9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by CameronFox No one can gove one resonable answer to this question..... WHY? Why swap the plane? The others were not hidden...we saw them crash. Please tell me what good it would do to swap the planes??

Again another question you know can't really be answered, but if you want opinion... Well the obvious answer would be that the mission was too difficult and too risky with a real 757. They didn't want to end up with a 757 sitting on their lawn, or worse, what a mess that would have been to clean up. The towers were not hard to miss (Like the South tower tilt question, that is conveniently ignored by you), the pentagoon was a much more difficult target. Why do you think they would swap planes? Do you ever think hypothetically, or does everything have to be black and white for you?

Anok ...first of all I want to address the fact that the Pentagon is a HUGE building..the Largest Office Building in the world. There are five floors, plus mezzanines and basements. The building itself is 77 feet, 3.5 inches high. Each outside wall is 921 feet long. Not quite a small target. ( but yes not as large as the WTC Towers.) Not everything has to be black or white...but COMMON SENCE leads me in my persuit of the truth. I will believe the eyewitnesses over the theories of some that were not there and avoid the evidence that is shown to them over and over. Finally this will be my last post toward you as I am sick of your piss poor accusations you throw at me ALL THE TIME in response to your tiltiing towers theory. I did my research and posted my response. You didn't agree with it....yet didnt offer any evidence to refute my responses. You actually IGNORED my last post on that thread. I like discussing different topics with others here. I learn from them. You however are stuck on one thing that is your "thred stopper". Well Im done listening to your accusations...they are baseless (like 90% of your posts on this site) This was your response to my explination of your tilting tower theory:

^The point isn't that you disagree with me, it's that a very important part of the whole collapse mechanism is basically ignored by the official story. And when the question comes up, you all run and dance around trying to avoid answering it. Sry but your explanation doesn't cut it. And asking for a peer reviewed paper just shows me you either have no clue about physics, so how can you be so sure the official story is true? If you do know about physics then you're just playing ignorant, which my friend we have seen many times here at ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com... Where is your explination? I provided you with details as to how the collapse i THINK started, with drawings, photographs...etc. All YOU provide is "it had to be explosives" WITH ZERO EVIDENCE. You tell me who is the one dancing around the issue here. Why don't YOU provide all of us in here a detailed hypothisis that deals with facts and not your typical speculations. I never claim to be 100% accurate in here, but what i do my best at is dealing with facts. I was never running and dancing anywhere...I answered you with HONESTY. I DIDNT KNOW ! THEN after I read up on the collapse, I posted what I feel is an accurate assesment of what happened. Again, you provided nothing but speculation with nothing to back it up. [edit on 6-1-2007 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by CameronFox Anok ...first of all I want to address the fact that the Pentagon is a HUGE building..the Largest Office Building in the world. There are five floors, plus mezzanines and basements. The building itself is 77 feet, 3.5 inches high. Each outside wall is 921 feet long. Not quite a small target. ( but yes not as large as the WTC Towers.) [edit on 6-1-2007 by CameronFox]

But a building 77 feet tall and 921 feet long is a real small target for an amatuer pilot flying something the size of a 757 at 500 mph just several feet off the ground, trying to keep it under control with several natural forces acting on it. [edit on 6-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Was is an easy task? I doubt it. Was it SO difficult that they would risk everything by .... Hiding a plane...replacing it with another plane...killing all the passengers and crew ....or whatever...then by way of Remote control drone? slam it into the pentagon? I dunno Ultima...what is your hypothisis?

Originally posted by CameronFox Finally this will be my last post toward you as I am sick of your piss poor accusations you throw at me ALL THE TIME in response to your tiltiing towers theory. I did my research and posted my response. You didn't agree with it....yet didnt offer any evidence to refute my responses. You actually IGNORED my last post on that thread.

You didn't do any research, you dodged the question until finally you attempted to appease me with a lame attempt that answered nothing. Remember YOU started this by claiming you has an answer for my question blowing it off like it meant nothing. All I wanted was the answer YOU claimed to have. But when I pushed you for the answer you started dancing. If you can't see the importance of the 'ST tilt' then you are not at all interested in the truth, but just excused for the official version. Sry If I'm blowing your cover Mr.Faux. Sry if you don't like me 'picking on you' but when I see someone trying to spread lies I will do my best to expose them. It's for other readers benefit, not yours. So by not responding to my threads, which you did when the qwuestion was too tough for you, you will in fact help me to show others what your real motive is. Which is too keep spreading the lies, as I think most here already know, and ignore the real evidence.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 But a building 77 feet tall and 921 feet long is a real small target for an amatuer pilot flying something the size of a 757 at 500 mph just several feet off the ground, trying to keep it under control with several natural forces acting on it. [edit on 6-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

