9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by dragonridr why would someone go thru all the logists involved with facking a plane crash when they can really do it please get real.

I think that is the point. Would it be easy to fly that plane into that bulding that way and do that damage? Apparently not since there is so much debate as to whether or not those men could pilot that way or whether or not that plane could physically do the things we are told it did. But who am I to question pilots and engineers that disagree.

reply to post by johnlear

one one of the bill moyers "NOW" it said that vp cheney said that two were shot down but he was wrong . What do you guys make of that?

I mean seriously, why launch a missle at the pentagon if the objective was to create a false suicide plane attack? If they were to launch a missle, then they would risk people seeing a missle going into the pentagon and that's not good... it would be stupid on their part if they really did launch a missle to fake an airplane attack... really, really stupid... so stupid.. so dumb and stupid... stupid... [edit on 11-9-2008 by nutglow] [edit on 11-9-2008 by nutglow]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Why do you have to be so immature that you have to always twist my post instead of being adult enough to answer the question?

Sounds like you cannot show any evidence that something else hit the Pentagon then. Please show us the FBI or NTSB reports that say something other than the plane in question hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by gavron Please show us the FBI or NTSB reports that say something other than the plane in question hit the Pentagon.

Well Azrael75 claimed that all the parts were idenetified by SN, so i am asking him to post the evidence of this. If you are going to make a claim you should be able to back it up with evidence. I never claimed something other the plane in question hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Well Azrael75 claimed that all the parts were idenetified by SN, so i am asking him to post the evidence of this. If you are going to make a claim you should be able to back it up with evidence. I never claimed something other the plane in question hit the Pentagon.

LOLOLOLOLOL. i never said any such thing. I guess sarcasm does not translate well where ever you are. I guess reading any of the other things that I posted would make it obvious that I do NOT believe they have been identified but hey, far be it for me to expect you to read what you reply to or pay attention to the people on your side you choose to make enemies with. Do not put words in my mouth, if you cannot understand context, do not respond to me. In fact, just reading my last post on this very page shows I am not on whatever side of this argument that you think I am. You have lied about me before Ultima and never appologized or recanted or took it back. I guess I will let this go because technically, it is just ignorance. You really need to pay better attention to who and what you are attacking if you plan on ever making a decent point here and so far, you made more enemies on the truther side than the other. I call disinfo agent and would like that no more posts incorrectly referring to what you think I said be written by you unless you can at least show why it is you believe whatever it is you are accusing someone of. [edit on 12-9-2008 by Azrael75]

Originally posted by Azrael75 LOLOLOLOLOL. i never said any such thing.

Here is your exact quote. By the way, i am not on anyones side.

There is NO WAY anything like this could have happend since, as is proper procedure, all parts were identified by SN to belonging to the plane in question.

So now are you going to state you did not say it? [edit on 12-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 No, I am going to state that you apparently read just the sentences you like. Last time you said I said something I never said. This time, you are just missing the point. I was being sarcastic. I sure said it but everyone that read any of my other posts, ANY of them, as well as what I replied to and the posts surrounding it, could get the sarcasm. Yes, I said that, go back and read it again before you decide you really want to call me out for it.

Originally posted by Azrael75 This time, you are just missing the point. I was being sarcastic.

I read what is posted, i do not pick apart if its saracastic. Since i am asked to post evidence i ask for the same anytime a claim is made.

I dont believe a plane hit the pentagon at all. sorry if this makes some or most of you mad but please explain to me some things. 1. Why would the plane Make a 230 degree turn to hit a site under construction in the pentagon when the most secret part of the pentagon and rumsfield office was in the direct path of the plane. 2. How come we cannot see the two rolls Royce engines. Note Rolls Royce engines are made of high strength vulcanized steel. which means that in order to melt them, you would need a fire hotter than 2000 F which is i think 500 - 600 degrees hotter than what jet fuel burns at. but yet they were able to identify some of the bodies on the plane?? 3. How come a couple of days after, the site was covered up by gravel and any other evidence was gathered and they just disappeared

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Azrael75 This time, you are just missing the point. I was being sarcastic.

I read what is posted, i do not pick apart if its saracastic. Since i am asked to post evidence i ask for the same anytime a claim is made.

Well, it was NOT a claim so get over it. I know they were NOT id'd by SN. That was MY POINT.

Originally posted by Azrael75 Well, it was NOT a claim so get over it. I know they were NOT id'd by SN. That was MY POINT.

