9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Larry, That is easy. It wasn't a controlled demolition. There is no evidence of explosives at all. There were dozens of cameras and hundreds of police, firefighters and other witnesses close enough to the building when is fell that the sounds of any explosives would have been clearly and distinctly noted, and widely reported. The only evidence to support the claim that it was a controlled demolition is that "it looks like a controlled demolition." I'm sorry but that doesn't cut it. "it looks like a controlled demolition" as compared to what? I made a pice of toast today that "looked like the face of Jesus." Does that mean that it was? no, so I ate it. What should it have looked like? The building was big enough that the only way it could have collapsed is straight down. There are clear indications of physical damage to the structure form the collapse of tower 1. Don't forget that WTC 6, next to WTC 7 also suffered a collapse. Because WTC 6 was built with a different structural support system then WTC 1, 2, and 7, it only suffered a partial collapse, but a collapse it was.

Your undying denial never ceases to amaze me. You should be a politician or a spin doctor. You'd be good at it.

I can't believe this is still alive after 3-1/2 years. Just take the evidence at face value and see if it adds up. 2 hijacked jets crash into towers 1 & 2 both collapse in what looks like a controlled demolition building 7 also collapses in a manner consistant with a controlled demo The worlds most secure building gets hit by another hijacked airliner well after the first two crashed without being captured on video, without being intercepted by a fighter jet in DC and without any evidence that a jet even hit the building with the exception of a fireball. 4th jet goes down after a battle between hijackers and heros despite parts found miles away and despite eye witness accounts of a jet going to intercept. Lets not forget the numerous clear phone calls made from a fast moving jet that were later proven in experiments to have been impossible to have been made. Oh.. I forgot. We knew almost immediately who the hijackers were and who the ringleader was. Some things can be a coincidence but how many things can you get at one time before foul play is suspected? This seems like alot for 19 men from the slums of the middle east.

And they still haven't even been identified, apparently. The fact that the list of hijackers wasn't correct was never even mentioned again, was it? It's like it was just an unimportant detail best ignored by the officials. Did they just pretend they didn't hear about that, so no explanation was necessary?

I never realized the list of names was incorrect. I am sure it has been mentioned many times but I just missed it.

Originally posted by Moe Foe Your undying denial never ceases to amaze me.

You should be a politician or a spin doctor. You'd be good at it.

It is called denial of ignorance. It is the height of ignorance to beleive that the WTC buildings collapsed due to "controlled demolition" charges. It is the height of ignorance to claim that anything other than a 757 hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by Indy I can't believe this is still alive after 3-1/2 years. Just take the evidence at face value and see if it adds up. 2 hijacked jets crash into towers 1 & 2 both collapse in what looks like a controlled demolition building 7 also collapses in a manner consistant with a controlled demo The worlds most secure building gets hit by another hijacked airliner well after the first two crashed without being captured on video, without being intercepted by a fighter jet in DC and without any evidence that a jet even hit the building with the exception of a fireball. 4th jet goes down after a battle between hijackers and heros despite parts found miles away and despite eye witness accounts of a jet going to intercept. Lets not forget the numerous clear phone calls made from a fast moving jet that were later proven in experiments to have been impossible to have been made. Oh.. I forgot. We knew almost immediately who the hijackers were and who the ringleader was. Some things can be a coincidence but how many things can you get at one time before foul play is suspected? This seems like alot for 19 men from the slums of the middle east.

And I can not believe that after 31/2 years you have still refused to learn or understand basic science, logic, or even the facts surrounding the event. ”both collapse in what looks like a controlled demolition building 7 also collapses in a manner consistant with a controlled demo “ Gues what, it looks to me like the sun revolves around the earth. The sun’s movement across the sky is consistent with the moon, therefore, according to the logic that you use, the sun must revolve around the earth. ”The worlds most secure building gets hit by another hijacked airliner well after the first two crashed without being captured on video, without being intercepted by a fighter jet in DC and without any evidence that a jet even hit the building with the exception of a fireball.” The Pentagon is an office building, it is not “The worlds most secure building “ by any stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately, in the confusion of that morning, no one at the FAA notified NORAD that flight 77 was was also a potential hijacked until about 5 minutes before it hit the building. People are fallible. Murphy’s law rules. Sh1t happens. It was captured on video. There is plenty of evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. RTFT. As for the debris scattered from flight 93,

