9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by SauberBMW 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

Either Ultima needs to explain how he can post a reply claiming that I made this statement or be banned. This is two blatant lies on top of arguing with me over context for two pages in between. [edit on 13-9-2008 by Azrael75]

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] I expect a full retraction, appology, or banning.

Originally posted by Azrael75 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.

Gee, what is your problem? I was not arguing against the point i was supporting the point and you. [edit on 13-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Azrael75 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.

Gee, what is your problem? I was not arguing against the point i was supporting the point.

my problem is that I am sick of you claiming that I say things I do not. You attributed quotes to me before that belonged to someone else. Now you have edited my name into this one for NO REASON. MY WORDS ARE MY WORDS. If you want to reply to BMW about what they said, who am I to stop you. Why you felt the need to put in "originally posted by azrael75" is what I need an explanation for.

Originally posted by Azrael75 Why you felt the need to put in "originally posted by azrael75" is what I need an explanation for.

Gee, what is your problem? I was not arguing against the point i was supporting the point and you.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Azrael75 Why you felt the need to put in "originally posted by azrael75" is what I need an explanation for.

Gee, what is your problem? I was not arguing against the point i was supporting the point and you.

can we do this over and over again? MY PROBLEM is that you attributed an entire quote to me that I NEVER said. Admit you messed up, appologize, take it back. You are a liar. You are more worried about arguing with me than talking about 9/11. I asked you to leave me alone and you post to respond to someone else and put my name on it for what??????????????????????????????????

Originally posted by Azrael75 Admit you messed up, appologize, take it back.

Since you beleive i posted it as an attack against you i will repost it, OK?

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 on 13-9-2008 by ULTIMA1] [edit: proper attribution of quoted content] [edit on 13-9-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Azrael75 Admit you messed up, appologize, take it back.

Since you beleive i posted it as an attack against you i will repost it, OK?

I believe you posted it as "originally posted by azrael" when I never said it. That is what I believe. I could care less if you agree or not, if it was an attack or not. It was not my quote yet it began by giving me credit. That is a lie, and disrespectful to the actual original poster of it. You owe them an appology for stealing their quote and giving me credit for it. You owe me an appology for, yet again, claiming that something was said by me that was NOT. If it was supportive, great, wasnt my point, so why say I said it? I expect everyone here to at least try to be honest. You have done nothing but lie to believers and fight with truthers. That is getting noone anywhere in any of these threads. I asked that my name never come up again and the next post has my name in it FOR NO REASON. I do not know how you could possible still not get that you cannot take one person's quote and state that someone else said it the way that you did. I promise if you continue to argue this point instead of admit you should not have claimed I said it, you will get it the next time. I guarantee.

Originally posted by Azrael75 I believe you posted it as "originally posted by azrael" when I never said it. That is what I believe. .

Well believe whatever you like, i just cannot have an adult discussion with you.

OKAY. Now that we have the Quote issue squared away with Proper attribution given to the member who originally posted it...

CAN WE PLEASE STEER THE DISCUSSION BACK TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC?

