9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I didn't misunderrstand you, I pointed out how your argument contradicts the arguments made by the same movement. you are arguing that the body of the plane could not have penetrated the wall, while at the same time it's argued by the same movement on here that the plane should have made a much bigger hole and the fact that the damage was so small proves it could not have been a plane. So which is it? How can the plane be too fragile to penetrate a wall, yet too big to have created such a small hole? Likewise it is argumented on this thread that there is not enough evidence in plane parts to prove a 757 was there (which is untrue, but not the point). yet the same movement argues that it therefore must have been a missle, despite there being not remains of a missle. How does that work? The shape of the front of the plane is not relvent, it could be any shape. it's the surface area. You have the total force of the body of the plane focused into a 16 foot area. With the wings you have the total force of the wings (which is much MUCH less than the body) spread out over a large area, thus reducing the force per square inch. Again, why would a nail pierce your skin, but not a baord (assuming the exact same force was exerted)? Same principle, the nail with the same force is focused on a smalled area and so there is greater force per surface area. The board, that force is spread out over a larger area and thus less force per sufrace area. 1. I would just look for a phsyics site. Perhaps just typing 'principles of physics' or 'physics basics' ion a search engine. i don't use any web site. 2. You said that the analogy does not work because a ulloet would not penetrate the pentagon wall. but if it were to be the equiv, then teh bullet would have to be the saze of a commerical airliner, not an actual bullet. Unless you are implying that a 757 is the size of a bullet. I think the article you posted is trying to imply that the plane would have to be 20ft above the ground. But the light poles are higher than that, and only wings have to hit it as they tilt back and forth. Though it does seem an engine hit a pole as well, bt again that does not mean the entire plane is that low. probably pretty close, but it would certianly not be close to impossible or remotely implausible. I am not talking to you in any way, I am addressing the views of the people of this forum. And claims such as a missle are being made in this very thread. Also, if you are going to dismiss a theory, you must have an alternate theory that is more plausible. So if youa re arguing that a plane couldn't have hit the pentagon, what are you arguing? The only theory made so far in this thread has been a missle. Now if you can make that theory more plausible, you may be onto something. The DNA testing was done by private independant companies, not by a government body. I have even seen documentaries where they go through the actual process of testing DNA on the actual bodies of many victoms from the scene on camera. Many companies were involved though such as: Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Gene Codes Forensics, DNA-VIEW, The Bode Technology Group, Celera Genomics, Orchid GeneScreen, KADAP, NYSP, and others. No I have not seena plane craswh in person. However on this forum many times there have been threads dedicated to footage of planes being flown into solid concrete blocks and the sdlow motion shows them completely liquidating and leaving absolutely nothing left. Of course the Pentagon is not aq solid concrete block, hence there being so much plane debre. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion taht all the pictures have to be fake. While I can imagine with all the sites like prison planet out there there are bound to be lots of fake pictures, but I don't kno of any in particular other than imprinting false time code on the pentagon footage.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop How about the remains of the plane which were found there? how about the remains of the victoms? The video also clerly shows the tail flying over top of the building and debre spread across the lawn and roof of the building. .

Their are some problems with your statements. 1. Where are the pics of all the remains of the plane you talk about. 2. The jet fuel fire that was so hot that destroyed most of the plane would have also destroyed the remains and ruined DNA of the victims. 3. If the tail was nothing but debris how did they supposedly recover the black boxes which are in the tail. [edit on 1-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

To spare some lines I didn’t quote all your words, referring subsequently in 2 parts. PART ONE: First of all, what makes me sad is that you fail to refer and comment the link I pasted in my previous articles which I find at least suspicious. I hate such ignorance, sorry. I see, so there is much fuss n confusion about the topic. what I think of this all, as far as I understand: some people try to figure out how the big though fragile fuselage of the plane could create such a small hole, having wings liquefied and, at the same time having penetrated by its fuselage more that one ring of heavy reinforced walls!! Having all the physics in my scientific mind it still is a mystery to me… That's why it seems funny that a fuselage can come through the pentagon walls, whereas its wings and engines 'evaporated', as no pictures of the parts of the plane are available on-line. it's weird. Furthermore, when there is a crash, police investigate the site, numbering all the pieces left, trying to understand what happened, whereas with the pentagon site it wasn't like that, because the photos prove it. Some show collecting hurriedly the pieces. One of the debris is seen from different angles of the camera, though it looks identical – impossible!! There are more questions than answers, you see? As to contradictions: what witnesses heard and saw contradicts too. I mean the pentagon site. Yet, I downloaded some films with the people who saw and heard what happened with WTC’s in NYC. They support CT’s. Well, is seems that ‘official’ pentagon witnesses say sth different that those supporting CT’s. Which are real people? I can’t prove it now, I have spoken to none of them in person. What about you? Were there any programmes on TV with those witnesses in the USA? Anybody recorded them to be found on the Internet? I'm not from the US.

