9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 LOL Zaphod. Its funny how many people believe the goofy conspiracy websites. I mean, how does anyone know exactly how much wreckage was recovered? Oh yeah, they read that website from that goofball French guy who has never been to the Pentagon......

That's pretty stereotypical, I'm supposing you've never had your own thoughts that might of been anti-parallel to those commonly expressed? Some people see those that believe in religion as goofy. Are you goofy?

That's pretty stereotypical, I'm supposing you've never had your own thoughts that might of been anti-parallel to those commonly expressed? Some people see those that believe in religion as goofy. Are you goofy?

No, I'm more of a Mickey fan myself. Sure I've had plenty of my own thoughts, but I base mine on EVIDENCE that can be verified, not crackpot websites created by French morons.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 No, I'm more of a Mickey fan myself.

Back that up with evidence.

Scroll back on the thread. I have posted evidence. If I could put the people I know that were at the Pentagon that day I would. So for evidence on this board, I have to rely on stuff that I can find on the internet that matches what my friends saw that day.

Should of taken lightly to my joke and the context it was referring to :-/ Broke the funny strain.

Hi Swampfox, Snoopy, Slap Nuts: Swamp >> Three Tomahawks on ordinary building and it didnt collapse, and yet you believe that ONE Tomahawk is going to make a reinforced building collapse? Your hypothesis is based upon the false notion that every Tomahawk missile carries the same warhead. This missile stuck the only part of the Pentagon still under construction to withstand this kind of attack. Random selection gives the true terrorists one out of five chances of hitting that specific location (five sided structure). These guys knew the load capacities of all the columns and beams throughout the Pentagon and easily calculated which warhead to use in their smokescreen (Jetliner) attack. The thing I hate most about this Pentagon hoax is that the authors of this crime are insulting our intelligence (like the thread starter). We are talking about over 100 tons of Boeing 757-200 Jetliner with 60 tons of aluminum alone that you say simply disappeared. Can you provide one shred of evidence of the gigantic Rolls Royce engines impacting the Pentagon wall? No. Where did they go? Where were the plane components reassembled part of any post crash investigation? If you guys want to believe that a massive Jetliner impacted the Pentagon, then mo-powa-to-ya. Nobody on this planet is in possession of a single frame of video or a single photograph placing Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon; before OR after the crash. None exist, because it never happened. Period! What ‘credible’ reason do you have for WTC 7 collapsing suddenly into its own footprint? 911research.wtc7.net... Are you going to sit there and proclaim that the top floor fell onto the 46th floor to impact the 45th floor and so on? Heh . . . Look at the video again, because the entire building was demolished using controlled detonation by the same Defense Department Contractors employed to beef up the Pentagon. Who is more guilty? Those conspiring to carry out these ‘self-inflicted’ wounds, OR those still working to cover up their crimes? Like this guy . . . Snoopy >> And security cameras operate at between 1-2fps. Not 30!! Slap Nuts >> It is this type of blanket, all encompassing INCORRECT statement that really impeaches anything you bring to the table. We agree. Those trying to hide the truth with this ridiculous “Flight 77 Hit The Pentagon” cover story are eventually exposed to have no credibility at all. The facts in this case are nowhere near the official bullony handed out by the Bush Administration and they are obviously hiding a mountain of evidence that would put them all behind bars forever. I do not mind being lied to, but at least make something up that is believable. Terral [edit on 20-9-2006 by Terral]

This is ATS folks, a little decorum please.

Originally posted by Terral No sir. Your case depends upon the presence of the 100 ton airliner debris inside or outside the Pentagon on 9/11. Your proposition is that a 100 ton Jetliner was squeezed into a 16’ x 20’ impact crater that left far too much of the Pentagon untouched and intact.

Just to this point... Look here: www.sweb.cz... A long time ago already I've been arguing about the same so I've prepared these pics which do indeed show the hole much wider than 20'. Yet, the 20' fallacy still lives on...

Originally posted by woodragon7 Why do people STILL try and talk away the pentagon conspiracy as rubbish? WAKE UP!!! where are the 'wing impact' marks? AND Have you ever thought that the 'missile' that penetrated the Pentagon was loaded with 757 parts? WELL? the tonnage scrap of wrecked plane just DID NOT add up. SO, the 757 parts you see were packed into whatever hit the Pentagon to make it look like it.WAKE UP!!! stop being in so much denial. If the US Govt would only release the cctv footage, miles of it, and then we'd get off their case......but they won't will they? WAKE UP!!!

