9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by genesiss i just think we would not even be debating this if they did not try to hide footage and evidence, thats absurd

I agree. America can take the fact that it happened and continue on with their lives, but we can't handle reliving it through the evidence? Is that what they're saying? It's a great injustice to keep evidence of anything, that directly effects our freedom, from us. The right to know what our government is doing, or even what's happened in our own country, has become a joke. It's never going to be alright, to me, for the government to decide what's right or wrong for me. In doing so, they're implying that I'm incompetent, or I don't know what's best for me, or I don't know what I can handle. [edit on 9-11-2004 by Damned]

I appriciate your site it is very scientific and that is what I am looking for, however, I do have a couple of questions... 1. In the Purdue report it talks about the roll the fuel played "Like a wave" how come the area where the majority of the fuel is stored? 2. Why didn't the preasure created by the impact take the path of least resistance and blow out the windows? 3. Why does the purdue simulation show the wings disentigrating INSIDE the building? I also wonder if you have the weight of the plane vs weight of the fuel. Sorry about being so sceptical, Its just after the whole New American Century /war in Iraq thing it is hard for me not to be sceptical about how good this event was for Cheney (I actually have nothing against Bush I think he is a monkey but I think Cheney and the rest of the Neo-Cons are cold blooded men).

Originally posted by partyk1d24 1. In the Purdue report it talks about the roll the fuel played "Like a wave" how come the area where the majority of the fuel is stored?

Is stored. . what? Please restate this as it makes no sense. Thanks. :S

2. Why didn't the preasure created by the impact take the path of least resistance and blow out the windows?

What part of plast proof, bullet proof, don�t you understand? BTW, the path of least resistance was back out the entrance hole created by the impact.

3. Why does the purdue simulation show the wings disentigrating INSIDE the building?

Are you referring to the animation, or specific part of the modeling calculations?

I also wonder if you have the weight of the plane vs weight of the fuel.

Is this a question?

Because there is no black box. There was no airliner. There were no Alkida flying the planes get real box cutters ? Yea RIGHT. Conspiracy all over it .

Originally posted by piboy There is no explanation of why a window pane that was either struck or almost struck by a wing is intact. The window didn't break, didn't pop out, and didn't melt, even though there are no discernible wing remains anywhere.

I'm assuming this is the photo you are referring to: Considering the angle the photo was taken and the angle the aircraft reportedly struck the building, this overlay is valid. The window wasn't even grazed, and still has very visible hazing. I don't see how the overlay would imply the window would break, since it doesn't show that the plane struck the window. It does show this: The structure the window is recessed in was hit, not the window itself. Why would a near hit be expected to cause a window to fall out or break?

Originally posted by SimpleTruth

Originally posted by Shoktek wow...I can't believe this thread is still going, and people still think that a missile was shot at the pentagon. If it really wasn't the plane, then what happened to the plane full of people? It just disappeared into thin air? The government shot it down so they could fire a missile at the pentagon? Tell me how a plane could just disappear, if it did not crash into the pentagon. Oh wait, that's impossible, they would have seen it on the radar in the exact spot it went down, there's no way that could be faked...

For the LOVE!.......the transponders were turned off, and therefore their little blips on all the screens that tracked them blinked out. THEREFORE, after they were turned off by the hijackers, they could no longer be determined on where they were. And they were NOT shot down, OBVIOUSLY. They were landed somewhere, but as to where, that cannot be determined. And so you apply "logic" by thinking that since, according to those who believe it was an inside job theory, we're not sure where the planes ended up, so therefore, the whole thing is untrue hands down. So if something really extravagant like some huge diamond was stolen from somewhere, but replaced with some phony fake one, and someone was trying to point out that the real one is no longer there, you would be like..."well, if that's true, and that thing next to us is fake, then where's the REAL one? Yeah, that's right, we don't know where the real one is, so your claim is stupid!" Yeah, your deductive skills and paths of thinking are real rational....

