9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Terral Hi Jab:

Jab >> Wow Terral...ok. When you show me a picture or a video tape of a missle...I will believe you, fair enough?

Heh . . . No. Look at the Topic Title of the Thread Starter. A Boeing 757-200 Jetliner is 100 tons of component parts, while my Tomahawk Missile is about 1 ton. We are supposed to be seeing typical jetliner debris like this: Other Jetliner Crashes >> www.worldnewsstand.net... About one ton of the DoD’s own missile EXPLODED inside the Pentagon to make them look like a VICTIM. What do you expect them to do?? Would they gather up the itsy bitsy pieces and say, “Hey, there is our Missile!” Please . . . However, I wanted to thank you for making my case of how ridiculous the “PLANE” Theory really is in light of all the evidence. People who are willing to swallow this “PLANE” nonsense are perfectly willing to ask “Where is the Missile?,” even though their case depends on 100 tons of Jetliner showing up somewhere in the evidence. The DoD can easily hide 1 ton of missile debris, especially when everyone is looking for 100 tons of Jetliner. Do you know what? We all got over Santa Claus by the first or second grade, but if you want to continue believing in this “PLANE” Theory, then please be my guest. However, while I can show you 1000 pictures of Santa Claus, I cannot find one picture of Flight 77 anywhere near the Pentagon. Can you? GL, Terral [edit on 7-10-2006 by Terral]

So you then admit your theory is 100% conjecture. You are simply speculating what you think could be possible, but have no actual evidence like that which you demand of others. And once again your claim that if something was not photogaphed it does not exist. like your missle.

More information on little or no plane debris at the Pentagon. www.stripes.com...

Rescue workers who have been through the building have reported seeing the fuselage; however, the largest pieces of the plane are about 1 by 2 feet.

James Schwartz, assistant fire chief of Arlington County, says his unit has assumed leadership of the incident site for fire and rescue. "There is little to no indication of an airplane in there," Schwartz reported.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 More information on little or no plane debris at the Pentagon. www.stripes.com...

Rescue workers who have been through the building have reported seeing the fuselage; however, the largest pieces of the plane are about 1 by 2 feet.

James Schwartz, assistant fire chief of Arlington County, says his unit has assumed leadership of the incident site for fire and rescue. "There is little to no indication of an airplane in there," Schwartz reported.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Actually this quoting of the the above linked site is misleading as presented on this post. Here is what it actuallys says

Rescue workers who have been through the building have reported seeing the fuselage; however, the largest pieces of the plane are about 1 by 2 feet.

James Schwartz, assistant fire chief of Arlington County, says his unit has assumed leadership of the incident site for fire and rescue. "The fire is mainly confined to the roof area, but there are also spot fires in the area of collapse that we are battling. The middle area of the collapse is our greatest concern." Schwartz says most of the jet fuel has been burned off by now, but is wary of the dangers. He says rescue workers are very much aware of the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks — more than 200 police and firefighters remain missing after the towers collapsed as their structural integrity gave way in the intense heat of a jet fuel fire. "Until the building is stabilized, we won’t put any of our people in any danger." Those that did get inside yesterday spoke of total devastation at ground zero. "There is little to no indication of an airplane in there," Schwartz reported.

I understand how one may misinterpret what this article is actually saying, especially if you cut and paste and remove some of the important context in between. What I understand the article to say is...Schwartz was waiting to send in rescue workers and the like because of the dangers. More than 200 police and firefighters are missing at ground zero. The devistation was so much that you can't even tell there was a plane. This, to me, does NOT say there is little evidence of a plane at the Pentagon. It is kind of like describing someone was beaten and saying "he was beaten so badly that you couldn't even tell he was human" That wouldn't mean the beaten man was not human. The statement simply is describing how bad the man was beaten.

Originally posted by jab712 I understand how one may misinterpret what this article is actually saying, especially if you cut and paste and remove some of the important context in between. What I understand the article to say is...Schwartz was waiting to send in rescue workers and the like because of the dangers. More than 200 police and firefighters are missing at ground zero. The devistation was so much that you can't even tell there was a plane. This, to me, does NOT say there is little evidence of a plane at the Pentagon. It is kind of like describing someone was beaten and saying "he was beaten so badly that you couldn't even tell he was human" That wouldn't mean the beaten man was not human. The statement simply is describing how bad the man was beaten.