For the wing impact marks look up portions of the building to the right and left of the impact hole. An I don't mean the pic where ground floor and a large portion of 1st floor is covered by firefighting spray. Oh, and btw, into WHAT were the engine parts, hull parts, undercarriage parts, luggage, bodies etc. packed?

Originally posted by Terral Hi Swampfox, Snoopy, Slap Nuts: Your hypothesis is based upon the false notion that every Tomahawk missile carries the same warhead. This missile stuck the only part of the Pentagon still under construction to withstand this kind of attack. Random selection gives the true terrorists one out of five chances of hitting that specific location (five sided structure).

Wrong. Random selection gave them one of five sides for the low-level attack as the rest of them had obstacles - most of times other buildings - in front of them. Oh and btw what warhead causes the hole to be such wide while staying relatively low?

These guys knew the load capacities of all the columns and beams throughout the Pentagon and easily calculated which warhead to use in their smokescreen (Jetliner) attack. The thing I hate most about this Pentagon hoax is that the authors of this crime are insulting our intelligence (like the thread starter). We are talking about over 100 tons of Boeing 757-200 Jetliner with 60 tons of aluminum alone that you say simply disappeared. Can you provide one shred of evidence of the gigantic Rolls Royce engines impacting the Pentagon wall? No. Where did they go? Where were the plane components reassembled part of any post crash investigation?

The engines went through...gasp...through that at-least-75'-wide-more-likely-wider impact hole. And had you looked at the photos, there are parts of at least one RR engine used in that 757. And planes are being reassembled when the cause of crash is unknown. Here it is pretty well known, don't you think?

If you guys want to believe that a massive Jetliner impacted the Pentagon, then mo-powa-to-ya. Nobody on this planet is in possession of a single frame of video or a single photograph placing Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon; before OR after the crash. None exist, because it never happened. Period!

Yup, and the passanger's remains, luggage, engine parts, undercarriage, aluminium hull parts in AA paintjob and all that were placed there by evil Aliens.

Hi Tuccy: Tuccy >> A long time ago already I've been arguing about the same so I've prepared these pics which do indeed show the hole much wider than 20'. Yet, the 20' fallacy still lives on... I had to go and look up Intrepid’s term “decorum.” : 0 ) This is another example of why the Mod’s have to come to this thread and pipe us down. Do any of your pictures show over 100 tons of Jetliner? No. Are we supposed to believe that Flight 77 simply disappeared into your now enlarging 16’ x 20’ foot hole? As already shown above in the thread, columns 8 – 21 (posted on 16-9-2006 at 06:50 PM (post id: 2490453) would have suffered catastrophic damage if a Boeing 757-200 Jetliner impacted in that location. www.worldnewsstand.net... . What you have is blast damage from within the building without sufficient impact damage on the outside. Look at your pic ( www.sweb.cz... ). See the “left wing impact damage extending beyond the impact hole”? According to your theory, Fight 77 hit this building with enough force to cause the entire fuselage to simply vaporize into nothing. Try to imagine what sixty tons of aluminum looks like crunched up in a pile. From top to bottom this big boy stands almost five stories high and 125 feet wide. If the plane simply bumped into this building at a mere nine feet about the ground, then where is the Jetliner? Anything striking that wall above the windows at 500 miles per hour would have done much more damage than you see there. Do you see any 100 ton aircraft? Neither do I. Please go down to “Proof 2” and look at the Overlay Chart: www.bedoper.com... Note that Columns 16+17 are in the direct path of the starboard engine and Columns 12+13 are in line with the portside engine. However, your pics show those areas still intact. The wheels of the aircraft are farther apart than the outside dimensions of your tiny little hole and the massive engines are outside the wheels. So, what is your theory? Did 100 tons of aircraft vanish outside the building or inside? Then look at all your pictures again to see if this resembles a missile attack. GL, Terral

Originally posted by Terral Hi Tuccy: This is another example of why the Mod’s have to come to this thread and pipe us down. Do any of your pictures show over 100 tons of Jetliner? No. Are we supposed to believe that Flight 77 simply disappeared into your now enlarging 16’ x 20’ foot hole?

It's not my hole. It's Pentagon's wall hole. And it's not, by all accounts, 16'x20'.

As already shown above in the thread, columns 8 – 21 (posted on 16-9-2006 at 06:50 PM (post id: 2490453) would have suffered catastrophic damage if a Boeing 757-200 Jetliner impacted in that location. www.worldnewsstand.net... .

Maybe you've missed it but there sere columns that suffered a catastrophic damage. And the farther from the hull, the less damage there would be as outer wing parts don't have so strong structure as the inner parts.