Originally posted by snoopy So which is it? How can the plane be too fragile to penetrate a wall, yet too big to have created such a small hole?

good question!

Originally posted by snoopy Likewise it is argumented on this thread that there is not enough evidence in plane parts to prove a 757 was there (which is untrue, but not the point). yet the same movement argues that it therefore must have been a missle, despite there being not remains of a missle. How does that work?

As said earlier. We don’t know which pictures are real, not doctored; we can’t state nothing about the remains. Those photos which are available present mostly one piece of debris all and again, mentioned above. Thus, again I ask you to refer to www.911studies.com... there are hundreds of photos. Which are fake? The author tries to answer but can’t do it every time he wants.

part 2

Originally posted by snoopy The shape of the front of the plane is not relvent, it could be any shape. it's the surface area.

The shape of the front of the plane = The surface – I meant it. Explained

Originally posted by snoopy1. I would just look for a phsyics site. Perhaps just typing 'principles of physics' or 'physics basics' ion a search engine. i don't use any web site.

Oki, do It for me please. Launch a link

Originally posted by snoopy 2. You said that the analogy does not work because a ulloet would not penetrate the pentagon wall. but if it were to be the equiv, then teh bullet would have to be the saze of a commerical airliner, not an actual bullet. Unless you are implying that a 757 is the size of a bullet.

Not only size, not only speed, but the material the object is made of plays a very important role too. Comparing bullets and fuselage: to grasp the idea of penetrating we have to think of what is important here. The pressure and the material of an object. When I find suitable formulas I will compute I will say how it ends up.

Originally posted by snoopyI think the article you posted is trying to imply that the plane would have to be 20ft above the ground. But the light poles are higher than that, and only wings have to hit it as they tilt back and forth. Though it does seem an engine hit a pole as well, bt again that does not mean the entire plane is that low. probably pretty close, but it would certianly not be close to impossible or remotely implausible.

As to poles I sent the link to the photos which present some doctored photos. The author states that looking at the photos we can’t decide which are fake and which are not. If you know your friend who was there on the site they can describe the scene. So far, all the articles I have found out that the poles are weirdly, not naturally cut down…comparing to the photos of poles I found on the Internet, bent by other planes in history. That’s the problem. What did the documentaries you have seen [where they go through the actual process of testing DNA on the actual bodies of many victims] say about the people? Were they from the plane or were they workers from Pentagon? Please, point me to the link about ‘planes being flown into solid concrete blocks and the slow motion shows them completely liquidating and leaving absolutely nothing left’, as you said. Finally, if you know any reliable web with real photos, let me know. Only then can I start to make any conclusions and comments about what happened on the pentagon site. Having thought of all four crashes taken place on 11 Sep. it might not have been a coincidence. If WTC were demolished as was witnessed in a number of documentaries, the other accidents can’t have been actually accidents. WELL, I wasn't able to refer to all your points, only those most important to me. I'd love to write more but have not enough time; 2 much chores. /FT "The truth shall set you free"

I believed in the official version of the events but browsing the Net....I got convinced to reject it. SNOOPY, here you have some more links to articles in English to consider..maybe they have been quoted in this thread: www.bedoper.com... www.bedoper.com... www.bedoper.com... membres.lycos.fr... www.montalk.net... www.bedoper.com... www.bedoper.com... Are you familiar with them already? If you speak more than English [as me ] you will benefit reading more. ANY COMMENTS? /FT 'THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE"

other threads of this site have already presented the link: www.pentagonresearch.com I think that you, SNOOPY, should have a look at it. It is good to know what your opponents have to say and why.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 1. Where are the pics of all the remains of the plane you talk about.

Where are the pics (or other evidence) of ANY parts of the magical missile?

