9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Are you still stuck on stripes and scenery???? The far background is of complexes, residential and commercial. The evidence of the Pentagon is not going to be released. Perhaps the pics are distorted for good reason! Have you tried any other angles for your theory? Have you searched to see if radar picked up a missile? Have you searched to see if any eye-witnesses SAW a missile?

Here is the best that I can do with what I have here at work, I did turn it into a JPG for size reasons, but it did not seem to change any of the pixels from how they looked as a BMP. The problem here is going to be the clarity again; we cannot definitively tell if the purple area is a combination of the three colors that make up the stripe. I cannot even tell if that is the aircraft body and not something in the background terrain. You can see that there are similar colored stripes and colors that show up in areas that are clearly not part of the aircraft itself, so its tough to say what is what. The only thing that the video even appears good for is to determine relative size and motion of the object. I believe that the quality is just to low for making color comparisons at that distance.

Originally posted by LL1 Are you still stuck on stripes and scenery???? 1- The far background is of complexes, residential and commercial. 2- The evidence of the Pentagon is not going to be released. 3- Perhaps the pics are distorted for good reason! Have you tried any other angles for your theory? Have you searched to see if radar picked up a missile? 4- Have you searched to see if any eye-witnesses SAW a missile?

Why yes I am, a photo which is not correct and which I do not accept was offered as evidence. I have a nasty habit of being "stuck" on facts, and those facts have to do with among others, stripes and scenery. 1- a broad Rumsefeld type response to my question. 2- probably so, I trust you also address that to those who insist this was a 757. 3- There is only one distorted pic here I contest. It is what I argue against. I have posited no theory, so why do I need other angles? Why should I search radar for missiles, did I mention missiles? 4-Once more for clarity; why should I seek eyewitness for missiles, did I mention missiles? Now, I would appreciate it if you could focus your responses to me on my position and what I argue rather than try to alter the course, I won't be veering off onto side streets. Thank you kindly.

Thanks Defcon, for trying to enlarge the photo and post same, but I can't make out anything.

You have made statements through the thread that indicates you have already developed an missile-opinion. You aren't seeking the background at all. Each post that you have made, developes you as the person and your thoughts. You stated "why am I not asking a person that has impiled the 757 theory", doesn't this make it cyrstal clear where you are headed. If you were seeking, you'd ask, but you continously imply. Let's say hypothetically, they have distorted the pic for National Security resaons, and none of whatever you are attempting to get at is real. Now what? What's behind the plane are trees, then a steep inclined hill to a highway.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween 1- a broad Rumsefeld type response to my question. 2- probably so, I trust you also address that to those who insist this was a 757. 3- There is only one distorted pic here I contest. It is what I argue against. I have posited no theory, so why do I need other angles? Why should I search radar for missiles, did I mention missiles? 4-Once more for clarity; why should I seek eyewitness for missiles, did I mention missiles? Now, I would appreciate it if you could focus your responses to me on my position and what I argue rather than try to alter the course, I won't be veering off onto side streets. Thank you kindly.

Questions for you: 1. "Rumsefeld type"???? and that means what!?? 2. "who insist" and what do YOU insist? 3. "distorted pic" was it released with clarity? 4. "eyewitness" there were many who saw the plane and I did post their replies, have you read them? You ask: "I would appreciate it if you could focus your responses to me" This is not all about you...

Ah ha, LL1 is here on this thread... be careful guys, LL1 is an expert in everything from pointless assertions to subject changing... I was wondering why she is trying to drag this thread into the WTC bomb thread. I guess if you can't win one war start another..

Originally posted by twitchy Ah ha, LL1 is here on this thread... be careful guys, LL1 is an expert in everything from pointless assertions to subject changing... I was wondering why she is trying to drag this thread into the WTC bomb thread. I guess if you can't win one war start another..

At least twitchy you could still be able to utilize the "t"! You never have anything of substance to contribute and continuously rely on other members support for your weak-minded self. As I have stated to you before your personailty trait is of weakness, contiously relying on others to support you. Sorry no fan here... Try to stand on your own for once in your life...

Originally posted by twitchy Ah ha, LL1 is here on this thread... be careful guys, LL1 is an expert in everything from pointless assertions to subject changing... I was wondering why she is trying to drag this thread into the WTC bomb thread. I guess if you can't win one war start another..

Does your post have any purpose other than insulting another member? If you don't have anything to add to the discussion do exactly that.

LL.1 You have made statements through the thread that indicates you have already developed an missile-opinion.

Oh? Other than your wayward interpretation, where have I attributed the cause of the impact to anything other than a �craft�?

You aren't seeking the background at all. Each post that you have made, developes you as the person and your thoughts.