I posted the facts from the article,, i noticed you did not post anything to disprove the facts of the article. And no Schwarts was not waiting to send in the rescue workers when the statement was made that little or no sign of aircraft, that was after they were inside. I can aslo find alot more facts saying there was little or no sign of an aircraft in the buiilding. [edit on 8-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

as I see, SNOOPY has given up with exchanging arguments with me. He couldn't have reached my level, I suppose. So, as I said, I'm just leaving this rather BEHINDtopsecret.com thread. No more info exchange may I get here. Thx those who surprised me with the supported links, as it has given me the opportunity to browse the NET to find far better info you seem not to pay attention to.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas as I see, SNOOPY has given up with exchanging arguments with me. He couldn't have reached my level, I suppose. So, as I said, I'm just leaving this rather BEHINDtopsecret.com thread. No more info exchange may I get here. Thx those who surprised me with the supported links, as it has given me the opportunity to browse the NET to find far better info you seem not to pay attention to.

Yea a real mature post there. If you will note I have the last responses in this thread. If you have a question for me, then please post it. Otherwise go to a self ego inflating forum for your vanity issues. Don't let the door hit you on the way out and may your dilusions be grand.

Chill gang. It's Thanksgiving here, don't make me hit buttons.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I posted the facts from the article,, i noticed you did not post anything to disprove the facts of the article. [edit on 8-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

I am not disproving the facts of the article. I am reading the article you provided and providing more of the article in the post (for those who don't wish to link to the article and read all of it). I am simply providing you with what I think the article is saying. If you read the article from beginning to end, not just the sentences you want to believe, this article isn't about there being no evidence of a plane. The flow of this article sucks and can be confusing. It is also misleading if you only post the one line saying "there is little evidence of plane..." That was the point of my post. I don't need to disprove anything from this article. I actually read it.

What a fantastic piece of work. You did very well presenting the facts as known. I myself didnt need any proof as you have provided. I hope some of the naysayers take a good look and see the facts. Not some imaginary ideas designed to make the US Govt look like they were complicit.

Originally posted by Terral That is what we have from the CNN Reporter ( thewebfairy.com... ) on the scene just minutes after the original attack.

Hey Terral, Here is the actual transcript of the CNN reporter...from CNN's site. www.cnn.com... Let me show some specific details of this below, in case anyone chooses not to read everything...

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon MCINTYRE AUDIO: The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, quote 'the actual site of the building that's crashed in.' MCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit. McINTYRE: The video isn't clear enough to convince the most ardent conspiracy theorists and there's still some mystery that surrounds the day. For instance, what happened to video from a hotel security camera nearby that sources tell CNN caught at least part of the attack. No one in the government even acknowledges that tape exists. Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon. (END VIDEO CLIP)

Thought you might need to see what he actually meant.

Originally posted by jab712

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I posted the facts from the article,, i noticed you did not post anything to disprove the facts of the article. [edit on 8-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

I am not disproving the facts of the article. I am reading the article you provided and providing more of the article in the post (for those who don't wish to link to the article and read all of it). I am simply providing you with what I think the article is saying. If you read the article from beginning to end, not just the sentences you want to believe, this article isn't about there being no evidence of a plane. The flow of this article sucks and can be confusing. It is also misleading if you only post the one line saying "there is little evidence of plane..." That was the point of my post. I don't need to disprove anything from this article. I actually read it.

I have read the article and many more like it. I did not say that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. All i am asking 2 questions. 1. If flight 77 did hit the Pentagon where are the parts that were recovered ? 2. If the impact and fire almost completly destroyed the 757 how did the bodies survive let alone the DNA ?