What you have is blast damage from within the building without sufficient impact damage on the outside. Look at your pic ( www.sweb.cz... ). See the “left wing impact damage extending beyond the impact hole”? According to your theory, Fight 77 hit this building with enough force to cause the entire fuselage to simply vaporize into nothing. Try to imagine what sixty tons of aluminum looks like crunched up in a pile. From top to bottom this big boy stands almost five stories high and 125 feet wide.

Oh, here we go again with Tom and Jerry running through the wall. Of course the airliner after impact remains whole, untouched, maybe with minor scratches, right? Oh and the vaporisation strawman is just that. A strawman of a group of CTers. Try to imagine how 60 tons of steel , aluminum and composites will look like after crashing a reinforced wall at that speed. Maybe you'd want to browse the thread to see what happens to F-4 Phantom after a scrash into a reinforced concrete, even though thicker than the Pentagon wall, but then 757 construction is weaker.

If the plane simply bumped into this building at a mere nine feet about the ground, then where is the Jetliner? Anything striking that wall above the windows at 500 miles per hour would have done much more damage than you see there. Do you see any 100 ton aircraft? Neither do I.

Anyone with a piece of logic would find it highly unlikely that most of the wreckage would be in the entrance hole. Much more likely inside the building, because as the hole was punched, the building's insided posed very little resistance to debris and it took some time to stop it. Also he won't expect to see the plane neatly piled on one place and he won't expect to find immediately all the stuff. This year, a Slovakian An-26 cargo plane crashed at much better conditions (far lower speed, impact was almost pancaking) into a forest and yet, even two months later chunks of wreckage were being found, some rather far from the crash site. And due tot he nature of the crash, most of the aircraft stayed in large pieces. There was no concrete wall to fly into.

Please go down to “Proof 2” and look at the Overlay Chart: www.bedoper.com... Note that Columns 16+17 are in the direct path of the starboard engine and Columns 12+13 are in line with the portside engine. However, your pics show those areas still intact. The wheels of the aircraft are farther apart than the outside dimensions of your tiny little hole and the massive engines are outside the wheels.

I apologise to mods, but [censor circumvention removed]. The "tiny little hole" is wide enough for both engines. Wheels are inside that dimension as well. Oh, and BTW, you were asking for destruction of columns? Well then, I do encourage you what does the red marking mean. You know, these are the columns that got completely destroyed. There goes your neat little 20' wide hole. You could've spared yourself the blunder had you managed to look properly at the photos I've linked and tried even to measure the dimensions yourself. If you'll look on that very picture you're using as argument here, you'd find only relatively small portion of the wings reached outside the impact hole as marked by yellow lines. Oh and btw if you think there has to be hole in the diameter of engine casing to accommodate the engine, you're rather wrong. The massive part of engine is rather small compared to outer diameter of the casing, ans casing is rather weak.

So, what is your theory? Did 100 tons of aircraft vanish outside the building or inside? Then look at all your pictures again to see if this resembles a missile attack. GL, Terral

The 100 tons didn't vanish. And most of the wreckage ended inside. Simple as that. Mod Edit: Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link. [edit on 9/20/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Hi Tuccy: Tuccy >> Wrong. Random selection gave them one of five sides for the low-level attack as the rest of them had obstacles - most of times other buildings - in front of them. Heh . . . Okie . . . Anyone can clearly see the Pentagon is wide open to attack from any side. giga.forfun.net... If somebody happened to fly a jumbo jet into the thing, these guys could not even manage to get a picture of it; before or after the crash. Please bring ‘evidence’ to support your “Flight 77 Hit The Pentagon” theory. Do you remember the show called “Fantasy Island” with Ricardo Montalban and his side kick Tatoo? I am looking for the same thing as the little guy, saying, “The plane!, The plane!” The tiny little bits in your pics do not mean anything, because a missile just struck the Pentagon and there is debris everywhere. Heh . . . obstacles indeed . . . Have a nice day, Terral

Hi Tuccy: Tuccy >> I apologise to mods, but xxxxxx. The "tiny little hole" is wide enough for both engines. LOL . . . You must excuse me, but I do not believe a single word coming out of your mouth. ZERO. This was the impetus for my comments above that began to get me into trouble. At the very least try to razzle dazzle me with something believable. Please hit ignore by my name and I will graciously do the same for you. Have a nice day, Terral [edit on 20-9-2006 by Terral]

If you'l look at a pic of a little bit larger area plus this one, you'd notice to the south and south-East rather tall (according to their shadows) buildings - taller than Pentagon. The North side got two constructions tall enough to make hit hard right in front of it. North-East side gets trees and poles into the way plus neccessity to avoid the Washington monumet. Also some poles, by the ir look and height much sturdier than the breakaway light poles along the highway. And from the east there also seems to be kinda building right in front of Petagon.