Wow. You need to realize that a transponder has nothing whatsoever to do with radar, it just gives info on the plane. Just turning the transponder off will not make a plane disappear. It just makes the planes ID disappear, but the radar echo is very much there. Wait a minute, could you be using sarcasm?

The award for the Pentagon's Blast Resistant Windows. "Eaton, confirmed: "The new blast-resistant window system installed in Wedge 1 supported the floors directly above the impact for approximately 30 minutes after the attack, allowing hundreds of people to flee to safety."

Could anybody of the Boeing--Hunters tell me, what ever has caused the obvious signs of fire on the facade of the Pentagon? Look here: external image This could not be made by a missile nor by a fight-jet. I am sure this comes from the Kerosin in the wings. No other explanation is possible. Salana Mod Edit: Image size only. [edit on 19-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]

@ CatHerder: thanks again for your good work. Could you answer 2 questions? 1) Did the right engine impact the fassade between column AA 17 and AA18 or farther to the right? 2) Is it known what caused the exit hole in the C-ring? An engine? Debris? Thank you, Salana

As far as the exit hole goes, I believe that you can see parts of the landing gear in the debris pile outside the wall.

Originally posted by HowardRoark As far as the exit hole goes, I believe that you can see parts of the landing gear in the debris pile outside the wall.

But there isn't anything in the small pile large enough to make a hole that size, IMO. Wouldn't you expect to see a large piece somewhere? I mean, no wheel or strut is going to knock a hole that large in the wall.

Why? The size of the hole has little to do with the size of the object that penetrated it. If you look at the picture, you should note that the exterior portion of the hole (i.e. the missing brick) is actually larger then the interior (look at the back side of the plaster lath.) A common brick wall of this sort is actually a lot more fragile than you realize. People drive cars through brick walls by accident all the time, and they are usually not going that fast. One thing to keep in mind, that landing gear strut is a very heavy, solid, and massive object.

Here's my own theory... It is highly likely that the Pentagon has some form of defense system to defend it from attacks from the air. This is likely to be some sort of small missile system designed to hit approaching aircraft at a very short range (a second before impact with the building), and so reduce the impact of a plane hitting the building. The only cover-up would be due to the Govt not wanting to reveal details about how the Pentagon is defended. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

Missiles leave craters.... external image There is far too much damage at the Pentagon for a missile, besides the fire is from highly flammable jet fuel. Mod Edit: Image size only. [edit on 19-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]

A Boeing 757 did not Struck the Pentagon, it was a missile. This thread is a good work of deception and social engineering!

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by WisdomMaster I believe your article is a professional social engineering work or "deception" and that you an employee of Mr. Bush. I don't believe a word of what you say. I think the video is fake and also I think the tail of the aircraft tail you pointed out is too small, yeah perhaps that of jet fighter! but it could be fake. It just does not fit, no matter what science you apply to it. Show me the real juice, the real videos confiscated. This is crap. I am amazed how people believe to this crap. Bye.

But I would imagine there is a team of people palying your game! You make me vomit.

Exactly. You believe what you want to believe. Lets look at some of your beliefs. 1: I work for George Bush. A: Nope sorry, he doesn't live in Canada, and he doesn't like Canadians. 2: My "work" is a socially engineered work of deception. A: Sorry no. I'm a private Canadian citizen who thinks some people need to read more non-fiction and fewer supermarket tabloids. 3: "This is crap" A: You are entitled to your opinion. At least I back mine with some facts and information, and I take the time to research what it is I am talking about before I post rude and ignorant posts on a subject I know nothing about. 4: "But I would imagine there is a team of people palying your game! You make me vomit." A: No sorry, I am just one individual. I learned to read when I was young. And having learned how to read I use that as a tool in my adult life to educate myself on subjects I know little about (I choose to better myself through educating myself instead of going through life not knowing how things work and why things work). Instead of going through life jumping from one belief to another, I choose to proove things to myself by reading, researching, and coming to an educated conclusion on topics that interest me. You should seriously try it sometime. I believe when I close my eyes the world ceases to exist. Can you prove me wrong? I don't think you can. Therefore, I must be right! Keep that in mind the next time you blink - the entire weight of humanity is in your hands buddy!