Okay, and thank you I suppose for the psychoanalysis. I know however that I am not the one offering a conclusion as to what hit the Pentagon, rather I am one proving with the visuals that we have before us, without enhancements, shows that conclusion to be false. I apologize that I am not seeking the background, I suppose you can say that I started a trend in that you also do not seek �background� at least when it comes to my posts on this thread and of late. The difference between us though is that I use the visual evidence within our grasp to counter the argument, whicle you just pluck some statement from the air.

You stated "why am I not asking a person that has impiled the 757 theory", doesn't this make it cyrstal clear where you are headed

Huh? And no.

If you were seeking, you'd ask, but you continously imply.

I see. What have I sought exactly? Here I was under the impression that all I sought was recognition of undeniable facts in a single clip, as opposed to abstract illusions. I will tell you what I imply though, for clarification in case you missed it ; the photo Catherder used to superimpose an airliner and then claim it as proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon is in fact a 757, has no basis of fact, none. But you feel free to tell me what you think I seek or think or ask, or imply.

Let's say hypothetically, they have distorted the pic for National Security resaons, and none of whatever you are attempting to get at is real.

Sure, let�s say that, why not? Now you want to prove Catherder�s case by claiming he made his case based on assumed National security propaganda and what that propaganda entails? Well, that certainly decimates my argument based on the optical illusions you think I see. I mean, thus far, from the 757 believers, all I have read is conjecture about distances, reflection; distortion and angles in stark opposition to dealing with that which stares them in the face. Why don�t we just say hypothetically that a big bad 757 loaded to the gills with fuel was parked directly in front of the Pentagon and the building slammed into same? National security distortion and all. Trees are behind the plane? Trees with sides and corners? Beige looking trees? Oh my, I learn something new every day. Okay, with that you have managed to make me believe both you and Catherder where a thousand wouldn�t.

catheeder aproximations..

I have seen many many sites on the supposed "plane" that hit the pentagon.How did you come up with pics showing the supposed "plane" debris because i never seen any before.Just makes me curious.And if a actual 757 did hit the pentagon the video footage would not be lost they would be quick to show it to throw off any conspiracy theories.

>> Just makes me curious.And if a actual 757 did hit the pentagon the video footage would not be lost they would be quick to show it to throw off any conspiracy theories. >> exactly.. since this site exists, 2.5 years , it didn t changed one word, one picture.. not like the official theorieS.. 0911.site.voila.fr... @skeptics, if it was a 757 the left engine would have left traces in the lawn.. home.comcast.net... [edit on 4-10-2004 by aspic]

The best theory i heard about 9/11 was that the hijacked planes were taken to an army base everyone was emptied off the planes and the planes were then replaced with the planes that hit the towers.im not to sure about the pentagon though.most likely that was some type of fighter jet.everyone on the planes were then loaded on to one plane and that was the one shot down in pennsylvania or where ever that plane got shot down.this seems the most logical to me.

There are still quite a few very credible eyewitnesses who claim they saw more than one missile fired at TWA 800 before it blew up and went down. The gov't doesn't even consider it a possibility, apparently, or they're hiding something. [edit on 4-10-2004 by Damned]