It's one of the most easily visible objects seen from the air. It's not just the dimensions (which are HUGE compared to most buildings) but the shape, and the surroundings, etc. And of course it is really just an opinion that it's a small target for an amateur pilot. Everyone is different and I personally think it had to have been the easiest target in the entire city. And keep in mind that the plane was not several feet off the ground until just before it hit. There have been pilots who have testified that it was not a very difficult taks, and that alone shows it's more than plausible.

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 But a building 77 feet tall and 921 feet long is a real small target for an amatuer pilot flying something the size of a 757 at 500 mph just several feet off the ground, trying to keep it under control with several natural forces acting on it. [edit on 6-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

It's one of the most easily visible objects seen from the air. It's not just the dimensions (which are HUGE compared to most buildings) but the shape, and the surroundings, etc. And of course it is really just an opinion that it's a small target for an amateur pilot. Everyone is different and I personally think it had to have been the easiest target in the entire city. And keep in mind that the plane was not several feet off the ground until just before it hit. There have been pilots who have testified that it was not a very difficult taks, and that alone shows it's more than plausible.

It might be visible but that does not make it an easyt target to hit while you trying to keep control of a plane going that fast and flying that low, trying to fly over hilly areas and raised highways, hitting poles. Also thier are just a many pilots who say it would be difficult for an amatuer pilot to try to hit something while trying to keep control.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 It might be visible but that does not make it an easyt target to hit while you trying to keep control of a plane going that fast and flying that low, trying to fly over hilly areas and raised highways, hitting poles. Also thier are just a many pilots who say it would be difficult for an amatuer pilot to try to hit something while trying to keep control.

It wasn't low until just before it hit. The light poles are right in front of the building. And it's not by any means improbable to have been done. Some pilots testify that it would be fairly simple. It doesn't matter that some say it would be difficult. The fact that some say it would be easy means it's perfectly possible. Also this notion of the pilot being amateur is being over played for dramatization. The guy was good enough to get his lisc, despite CT sites only using accounts from long before he was able to fly. Just like this notion that the entire time he was a few feet off the ground, which is simply not true.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by CameronFox Finally this will be my last post toward you as I am sick of your piss poor accusations you throw at me ALL THE TIME in response to your tiltiing towers theory. I did my research and posted my response. You didn't agree with it....yet didnt offer any evidence to refute my responses. You actually IGNORED my last post on that thread.

You didn't do any research, you dodged the question until finally you attempted to appease me with a lame attempt that answered nothing. Remember YOU started this by claiming you has an answer for my question blowing it off like it meant nothing. All I wanted was the answer YOU claimed to have. But when I pushed you for the answer you started dancing. If you can't see the importance of the 'ST tilt' then you are not at all interested in the truth, but just excused for the official version. Sry If I'm blowing your cover Mr.Faux. Sry if you don't like me 'picking on you' but when I see someone trying to spread lies I will do my best to expose them. It's for other readers benefit, not yours. So by not responding to my threads, which you did when the qwuestion was too tough for you, you will in fact help me to show others what your real motive is. Which is too keep spreading the lies, as I think most here already know, and ignore the real evidence.

1. Show me a lie I have made. You obviously are STILL dodging the questions I had for you. When are YOU going to explain in detail HOW the towers collapsed. 2. Show me what is WRONG with my "lame attempt" You have shown NOTHING to back up what you write. I don't give a frogs fat a** what you think of me and to date... you are the only person that has accused me of lying. You don't like what I have to post. IGNORE ME or DONT READ IT. Maybe when you start posting with some substance, I will take you more serioulsy. Until then, you are nothing.

Originally posted by CameronFox 1. Show me a lie I have made. You obviously are STILL dodging the questions I had for you. When are YOU going to explain in detail HOW the towers collapsed.

I consider the official story a lie, you are spreading that lie. I can't answer that question. Again you are asking for details that I can't give you. The only thing I can say for a fact is that the towers and building 7 could NOT fall vertically against their own resistance by gravity alone. It just doesn't work that way, in fact the idea is laughable. As I've told you before that the tilting of WTC 2 proves that it could not have been a gravity driven pancake collapse imo. But you keep dodging this question, and have offered no rebutal to my claim even though you claimed you could. Which is where this all began, remember?