2. The jet fuel fire that was so hot that destroyed most of the plane would have also destroyed the remains and ruined DNA of the victims.

Doesn't take too much to mutilate a thin sheet of aluminium (of which most of the plane is) beyond recognition. Esp. if it's in fire and a building falls on it, all of this after a high-speed impact. In fact, does take more to destroy a human body so much that there is no sample of DNA left.

3. If the tail was nothing but debris how did they supposedly recover the black boxes which are in the tail.

Perhaps because they are specially hardened to survive upon most likely crash situations? I'd say the claims that tail is very structurally weak part of the plane (in terms of sturdiness etc.) have exactly 0 to do with the construction and protection of black boxes. Well, maybe 1 point - both parts (tail and black boxes) are in the rear of aircraft. [edit on 1-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by snoopy I didn't misunderrstand you, I pointed out how your argument contradicts the arguments made by the same movement. you are arguing that the body of the plane could not have penetrated the wall, while at the same time it's argued by the same movement on here that the plane should have made a much bigger hole and the fact that the damage was so small proves it could not have been a plane.

See this is where you are getting confused, just because we believe the hole is too small it doesn't mean we think the hole should be bigger. In fact in reality I don't think there would be a hole at all, not punched all the way through the building. It's obvious from your posts you really don't understand the argument at all. The point we are making is if the plane was supposed to have made that hole then it wasn't a 757 that did it. A 757 would not have made a neet 16' hole through reinforced concrete. But a missile would... It's not a contradiction, it's your inability or refusal to understand.

Was it a missle?I don't think these people thought it was a missle. img.photobucket.com...

Ok I did a little research on this subject of Jet...vs....Missle theeory First off,there were light poles on the highway and a fence/generator that was most likely hit as the plane passed by that were clipped as the plane entered the vacinity of the Pentagon,if a Missle hit a lightpole would it continue on course?Probably not. Anyway here are a few pics.I'm sure there are more pic's out there but I just don't feel like wasting my time in something so obvious. img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... Now we have a few pictures of debris.There were many other pictures,I just didnt feel like uploading them.Now I know that some of you are going to say that some of this debris was planted.I dont know about you but it's kind of hard to plant evidence when there are atleast 100 people watching.Some of these pic's are so obvious that i swear some people are obviously blind. img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... Ok,now I know alot of you assume that if it was a plane,then where are the wings because the entrance hole is to small for the wings to fit through.Granted I couldnt find many pictures to address this issue but I found a few. These first few pictures show what is considered to be the trajectory of the airliner as it entered the Pentagon.It came in at an angle,at this angle the Right Wing would of pretty much been destroyed by the fusalage and the explosion because of the angle at witch it entered. img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... As far as the left wing and engine go, this first picture shows that the engine would of more then likely entered the building.The other pictures show that the wing either entered the building or got pulvarized as you can clearly see where the wing hit the building and even exposed beams. img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... Now we get into the the amount of witness that there were during this horrible event that killed alot of people.I found a few pics that were taken about 1 minute after the crash,wow look at all that traffic.This doesnt even count the number of witness that just kept driving or are out of picture. img.photobucket.com... img.photobucket.com... And here are a few testemonies of eye witness.If this isnt enough witness I don't know what is. urbanlegends.about.com... home.planet.nl... www.ratical.org... 911research.wtc7.net... Thanks for reading this post if you had the patience,there is alot more evidence out there but I think I found enough to get my point of view across.

Hi ULTIMA1: You and I are having the same problems with the official DoD / Bush Administration ‘cover story’ that makes no sense at all. Some of our members are the victims of years of ‘opinion molding’ by the Media, so the official story became ‘their opinion’ and now they are sticking to it. You would have more luck proving the earth is round to a group in the local tavern with Columbus in 1485, than convincing these guys of anything. You wrote,

Ultima >> Their are some problems with your statements. 1. Where are the pics of all the remains of the plane you talk about.