Well then you should not make statements unless you make sure to state its sarcasum. I only do serious post and expect the same from others.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 IT WAS a serious post. Because YOU DID NOT GET what the sarcasm had to do with it, and just because YOU DID NOT GET what my actual point was, and not TWICE you have attacked me, another truther, for NO GOOD REASON, I am sorry. But I will use sarcasm, dark humor, and plain ol straight talk to make my points all I like. If the intended audience does not get it, then I have failed to communicate my point. YOU ARE NOT MY INTENDED AUDIENCE. You are someone I want to stop addressing me, replying to me, referring to me, anything ME related. Are you seriously on this thread to start fights among truthers alike over the way they word their posts or to find the truth. So far, it looks like you are just here to talk to me. I am done with this. Reply all you want. Sit here in another 9/11 thread arguing with me over what you think I meant if you like. TOPIC PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Azrael75 and not TWICE you have attacked me, another truther, for NO GOOD REASON,

I did not attack you kid. I just asked you to support your claim. Grow up and get over it.

Originally posted by SauberBMW1. Why would the plane Make a 230 degree turn to hit a site under construction in the pentagon when the most secret part of the pentagon and rumsfield office was in the direct path of the plane.

I THINK you could have just answered your own question if the latter part is true. I am not sure that it is and will have to look into it further to find out, but funny that you ask "why" and then give a plausible explanation for your question, yet say the question has to do with you not believing the official story of a plane being the culprit. good job and typical of those who have questions. They often answer their own questions.. yet don't even realize it..

2. How come we cannot see the two rolls Royce engines. Note Rolls Royce engines are made of high strength vulcanized steel. which means that in order to melt them, you would need a fire hotter than 2000 F which is i think 500 - 600 degrees hotter than what jet fuel burns at. but yet they were able to identify some of the bodies on the plane??

There are many rational reasons why this could have happened although I personally would have to look into this to a) make sure it is true and 2) see which of the many rational explanations is given for this supposed occurrence.

3. How come a couple of days after, the site was covered up by gravel and any other evidence was gathered and they just disappeared

1. evidence would have been gathered and "disappeared" for the obvious reason of investigation 2. www.defenselink.mil... (not sure that it was actually "a couple of days after 9/11" that they "covered" IT up w/ gravel, but here is a link to show their renovations after 9/11.. couple of good photos there too ) [edit on 13-9-2008 by justamomma]

LAST REPLY TO ULTIMA ON THIS EVER

Originally posted by Azrael75 reply to post by Anonymous ATS

 

Of course there is NO WAY that junk plane parts from other planes had been scattered to "stage the scene." There is no way that junk parts could have been part of the initial destruction to set up that scenario. There is NO WAY anything like this could have happend since, as is proper procedure, all parts were identified by SN to belonging to the plane in question.

and just before i posted this i had said this,

reply to post by CatHerder -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Great post, well researched, must have taken alot of work. It is alot of information. I see a photo of an "engine part" that is not identified by the OP. I have also seen that same pic several times with a statement from rolls royce stating that is not the engine they make for the plane they were told hit the building. But the OP does a nice job of going 'see, plane engine on lawn, case closed.' Hardly. How about the plane's wings. I am still waiting for someone to tell me where the wings went. Please do not repost the tired pic with whit scuff marks that could be wing impact zones. I want to know where the plane's wings actually went. [edit on 7-9-2008 by Azrael75]