2. Show me what is WRONG with my "lame attempt" You have shown NOTHING to back up what you write.

What is there to back up? Look at the video, then tell me how that turned into a vertical collapse? I made my claim, you said you could disbute it. All I'm asking is for you to cough up, or admit that yes it's odd and prove to me you are here to find the truth and not just spread the lies. Simple, unless of course NIST ignored it also...

I don't give a frogs fat a** what you think of me and to date... you are the only person that has accused me of lying. You don't like what I have to post. IGNORE ME or DONT READ IT. Maybe when you start posting with some substance, I will take you more serioulsy. Until then, you are nothing.

OK it's not about what we think of each other bro, it's about what you are putting down for people to read. I didn't call you a lier I said you are spreading lies, it is possible you don't realise. Most of us have heard these lies so many times, give us something new. How about the tilt of the South Tower, kinda odd don't ya think?

Originally posted by snoopy It wasn't low until just before it hit. The light poles are right in front of the building. And it's not by any means improbable to have been done. Some pilots testify that it would be fairly simple. It doesn't matter that some say it would be difficult. The fact that some say it would be easy means it's perfectly possible. Also this notion of the pilot being amateur is being over played for dramatization. The guy was good enough to get his lisc, despite CT sites only using accounts from long before he was able to fly. Just like this notion that the entire time he was a few feet off the ground, which is simply not true.

Thier is still enough evidnece that show it woud be difficult for a amatuer pilot to control a plane the size of a 757 going that fast and they were low enougth for a while before hitting which would have caused more probelms for control all while trying to line up the plane to hit the side of the Pentagon. Not to mention the fact of very little physical evidence or reports to support a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Anok: First off :

Originally posted by ANOK I consider the official story a lie, you are spreading that lie / I didn't call you a lier I said you are spreading lies

li·ar Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy-er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun a person who tells lies.

dictionary.reference.com... You called me a liar. YOU said I am spreading lies...tell me what was a lie! Show me how it was a lie. Let me save you the time...you can't! You are the one that continues to dodge the simpilist of questions presented to you. You need to back up your posts with FACTS. Saying the word"fact" without backup is fruitless. You offer nothing but a picture with the 3 Stooges and a video of the tiliting tower. You asked for an answer....after some time and research, I gave you an answer. You said...

Originally posted by ANOK Sry but your explanation doesn't cut it.

posted on 29-12-2006 at 06:15 PM (post id: 2836214) Thats a response?? doesn't cut it? Why not? If it's a lie like you said it is...PROVE IT! There was no dancing around in my explanation. It was clear...and offered a hypothisis ...not a fact mind you, becasue Im not qualified to make that assumption. You however are all knowing from a video. You have offered ZERO evidence to this. I suggest you buy yourself a copy of Hustler Magazine this month and see what ol Alex and the Loose Change Boys have to say. After all your entire argument is all "Prison Planet" garbage.

Mr.Fox LOL again you are just showing me what I already suspected. You didn't offer an explanation!! NONE! Now you are lying and you know it. You offered something that didn't even touch the question of the ST tilt. You asked me if the inner core could have 'straightened' things up as it fell. I don't doubt you looked on your official government lies web sites for an answer?? But there wasn't one to be found was there? I just want some honesty from ya guy, the south tower tilt is ignored cause it contradicts the official story doesn't it? If not then where is their explanation? That's all I've been asking for, and here I am weeks later still asking, and you are still dancing as we all can see form your above post. The only evidence I need to supply is the video, what else do you need to see the tilt? If the tilt was a perfectly normal occurance, then why can I find no official explanation for this, and why does the question keep getting ignored? Common sense and a little high school physics should be enough to tell you that the ST tilt and collapse was not acting in the way it should if the official story is the complete answer. Unless you are stupid you should be able to see that. Playing ignorant because you're not an expert, pretending to have no knowledge so you have an excuse to ignore, doesn't work with me. You are now getting desperate to shut me up aren't you?...lol No my argument is not based on Prison Planet, I can make up my own mind thanx. If what I say happens to agree with what Alex says then it's cause we both came to the same conclusions, which is pretty logical seeing as it is the truth. I have no idea if they have even covered the tilt on that site. Where have I even mentioned PP in my exchanges with you? You are just trying to find excuses to blow me off and pretend that my question to you is invalid. You can't answer the question, and it is painfully obvious you are not interested because you know it contradicts the official story. You are exposed as far as I'm concerned. I just hope other posters can see through your posts like I can.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Thier is still enough evidnece that show it woud be difficult for a amatuer pilot to control a plane the size of a 757 going that fast and they were low enougth for a while before hitting which would have caused more probelms for control all while trying to line up the plane to hit the side of the Pentagon. Not to mention the fact of very little physical evidence or reports to support a 757 hit the Pentagon.