According to the official cover story, some sixty tons of aluminum simply vanished into thin air; not to mention tons of Rolls Royce engines that never even impacted the Pentagon. What does the CNN reporter say on the day of the Missile ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ) attack? See for yourself: ( thewebfairy.com... ). Look at the Pentagon in the background and tell me if this looks like a 155’ and 100 ton Jetliner crash or a Missile Attack?? Rumsfeld’s first answer ( www.the7thfire.com... ) included language about “a missile,” then he changed his cover story down the road. There is no evidence that any Boeing 757-200 Jetliner was ever near the Pentagon, which is why none of our members pushing that story can offer you a single photo. Does the explosion of that last link look like 100 tons of Jetliner, or a Missile? The witnesses on the scene felt a ‘shockwave’ and the smell of ‘cordite’ ( 911review.org... ) common to explosives used in a Tomahawk Missile.

Ultima >> 2. The jet fuel fire that was so hot that destroyed most of the plane would have also destroyed the remains and ruined DNA of the victims.

Jet fuel is kerosene that could not possibly melt 60 tons of aluminum and the massive jet engines, before they even impacted the Pentagon. Remember we are talking about a 100 ton Jetliner that is 125 feet wide, 155 feet long and almost 50 feet tall. How do they explain a tiny 16’X20’ hole in the West Wedge wall?? Heh . . . Missile . . . Not any Jetliner. Nobody had to remove the gigantic Jet from the scene, because no Jetliner ever got near the Pentagon; which is evidenced by all the photos in our possession.

Ultima >> 3. If the tail was nothing but debris how did they supposedly recover the black boxes which are in the tail.

Tail nothing but debris? What debris? Nobody can place any Boeing 757-200 Jetliner anywhere near the Pentagon. GL, Terral

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 1. Where are the pics of all the remains of the plane you talk about.

Where are the pics (or other evidence) of ANY parts of the magical missile?

2. The jet fuel fire that was so hot that destroyed most of the plane would have also destroyed the remains and ruined DNA of the victims.

Doesn't take too much to mutilate a thin sheet of aluminium (of which most of the plane is) beyond recognition. Esp. if it's in fire and a building falls on it, all of this after a high-speed impact. In fact, does take more to destroy a human body so much that there is no sample of DNA left.

3. If the tail was nothing but debris how did they supposedly recover the black boxes which are in the tail.

Perhaps because they are specially hardened to survive upon most likely crash situations? I'd say the claims that tail is very structurally weak part of the plane (in terms of sturdiness etc.) have exactly 0 to do with the construction and protection of black boxes. Well, maybe 1 point - both parts (tail and black boxes) are in the rear of aircraft. 1. I asked you first for the pics of the remains of the plane. 2. Maybe you better read up on what temperature DNA melts at. If the fire was so hot to destroy the plane, seats, luggage and other parts of the plane, it would have destroyed the bodies and most of the DNA evidence also. 3. So do you have a pic of the tail intact or not. [edit on 1-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 2-10-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 2-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

When will congress see the complete pentagon footages? Guess what? The shadow government may try and run with the evidence but they can only hide for so long from Congress and the smart citizens of the United States!

Originally posted by Samblack Ok I did a little research on this subject of Jet...vs....Missle theeory First off,there were light poles on the highway and a fence/generator that was most likely hit as the plane passed by that were clipped as the plane entered the vacinity of the Pentagon,if a Missle hit a lightpole would it continue on course?Probably not. Anyway here are a few pics.I'm sure there are more pic's out there but I just don't feel like wasting my time in something so obvious. Now we have a few pictures of debris.There were many other pictures,I just didnt feel like uploading them.Now I know that some of you are going to say that some of this debris was planted.I dont know about you but it's kind of hard to plant evidence when there are atleast 100 people watching.Some of these pic's are so obvious that i swear some people are obviously blind. Ok,now I know alot of you assume that if it was a plane,then where are the wings because the entrance hole is to small for the wings to fit through.Granted I couldnt find many pictures to address this issue but I found a few. These first few pictures show what is considered to be the trajectory of the airliner as it entered the Pentagon.It came in at an angle,at this angle the Right Wing would of pretty much been destroyed by the fusalage and the explosion because of the angle at witch it entered. As far as the left wing and engine go, this first picture shows that the engine would of more then likely entered the building.The other pictures show that the wing either entered the building or got pulvarized as you can clearly see where the wing hit the building and even exposed beams. Now we get into the the amount of witness that there were during this horrible event that killed alot of people.I found a few pics that were taken about 1 minute after the crash,wow look at all that traffic.This doesnt even count the number of witness that just kept driving or are out of picture. Thanks for reading this post if you had the patience,there is alot more evidence out there but I think I found enough to get my point of view across.

