holes.

The tail did leave marks. Photos showing the marks have been posted in this thread several times. Ignoring them won't make them go away. The wall of the the WTC towers were entirely different from the Pentagon. Notably they were not constructed of steel reinforced concrete with kevlar cloth and 2 inches thick blast proof glass. [edit on 4-6-2006 by Dansker]