No there isn't. It has been proven to be completely plausible. You simply don't want it to be true. It's not even remotely impossible for him to have done that and once again, the low flying part was only a few hundred feet before the impact. It simply was not as difficult as people who want to believe in a conspiracy will have you believe. You find a pilot or two who think it is hard and that makes it impossible? Yet you don't see the world body of piots all shouting that there's no way it can be done do you? I know if I was a pilot I would speak out if it didn't add up, as would most people. Are we to believe that all pilots around the word are being gagged because they fear losing a job? Of course not. And the evidence to support the 757 hitting the building is overwhelming. You have the eyewitness reports, the black boxes, the remains of the plane, the remains of the passengers, the passengers belongings, the DNA testing, the RADAR operators who watched it, the people who tore the tickets for the plane, the victims families who talked to them while they were on the plane, The people who cleaned up and handled all the plane parts, the paper trails of the plane, it's passengers, the terrorists. I mean it goes on for miles. Sure anything is possible, but if you wanna talk plausible, there's no contest as to what is more likely to have happened. And once you start even trying to piece it together without flight 77 being there, you dig a hole so deal there's just no getting out. It's important to look at all angles as a whole and not just little parts.

Originally posted by snoopy And the evidence to support the 757 hitting the building is overwhelming. You have the eyewitness reports, the black boxes, the remains of the plane, the remains of the passengers, the passengers belongings, the DNA testing, the RADAR operators who watched it, the people who tore the tickets for the plane, the victims families who talked to them while they were on the plane, The people who cleaned up and handled all the plane parts, the paper trails of the plane, it's passengers, the terrorists. I mean it goes on for miles.

No, the evidence is not overwhelming. 1. The witnesses could not agree on what type of plane it was. 2. Thier are conflicting reports on the black boxes. 3. We have only been shown very little of the remains of the plane and the parts found have not been matched to flight 77. 4. If the fire was hot enough to destroy almost all of the plane it would have destroyed the bodies and DNA evidence also. 5. The radar operators lost flight 77 on radar for several minutes, when it did come back on the screen thier was no way of knowing that it was flgiht 77 becaue of the transponder being off, some operators even believed it to be a military plane due to speeed and maneuvers it was doing. 6. Reports from rescuers stated they found little debris. 7. No official incident report from the FBI or NTSB. This list gores on also.

Sorry.. double post [edit on 8-1-2007 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by ANOK Mr.Fox LOL again you are just showing me what I already suspected. You didn't offer an explanation!! NONE! Now you are lying and you know it. You offered something that didn't even touch the question of the ST tilt. You asked me if the inner core could have 'straightened' things up as it fell.

I don't doubt you looked on your official government lies web sites for an answer?? But there wasn't one to be found was there? I just want some honesty from ya guy, the south tower tilt is ignored cause it contradicts the official story doesn't it? If not then where is their explanation? That's all I've been asking for, and here I am weeks later still asking, and you are still dancing as we all can see form your above post. The only evidence I need to supply is the video, what else do you need to see the tilt? If the tilt was a perfectly normal occurance, then why can I find no official explanation for this, and why does the question keep getting ignored? Common sense and a little high school physics should be enough to tell you that the ST tilt and collapse was not acting in the way it should if the official story is the complete answer. Unless you are stupid you should be able to see that. Playing ignorant because you're not an expert, pretending to have no knowledge so you have an excuse to ignore, doesn't work with me. You are now getting desperate to shut me up aren't you?...lol No my argument is not based on Prison Planet, I can make up my own mind thanx. If what I say happens to agree with what Alex says then it's cause we both came to the same conclusions, which is pretty logical seeing as it is the truth. I have no idea if they have even covered the tilt on that site. Where have I even mentioned PP in my exchanges with you? You are just trying to find excuses to blow me off and pretend that my question to you is invalid. You can't answer the question, and it is painfully obvious you are not interested because you know it contradicts the official story. You are exposed as far as I'm concerned. I just hope other posters can see through your posts like I can.