Thank you.   » 9/11 Conspiracies » 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon » Post Reply   The Off-Topic bickering over misquotes and back and forth banter over individual perceptions of fellow member's character and or person... STOPS NOW!   The topic Please... THE TOPIC. [edit on 13-9-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by 12m8keall2c I do not understand what point there is in hoping for an honest, open discussion over a topic when one particular side gets away with putting words in other people's mouths all the time. That is how FOX news opperates. I guess I expected a little more intellectual honesty here at ATS. This is the last 9/11 thread I had left undeleted for it was not yet lost to trolling and personal bickering. The sad part is I enjoyed reading them more than contributing, but still found plenty to add. I also learned a great deal, and that is what I feel is the most important thing. That people come here for the truth get to learn some, is truly what makes ATS worth anything at all. But now, not just myself, but I have seen this happen before. One person is misrepresenting others and the mods let it go long enough to become embedded in peoples minds that it was said and then end it without at least pointing the truth as well and stating case closed. I feel that if the discussions are now degraded to the point where it would be ok for me to post "discombobulator originally posted that he loves strawberry shortcake and cannot wait for the newly designed collection to hit shelves" then there is no point at all in worrying about any other truth. He never stated that by the way, that is a coplete lie what I just stated about discombobulator, just for the record, I have no idea what kinds of dolls he likes and have no quote either way. My point is, if that kind of quoting is ok, what will the conversations translate to next? I think all thinking persons can see where that leads. Sorry if the most derailing post I made was to put the name of the actual person stating something that was attributed to me but I felt that if the mods wanted this truly squared away, giving proper credit was necessary. How can any of us find the truth here with that kind of atmosphere. I never came looking for a fight. I admit I had my 9/11 beliefs in hand when I joined ATS but I had an open mind and eyes as well. I have learned a great deal and it has made me a stronger believer in some things and more skeptical of others. I would love to find a place where people as polar opposite as Throatyogurt and I could actually share what we each knew but hey I guess that place is no longer here. How many times should I claim the I need to know where the wings went to keep this on topic? Does anyone else think that we are all going around and around too either? Questions get asked, theories posed, answers given, but nothing really lines up. It is all always just enough off to make the fight keep going. I am not the only one asking about the wings, yet the answer never came, and it did not convert anyone believeing the 'official' story either so where does that take us? Where did the wings go? [edit on 13-9-2008 by Azrael75]

Last admonition... Any off topic discussion will be dealt with administratively... No exceptions... period. This thread falls under the "Big Thread' and "9/11" guidelines... Both have a zero tolerance policy towards off topic discussion. Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny. And New ATS Policy For Very-Large Threads (Serpo!) Please review the above links.

Originally posted by Azrael75 Where did the wings go?

I was watching a documentary about the Pentagon attack a few days ago, and for the first time I heard testimony from someone who claimed that pieces of the left wing and engine were found embedded in the ground immediately before the Pentagon wall. I had never heard that claim before, though would not be surprised if it has been discussed to death here already (probably within this thread). [edit on 13-9-2008 by discombobulator]

reply to post by Azrael75 Jesus *snip*, i wasn't quoting you or saying you said it. i was asking a question that ANYONE can answer. ANYONE so before you go saying that you want an apology or want me banned, maybe you should read someones post carefully. As for the Engines, please don't tell me that you honestly believe that that that picture you posted belongs to it. that looks more like the fuselage. as for the wings, if the plane did impact the ground before hitting the pentagon, then it wouldn't have went that deep. the plane was said to be traveling at ~586 kmh when it it so the plane hitting the ground would vaporize it. Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link. [edit on 13-9-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by Kellter Laughing my ass off at the sarcasm. Can you explain why the FBI won't release ANY video that would show such a plane striking the Pentagon? No you can't.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 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]

Hi ULTIMA, that picture has been identified on a lot of "truther" sites as being a construction trailer.. its on 911 review I think.. here is Russel Pickerings thesis.. www.rense.com... if you look at the (more or less) straight pieces, you can see that its the frame of a trailer.. also there is what looks like "ribs" in the rest or it that matches perfectly with the usual sheet metal construction of a trailer/mobile home.. so there is no way to identify it as belonging to any type of plane.. however the smaller "engine parts" have been identified as most likely coming from a Rolls Royce RB211.. see this link.. www.aerospaceweb.org... by the way, have you ever read Jim Hoffman's analysis of the pentagon? 911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by pccat so there is no way to identify it as belonging to any type of plane.. however the smaller "engine parts" have been identified as most likely coming from a Rolls Royce RB211.. see this link.. www.aerospaceweb.org... by the way, have you ever read Jim Hoffman's analysis of the pentagon? 911research.wtc7.net...

Most likely? is it or is it not? Rolls Royce will not claim that it is the engine in question. How can anything be put forth in one of these threads with a "most likely" explanation. Isn't that how NIST did their studies isn't it? Can anyone put forth any documentation proving those engine parts were identified by Rolls Royce and what they really belong to? It seems that would have been one of the first pieces of evidence here to hold up against truthers. You have a pic of an engine. If it was positively Identified by Roll's Royce as the engine it is said to be or "most likely" is, then why are you debunkers not holding it high in the air saying look, proof of the plane that went in there? And anytime anyone wants to address where the wings went would be awesome. That seems to be very conveniently unanswered repeatedly here.