[edit on 10-10-2006 by emulsion6]

Ok so I am not reading through 194 pages of show me a picture BS. I could do the same thing at home with photo shop and clean it up pretty nice. Terrell or whatever your name is - previously you made a comment about detectives asking who the murder was - Yes they do it all the time. Eye witness accounts, with facts and proof. Let's talk about the big difference between was it a plane or a missile. Where did all the people who were on flight 77 go? Were they made up? Did we shoot down the plane too? Are they hiding in a secret government basement somewhere? The real point here is people actually lost family members. Real American People died !! The government can not cover up or make up 50 peoples past, families and back ground. I am all for a good debate and conspiracy theory and I hate our government.....but no missile hit the pentagon or maybe....a missile from one of our own fighter jets hit the plane hoping to stop it before getting to the pentagon and it was just to close. Either way a plane went into that building with American people who lost their lives that day. "I am going to go with Plane hit the building for $100 Alex" Here are some more fun links of interest as well. www.criticalthrash.com... www.purdue.edu/.../020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html www.cnn.com... Oh yeah and man National Geographic’s must be in on it too.... Here is a story of one of the victims that did not survive. news.nationalgeographic.com... I mean seriously - people boarded a plane that day. Tell me what happened to them and I will believe your missile story. [edit on 10-10-2006 by emulsion6] [edit on 10-10-2006 by emulsion6]

Originally posted by emulsion6 "I am going to go with Plane hit the building for $100 Alex"

Now that is funny Emulsion! I posted this on another thread. While I am sure many of us do believe something stinks in Denmark, the missle theory is very hard to swallow. Here is someone who is a conspiracy thoerist and he does not believe a missle hit it. I found this very interesting. The scenario of disinformation is a hell of a lot more likely than a missle. 911research.wtc7.net... 911research.wtc7.net... I am not saying that is what happened. But it is definately more likely than a missle.

The problem is, that many people, like Ultima, Terral, et al...ASSUME that they have seen all the pictures of wreckage from Flight 77. Which, they havent. That, and some ignore the other facts, i.e. the remains of the passengers that were found, the witnesses etc....

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 The problem is, that many people, like Ultima, Terral, et al...ASSUME that they have seen all the pictures of wreckage from Flight 77. Which, they havent. That, and some ignore the other facts, i.e. the remains of the passengers that were found, the witnesses etc....

Yeah, I am totally seeing that. It is almost like arguing with a brick wall.

I agree with Jab on this one, the missile theory is kinda hard to swallow. I mean it would have taken a good size missile with a good sized warhead on it to do that much damage.

Originally posted by snoopy Yea a real mature post there. If you will note I have the last responses in this thread. If you have a question for me, then please post it. Otherwise go to a self ego inflating forum for your vanity issues. Don't let the door hit you on the way out and may your dilusions be grand.

I for one can say I have NEVER seen you support ANY of your assertions with facts, figures, equations or knowledge of science. this is a simple fact and agin, warn me if you must.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by snoopy Yea a real mature post there. If you will note I have the last responses in this thread. If you have a question for me, then please post it. Otherwise go to a self ego inflating forum for your vanity issues. Don't let the door hit you on the way out and may your dilusions be grand.

I for one can say I have NEVER seen you support ANY of your assertions with facts, figures, equations or knowledge of science. this is a simple fact and agin, warn me if you must.

Then you haven't read throroughly. As I stated, these are not my claims, but the findins of the investigators and scientists. I posted links to the very research papers that include every little detail right down to the mathmatical forumlas used. And even that is not original to me as I found that information from other ATS members who posted in these same threads.

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by snoopy Yea a real mature post there. If you will note I have the last responses in this thread. If you have a question for me, then please post it. Otherwise go to a self ego inflating forum for your vanity issues. Don't let the door hit you on the way out and may your dilusions be grand.

I for one can say I have NEVER seen you support ANY of your assertions with facts, figures, equations or knowledge of science. this is a simple fact and agin, warn me if you must.

Then you haven't read throroughly. As I stated, these are not my claims, but the findins of the investigators and scientists. I posted links to the very research papers that include every little detail right down to the mathmatical forumlas used. And even that is not original to me as I found that information from other ATS members who posted in these same threads.

Still, more BLAH BLAH BLAH... PLease state you credentials, the experts you have cited and the page/paragraph numbers of the reports that you have linked to... OR link to the posts in which oyu do these things. Thanks,