So Your NOT calling me a liar again? What are you doing? Running for ATS office? If you happen to READ my posts.... 1. At the beginning...I knew nothing about the tilt...so I replied with an HONEST: "I don't know" 2. After continued harrasement by YOU...I asked a question in regards to the core. IT was a QUESTION...not an explination. 3. You CONTINUED to harass me on other threads on different topics ( SUCH AS THIS ONE) So I decided to read up on the collapse. 4. I THEN posted an explination as to what my HYPOTHISIS was...!! Did you READ it ? 5. Here is your typical responses... TIME AFTER TIME....:

Common sense and a little high school physics should be enough to tell you that the ST tilt and collapse was not acting in the way it should if the official story is the complete answer.

6. You NEVER ONCE...offered any proof to discredit my explination. Just your ol

that don't cut it

7. You keep on saying ... "We are on to you" Who is "We?" I will tell you...not one person has EVER accused my of lying in here. Would you like me to prove Alex Jones lied? I will start another thread when I get some time to list his lies with FACTS next to them. although you don't mention Prison Planet, you and Alex DO have VERY similar ideas. And may of his claims have been proven false.

Anok, I would also like to see some evidence to back up your claim. So far, I have seen none, but I have seen plenty of evidence that point to the conclusion that the towers collapsed happened exactly as the report sais it did.

Originally posted by sensfan Anok, I would also like to see some evidence to back up your claim. So far, I have seen none, but I have seen plenty of evidence that point to the conclusion that the towers collapsed happened exactly as the report sais it did.

What report is this in reference to? And enlighten me by telling me where in the report it concludes the towers collapsed for what reason?

I mispoke actualy, i wasn't referring to any actual report, but to different bits of info I have read on here, and elsewhere. The program NOVA had a great show that explained everything. I suggest watching the following" Collapse Part 1 Collapse Part 2

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 No, the evidence is not overwhelming. 1. The witnesses could not agree on what type of plane it was. 2. Thier are conflicting reports on the black boxes. 3. We have only been shown very little of the remains of the plane and the parts found have not been matched to flight 77. 4. If the fire was hot enough to destroy almost all of the plane it would have destroyed the bodies and DNA evidence also. 5. The radar operators lost flight 77 on radar for several minutes, when it did come back on the screen thier was no way of knowing that it was flgiht 77 becaue of the transponder being off, some operators even believed it to be a military plane due to speeed and maneuvers it was doing. 6. Reports from rescuers stated they found little debris. 7. No official incident report from the FBI or NTSB. This list gores on also.

The evidence is quite overwhelming. The only way you make it seem not so is taking it piece by piece rather than putting it all together. You take one part and see it as not convincing, then the next piece. But when you add it all up, there's hardly any queastion. Now the opposite is true for your alternate explanations, which are only valid when kept separate. But when you add them all up, they contradict themselves and show implausible. 1. It doesn't matter. At that speed no one is going to be able to tel the exact model. But they did see a plane hit the building, and most were positive it was a commercial jet. Is there an alt theory that some other commercial jet hit the building? I thought the idea was that no plane hit the building, it was a missile or santa claus or something. 2. No there isn't. Some people think it was too high, but that's an issue of the altimeter calibration. 3. We have been shown hundred of photos. We have eyewitness testimony of people who were there and handled the wreckage. We have video of a lot of the wreckage. There is absolutely no contesting the wreckage. 4. It wasn't the fire that destroyed the planes, it was the impact. You know that huge concrete reinforced building it hit at over 500 mph? Gonna put a ding in it. And yes fire did destroy a lot of the DNA. But as the companies that did the testing said, they have gotten pretty good at it. And they admit they were not able to identify every body. But the fact that they were able to identify most of the passengers is prety much a open/shut case. And if you think the passengers were ALL completely incinerated, then how do you explain the pictures of passengers still in their seats at the scene? 5. 100% speculation. This is a classic example of how your points only hold up if viewed one by one. Forgetting that you are just hypothesizing and have no evidence to back this claim up, how does it add up with the bodies of the victims, the DNA testing, the plane parts nd everything else? It doesn't. 6. Completely untrue. This is probably another case of CT web sites intentionally misleading people by taking quotes out of context. Just as one reporter was quoted as saying there was no plane. he of course went on record as saying that wasn't at all what he said,m he was just describing the scene and his quotes were taken out of context. A lot of people said there was no plane or similar descriptions which they meant to describe thqt there was no *whole* plane. 7. There was. The irony of that statement is all these threads about the Feds confiscating so many things for their investigation hehe. I don't doubt the list goes on.....