Well, if you are unable to gasp the concept that when a hole is several times wider than it's tall, it won't be 16'x20', then I agree it is pointless to try to discuss anything with you.

^ still doesn't explain where the engines went now does it? Look at your pics a little closer, you can see what you think is a hole really isn't, it's just the facade, you can still see columns.

You mean 16 and 17 disconnected from the floor above them with no wall around them? I would certainly describe it as a hole.

Hi Anok: Anok >> >> still doesn't explain where the engines went now does it? Look at your pics a little closer, you can see what you think is a hole really isn't, it's just the facade, you can still see columns. Ahhh. A voice of reason. Thank you very much. What about over 100 tons of aircraft? I am being led into the direction of wanting to understand the motivation behind the ATS member’s desire to validate the Bush Administration / Defense Department / FBI / CIA inadequate cover story. The flaws in this case are even more obvious than the WTC 7 controlled demolition hoax. Even if we make the hole twice or three times the size, at some point in the exercise somebody has to come up with the components of a Boeing 757-200 Airliner. If we parked one of those gigantic jets in front of the Pentagon wall, then perhaps these guys would realize the futility of their case. This feels like ‘Invasion Of The Body Snatchers’ and only some of us are trying to say awake. In the distance it looks like a herd of lemmings heading straight over a cliff. If this incident took place and nobody was told how it happened, I wonder how many people would actually look at the evidence and guess that a Boeing 757 Jetliner crashed into the Pentagon; even though none of the tons and tons and tons of components are present anywhere? Please excuse me, because I write a ton of Bible Commentary on Boards all over the internet; but have not even taken the time to look over any of these things until just recently. I was also unaware that WTC 7 was a 47 story steel / concrete building that simply collapsed for no good reason at all. The more information I gather on 9/11, the more something stinks to high heaven. They invent a “Department of Homeland Security” and care nothing about keeping illegals from simply waltzing across the border. The Administrative Branch needs the Patriot Act, which chips away at our personal freedoms. Bush needs to violate Geneva Convention Protocols to interrogate anyone ‘suspected’ of terrorist activities, even though current law allows him 72 hours for Judicial oversight. The Bush Administration is attacking our national sovereignty, constitutional rights and creating terrorists by shooting up the Middle East at every opportunity. The public is going to continue running towards that cliff sound asleep, until we all wake up under martial law with a fascist dictator. My guess is the people manipulating Bush’s strings with their hand in his back have another 9/11 in store for us, and this time they will be using nukes. Since so many people are willing to buy their last bag of goods, they can blame this one on the tooth fairy and nobody will raise an eyebrow . . . Terral

Your hypothesis is based upon the false notion that every Tomahawk missile carries the same warhead

Which version of the Tomahawk would you like to discuss the TLAM-C or the TLAM-N? I have some experience with both.

The thing I hate most about this Pentagon hoax is that the authors of this crime are insulting our intelligence (like the thread starter). We are talking about over 100 tons of Boeing 757-200 Jetliner with 60 tons of aluminum alone that you say simply disappeared

Simply disappeared? Not by a long shot. There were pieces of that jet all over the Pentagon lawn, inside the Pentagon and even some that flipped over the top and ended up between the rings. There are PLENTY of photos of the pieces out there.

Where were the plane components reassembled part of any post crash investigation?

As posted by someone, you only reassemble the wreckage when you are trying to find out the cause of the crash. In this case, we know the cause.

If you guys want to believe that a massive Jetliner impacted the Pentagon, then mo-powa-to-ya. Nobody on this planet is in possession of a single frame of video or a single photograph placing Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon; before OR after the crash. None exist, because it never happened. Period!

Sigh.....We dont have any video or pictures of Air Florida Flight 90 crashing into the Potamac back in the 80s either, but we know it did. Same way we know Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Witnesses, bodies and wreckage recovered from the site.

As already shown above in the thread, columns 8 – 21 (posted on 16-9-2006 at 06:50 PM (post id: 2490453) would have suffered catastrophic damage if a Boeing 757-200 Jetliner impacted in that location

By this, I can only imagine that you do not believe that airliners hit the WTC Towers either, since they didnt suffer complete "catastrophic" collapse upon impact.

If we parked one of those gigantic jets in front of the Pentagon wall, then perhaps these guys would realize the futility of their case.

Gigantic? One wonders just how many people DO know the dimentions of this particular aircraft. The fuselage itself is less than 14 feet in diameter (well within the "hole" in the Pentagon wall)