and every other post i have made has been to either question a truther or point out the huge hole in their logic or statements. If you are reading the thread, then it is obvious i was sarcastic. if you read any other post i made, it is obvious i was sarcastic. if you read what i replied to, it was obvious i was sarcastic. if you are obsessed with me and want to spend 5 pages arguing with me AGAIN and only read one post out of context, then you will assume the wrong thing and look stupid when you turn it into yet another pointless fight. I made my point to whom it was intended and it was in direct relation to the subject of the thread. This pointless derailing is either out of boredom or for revenge for getting yourself banned for falsely attributing quotes to me that I NEVER said last time. I am sorry that you were so wrong, you fought wth me for pages over it, got banned, and never admitted you were wrong. That is no reason to come derail this thread again to fight with me over it. I am here to discuss the contradictions and holes in the 'official' stories around 9/11. Whatever your goal is, pursue it. I know it need not include me since knowing me is not required for membership to ATS. Please, seek the truth in your own way if you must but allow me that same right. Attack the people that actually DISAGREE with you. I promise you will find they are all too willing to carry this fight on for pages and pages, but I think you know that by now. 9/11 please. The topic, not the person, remember? Deny ignorance...if you don't get it, move on, ask for an explanation, but to assume, IS IGNORANT. I have a big problem with the pentagon crash scene. I do not buy what we were told. I know there was NO SERIAL NO. ID. I get all that. I was responding to something in particular and if you cannot read the posts that lead up to a reply, chances are you will not get it. See any examples of me actually sticking up for the 'official' story anywhere? No. Just imagine how much people like yogury and dicombob are enjoying watching us eat each other while they sit back and watch. Just imagine how all the people that came her for truth, info, real discussion, are now playing bejewled or reading about CGI dron pics instead because of this kind of incessant bickering. There is no purpose, no gain to be had, and no point in this argument. Get back to the topic, so I can do the same, so we can all do the same. Whether you got what I meant at first or not, you know now. Argument over. You did not get it, or I worded it poorly. Faults can go to you, me, all around, I do not care. You know what is up now, there is nothing to debate. Stop responding to me for no reason. Unless it is to debate me, and you want to prove the 'official' story, or you want to back up the amazing point I made against the 'official' story. We have no reason to have each other's words or names in another post ever again. I hope that is understood. If you cannot get back on topic, if you insist on publicly insulting me over and over, we need to get the mods in here to address why you have a membership still after completely MISQUOTING two different people and presenting lies about them and getting away with it. WE ARE DONE. [edit on 13-9-2008 by Azrael75]

Originally posted by justamomma

2. How come we cannot see the two rolls Royce engines. Note Rolls Royce engines are made of high strength vulcanized steel. which means that in order to melt them, you would need a fire hotter than 2000 F which is i think 500 - 600 degrees hotter than what jet fuel burns at. but yet they were able to identify some of the bodies on the plane??

There are many rational reasons why this could have happened although I personally would have to look into this to a) make sure it is true and 2) see which of the many rational explanations is given for this supposed occurrence.

I really think you should look into this. We can all only benefit from what you find. But tell me, why would someone who has so far been seemingly rational and intellegent open with

There are many rational reasons why this could have happened although

and close with

2) see which of the many rational explanations is given for this supposed occurrence.

So you start out believing that there are many rational explanations, and then intend to find out if there actually are? That does not sound like very critical thinking. You should start out assuming nothing and find out what evidence there is, then the last thing is the hypothesis in a situation like this one where you are trying to find out what happend. If you have already decided that it makes perfect sense for those engines to disappear, even though you have no idea why, then why bother trying to find out?

Originally posted by SauberBMW How come we cannot see the two rolls Royce engines. Note Rolls Royce engines are made of high strength vulcanized steel. which means that in order to melt them, you would need a fire hotter than 2000 F which is i think 500 - 600 degrees hotter than what jet fuel burns at. but yet they were able to identify some of the bodies on the plane??

I have already posted several times on this. 1. Here is a photo of a engine found at the Pentagon, but i have not been able to match it to a RB211. i22.photobucket.com... 2. I have stated many times and shown the fact that NIST had to come up with new DNA testing for 9/11 becasue if the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane at the Pentagon then it would have been hot enough to destroy DNA. [edit on 13-9-2008 by ULTIMA1] [edit: quote for proper attribution to member's post] [edit on 13-9-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Azrael75 How come we cannot see the two rolls Royce engines. Note Rolls Royce engines are made of high strength vulcanized steel. which means that in order to melt them, you would need a fire hotter than 2000 F which is i think 500 - 600 degrees hotter than what jet fuel burns at. but yet they were able to identify some of the bodies on the plane??

I have already posted several times on this. 1. Here is a photo of a engine found at the Pentagon, but i have not been able to match it to a RB211. i22.photobucket.com... 2. I have stated many times and shown the fact that NIST had to come up with new DNA testing for 9/11 becasue if the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane at the Pentagon then it would have been hot enough to destroy DNA. [edit on 13-9-2008 by ULTIMA1] Now you are really stretching for your personal attacks. Not only are you arguing AGAINST A POINT IN YOUR FAVOR, but it is NOT my post. Twice now you misquoted me and this time you even added my name into the post to make it look as if I said it. Why are you even replying to this point? It speaks in favor of your argument so let it stand. Why are you claiming that I said it? Why are you making this post about your desire to argue with me? Why cant you use the U2U if you want to send me notes that are off topic?