I'd like to try and help clarify some misunderstandings. The speed with which the plane was moving, coupled with it's mass and the resistance of the reinforced wall would cause the plane to be virtually shredded making it act in a fluid manner, not turning it into liquid as some seem to think it states. At any given speed every inch of the aircraft is going at the same speed i.e. if the nose is going 100mph the so is the tail and the wings etc. Applying a fundemental knowledge of Newton's laws of physics the force or energy of the nose would be transfered to the brick wall upon impact, granted the force is diminished due to the resistance of the wall but it is not a far stretch of the imagination that a portion of the plane could break through the wall. Upon initial contact with the wall the plane would begin to crumple, causing subsequent poritons of the plane to to meet the newly made shrapnel with the same force, although in a more fluid manner since the structural integrity of the aircraft has been compromised. Since aircraft aluminum is so light wheight the shrapnel would shred through thte metal, this would cause almost cumalitive creation of shrapnel which in turn would almost create a wall of shredded metal for the tail and rear poritons of the plane to impact. As stated before, this is not a cartoon, the plane would not make a 757 shaped hole in the side of the building no matter what angle it struck at. Upon contact with the building the metal would begin to crumple thusly changing the trajectory of the tiny bits of metal. (Remember equal and OPPOSITE reaction) This is evident in the video "evidence" where minor exterior portions of the plane are seen flying away from the building. The force with which the wings hit, coupled with the angle at which the front of the wing tappers from the fuelselage would cause the wings to fold inwards yet still retain their intial foward momentum. In fact, nearly every molecule of the aircraft would retain it's foward momentum until met with enough resistance to stop it. The entire crash happened instantaneously leaving almost no time for the forces of gravity to work thusly creating a maelstorm of brick, steel and aluminum. Nearly every inch of the plane would be destroyed within miliseconds of initial impact yet still retain a deminished force of foward momentum. Actually, if you apply the laws of physics the bricks and other material of the building would increase the wheight of the "cloud" of metal on subsequent walls which in turn would add to the wheight impacting the next wall. Each time this mealstrom hit a wall it's force would be diminished yet the wheight would be increased which might shed some light on why the exit hole was smaller than the entry hole, Now, to understand the physics of the now fluid matter take a look at a river. The greatest speed of the water molecules is always located in the center of the river, with the lowest speed where the molecules contact the river bed. Think of a tidal wive striking a dam, the main compromising of the structure of the damn would be in the center, since the water molecules that did not initially strike the dam are still moving at the same speed and with the same force as it had when unmolested. The bits of the damn now interacting with the force and wheight of the water would now follow the same basic path as the water bursting through it. This is essentially what happened to the Pentagon, the shredded aircraft material would act in a fluid manner SIMILAR to the water where as the Pentagon's wall would act like the dam did. As the matter around the periphery of the mealstrom contacted a still standing wall it's momentum would be redirected in differing angels somewhat opposite to it's original trajectory. However, the force of the initial impact on the wall would be transfered to the bricks causing them to blow out much like an explosion and now follow the original trajectory of the impacting mater if even to a lesser degree. The aircraft matter that did not have it's trajectory changed due to transferance of energy would still be moving at the same force and speed as it had. Eventually the deminishing effect of the walls on the force of the matter would bring the force below the threshold needed to demolish any subsequent walls at which point it would come to rest on the ground. I dont' claim to be a physicist but i believe the equation would be somthing like this : whieght of the plane X velocity of the plane = impact force (kinetic energy) Since the wheight of the mealstrom is virtually the same as the original plane the equation for the kinetic energy on subsequent walls would be somthing like this (wheight of the plane + wheight of demolished bricks) X (velocity - resistance of the wall) = impact on second wall [(wheight of the plane +wheight of demolished bricks) - mass loss due to transferance of energy] X (velocity - resistance of the wall) = impact force on subsequent walls Now we will have Y= the threshhold needed to demolish the wall and Z=impact for or kenetic energy If Z is less than Y then no more demolition takes place, Follow me? Like i said I'm no physicist, these equations don't even factor in the kinteic energy added to the maelstrom by the force of the explosion of the fuel but I do hope it helps clear some things up. It's science, no one ever watched Mr. Wizard? Now, this doesn't rule out the possibility of a conspiracy in regards to 9/11 as a whole, but if we wish to uncover said conspiracy I think we should focus on financial transactions, intel documents, media reports, anything we can have hard evidence of. We should compile, to the best of our knowledge, what led up to, and happened on that fateful day. Then take the comission report and compare and contrast and bring to light any incosistancies, that is how we can prove innocence or guilt. So stop arguing physics and start doing some research!! [edit] I've been informed that it's the square of the velocity ie V^2 which means if you deminish the velocity the impact force is reduced in a converse exponential manner [edit on 4-10-2004 by Shadowflux] [edit on 4-10-2004 by Shadowflux]

I think we should contact MythBusters and let them do a scale size experiment on this one....create a scale size plane with the same structure and density and fire it at a wall of the same density at 400-500MPH, at the same angle, and see what happens. I doubt it will do what you say, exactly. In fact, I think I'll shoot them an email now. This would be a great project for them, don't you think? Here, I posted it at their forum, if you want to keep track of it. discovery.infopop.net... [edit on 4-10-2004 by Damned]

I don't know if it would work, since it would have to be a perfect representation of the area struck, including accurate density models of filing cabinets, chairs, desks, etc since those could possibly add to the overall density and wheight of the projectile matter. The building model would also have to be built with accurate density miniature steel girders etc, which, correct me if I'm wrong, would cause all models to wheigh as much as their life size couner parts. It's an episode I'd love to see though [edit] I don't think the fire from the miniature would burn at the same heat either [edit on 4-10-2004 by Shadowflux]

I'm mostly interested in what happens outside the building, before it enters. I don't think it'd act as some are saying. Why wouldn't it burn at the same temp, if it carries the same fuel? I don't think it would be that difficult to make both the wall and the plane scale, if I had the access to the funds and resources, as they do. As for densities, it's all relative to weight. It doesn't have to be the same thickness as the original to have a density that would equal that of a smaller scale model jet. In other words, it would take some major math work, but it could easily be done. You just scale everything down: density, weight, size, etc. All things would have to be taken into consideration for a successful experiment. [edit on 4-10-2004 by Damned]

perhaps I worded that statement poorly. What I meat was that the number of molecules effected by the heat would be smaller than the real thing, you would have to be able to count the number of air molecules, steel molecules etc and then create a fire that would be equal in relation to size and heat. However even if you could do that it would turn the experiment into a control thereby negating any useful information. But that's getting technical, I'm sure it might answer a few questions, particularly the aircraft's interaction with the brick wall