1: I work for George Bush. A: Nope sorry, he doesn't live in Canada, and he doesn't like Canadians. AA: Well I could be the devil but show up looking like god! 2: My "work" is a socially engineered work of deception. A: Sorry no. I'm a private Canadian citizen who thinks some people need to read more non-fiction and fewer supermarket tabloids. AA: My opinion is that your work does not match the real events. The explosion or crash was ether generated by a missile or a drone. Yes, this is a deception work. There is no way that a professional can put this together without being paid. You could tell me that you are not a professional, but this is still part of the deception. 3: "This is crap" A: You are entitled to your opinion. At least I back mine with some facts and information, and I take the time to research what it is I am talking about before I post rude and ignorant posts on a subject I know nothing about. AA: Honestly I must say that perhaps at second thought I don't think this is total crap, I mainly do not approve the deception. Why the flight was not intercepted if there was not conspiracy? Oh tell me why there was a military drill that day simulating attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC? Actually it does not matter what hit the Pentagon, it does matter that the whole 911 was an in house job! 4: "But I would imagine there is a team of people palying your game! You make me vomit." A: No sorry, I am just one individual. I learned to read when I was young. And having learned how to read I use that as a tool in my adult life to educate myself on subjects I know little about (I choose to better myself through educating myself instead of going through life not knowing how things work and why things work). Instead of going through life jumping from one belief to another, I choose to proove things to myself by reading, researching, and coming to an educated conclusion on topics that interest me. You should seriously try it sometime. AA: This answer does not matter, people are not able to see above and beyond their box, the one the media have created. It's too simple to follow the current, as everyone will back you up. A few can see the truth...

Originally posted by LL1 Missiles leave craters.... There is far too much damage at the Pentagon for a missile, besides the fire is from highly flammable jet fuel.

Look at the thickness of that bunker. You can't even compare the Pentagon to that. HowardRoark, But the size of the inner hole is much larger than anything that was lying outside the exit hole. That just doesn't happen unless something larger made the hole. A strut isn't going to do that. If the object is going fast enough to go through the wall, it's more likely to make a hole closer to the size of the object. If it wasn't going fast enough, then it wouldn't have gone through, period. Something is missing. Go ahead, make a cannon and fire something heavy at a thick brick wall, and see what happens. The strut wasn't even found outside, IIRC. There was nothing but a rim and some softer looking, smaller pieces, really. I'm not buying it. [edit on 29-11-2004 by Damned]

Frankly, damned, I don�t care what you �buy� or not. I am just pointing out some things. As catherder posted on page 1 there was a fairly large mass of debris that went through the wall. You can see a fairly large debris field in this pic Anyway if you look closely you will see that it really isn�t that thick of a brick wall. You have two layer of common brick with a decorative veneer of face brick. It isn�t a structural wall, so it did not need to be all that thick. Also, if you look, you will note that the plaster wall was the sort where the base coat was applied to a wire mesh, much like chicken wire. This is not at all like drywall. If you bust through this stuff, you wind up pulling half the wall down.

The inner wall is solid concrete, reinforced with steel rebar. It's not that fragile, and there's nothing very big or heavy outside the exit hole. That picture has some small, thin aluminum pieces circled, as if those are going to make the hole. Anything that burst through the wall and leaves a hole that big, would leave alot more debris outside, IMO, or at least a larger piece. Whatever made the hole wouldn't be traveling that fast after passing through the other rings of the Pentagon. Sorry, the physics just don't jive. [edit on 29-11-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned The inner wall is solid concrete, reinforced with steel rebar

Wow, where did you get that from? This solid concrete and rebar is certainly not visible in that photograph. You would expect it to be visible if it was there. I can see the two layers of brick wall, the metal mesh lath of the plaster wall, and the black iron bars support bars for the wall and for the ceiling. (they are the black bars hanging down across the top of the hole.)