For 1, i did not say that a missile hit the Pentagon. I am just questioning several things that i see wrong. 1. As for the pics of the wheel, where are the other 9. There are also several aircraft that use that type of wheel. There is no source as to who took the pics, when and where they were taken. 2. Where was the parts from the plane taken to be reconstructed as aircraft investigaters normally will make a reconstruction of what parts are found. Example: Flight 800 exploded in mid-air, broke in 2 parts and hit the water going several hundered miles an hour with engines running. The plane shattered into millions of parts but they recovered enough of them to do a reconstruction of the plane. 3.. Several of the witnesses have political connections so they are going to go along with the official government story. [edit on 2-10-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 2-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

The main reason flight 800 was so heavily investigated is because they were not sure of what really happened.There was no reason to do the same reconstructive investigation of the Pentagon crash because it was pretty damned obvious of what happened considering the 100+ witness that saw the damn thing hit the building. Where are the other nine wheels?Dude give it a break...what do you expect ?A picture of every possible piece of reckage to be documented and thrown online.It was a damn Jet that hit the building and alot of innocent people died,kinda sick that you have to blame everything on some stupid conspiracy.There are pictures of bodies that are badly burned and still strapped to airline chairs,how much evidence do you need.

Originally posted by Samblack The main reason flight 800 was so heavily investigated is because they were not sure of what really happened.There was no reason to do the same reconstructive investigation of the Pentagon crash because it was pretty damned obvious of what happened considering the 100+ witness that saw the damn thing hit the building. Where are the other nine wheels?Dude give it a break...what do you expect ?A picture of every possible piece of reckage to be documented and thrown online.It was a damn Jet that hit the building and alot of innocent people died,kinda sick that you have to blame everything on some stupid conspiracy.There are pictures of bodies that are badly burned and still strapped to airline chairs,how much evidence do you need.

It does not matter what they think or believe happened, or what people saw. Any aviation aciident investagation has to follow protocol, just like a crime scene. So where were the parts from Flight 77 taken and why haven't we seen any photos ? It was an aciident/crime scene, thier should have been hundreds of photos taken. I have not said anything about a conspiracy, thats a normal response from someone who is closed minded to anyone asking real questions. As stated if the fire was hot enough to destroy the aircraft it would have destroyed the bodies and DNA evicdence. Source: www.genetictechnologies.com...

Ultra-violet light, extreme heat and high humidity are the primary destructive agents of the DNA molecule. There are a few basic rules that must be followed for the proper collection, packaging and storage of DNA evidence.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 4-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 So where were the parts from Flight 77 taken and why haven't we seen any photos ? It was an aciident/crime scene, thier should have been hundreds of photos taken.

Here hope this helps. As you can see, there are pieces of the plane. I don't know why some cruise missle need a landing gear.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 So where were the parts from Flight 77 taken and why haven't we seen any photos ? It was an aciident/crime scene, thier should have been hundreds of photos taken.

Here hope this helps. As you can see, there are pieces of the plane. I don't know why some cruise missle need a landing gear.

Too bad thier is no source for the pics or proof that the part numbers match flight 77s registration number. Still no report of where the parts were taken and reconstructed.

Originally posted by Terral The witnesses on the scene felt a ‘shockwave’ and the smell of ‘cordite’ ( 911review.org... ) common to explosives used in a Tomahawk Missile.

How do common folk even know what cordite smells like? I certainly don’t have a clue what type of odor it has. I’ll tell you what though SkyDorl has a very sickly sweat distinct odor when it burns.

Originally posted by Terral Jet fuel is kerosene that could not possibly melt 60 tons of aluminum and the massive jet engines, before they even impacted the Pentagon

Survey says….. NW 1482 That is a strictly kerosene fuel fire also, this was NW 1482, I saw this plane in person as I was flying into that airport within an hour of the time this happened. This is exactly how hot that kerosene can burn, and it can most assuredly melt aircraft aluminum. This plane had fuel spilled on it from cockpit to tail out of the wing vent of a 727 that bumped it during take off. The wing also knocked off its engine which then ignited the fuel that was covering the fuselage.

Yah I don't know how much proof these conspiracy theorist's need to convince them it was a plane.Personally I don't think anything will convice them.And as far as alluminum goes I've seen it disinegrate in common bonfires in my backyard.