More 9/13 from: www.thepittsburghchannel.com... (note, old link) A light rain fell Thursday night and Friday morning. Crowley said that may turn out to be a good thing, because it may help settle the massive amounts of dust that were created when the plane crashed. The dust had risen in clouds, then settled and covered much of the evidence. As a result, search crews have had difficulty determining the actual depth of the crater. WTAE's Jim Parsons reported Wednesday that debris had been found miles off-site and removed by non-search party members. Crowley confirmed that debris was found in New Baltimore, Pa., which is 8 miles away from the crash scene, as well as Indian Lake, which is 2 1/2 miles away from the crash scene. NTSB officials said the debris in New Baltimore is probably from the crash, according to Crowley. The debris found in New Baltimore include paper and nylon, Crowley said. He said that the items are lightweight and can easily be carried by wind. At the time of the crash, there was wind speed of 9 knots per hour [10.5 mph] heading to the southeast, where both Indian Lake and New Baltimore are located. Jim Brant, owner of Indian Lake Marina, said he rushed outside Tuesday morning when he heard the roar of jet engines overhead, then saw a fireball rise into the air. The wind was strong that morning, Brant said, and within minutes debris from the crash was "falling like confetti." State Police Maj. Lyle Szupinka said anyone who took debris would be prosecuted if the evidence is not returned.

the blast and fireball from the impact with the ground would have thrown up debris into the sky. Lighter bits, like paper and nylon would have risen high enough to have blown quite some distance before it came down. What is your issue with that? ”Lets not forget the numerous clear phone calls made from a fast moving jet that were later proven in experiments to have been impossible to have been made.” Yeah, right. Nice try. It is perfectly possible to make cell phone calls from airplanes. They also have phones right on the planes themselves.

The worlds most secure building

I really wish people would at least get this part correct. The Pentagon is nowhere close to being the most secure building in the world. But I guess it makes your arguement sound a little better to say that.

Originally posted by HowardRoark It is called denial of ignorance.

I rather think it's called denial of reality, or any desire to find out the truth. You'd rather just believe than investigate. It's easier, right?

The problem is, Moe, your basic premise is flawed. You are approaching this under the assumption that all official accounts are somehow under the complete and utter control of the U.S. government. This is B.S., and you know it. You assume that every government agency, from the NYFD and the NYPD, the Pennsylvania State police, The Washington D.C. fire department, NORAD, the USAF, the FAA, NIST, FEMA, the NTSB, as well as hundreds of non-government groups like universities, and such are all involved in this massive conspiracy. On the other hand, I see the U.S. government as a bunch of bungling goofs, well meaning and earnest, but like Baby Huey, bit uncoordinated and heavy handed. While as a rule the agencies and individuals are competent in their chosen fields of study, in the whole, the government is hidebound and non-communicative, while being weighed down by bureaucracy, petty fiefdoms, and middle management. They are as incapable of organizing and maintaining a secret conspiracy as my Aunt Betsy is of flying an f-15. Thus, I can look at the NIST reports and recognize the truth and the integrity behind the science and the research involved. I can look at the structural conditions involved with the WTC towers and can understand the collapse mechanisms without resorting to the use of imaginary explosive devices. I can read the eye witness accounts and appreciate the utter confusion and chaos, of the day and the propensity of the human mind to find familiar analogies to explain the horrors of a 110 story building crashing to earth. I can see and accept the roles that random chance, and Mr. Murphy's law, play in everyday events and especially in events like 9/11. I don't see evil bogeymen everywhere. I see a group of insane religious fanatics that perpetrated a horrific attack on the U.S. An attack that was as successful as it was, largely based on those things that make America great, our freedoms and our open society.

I know you like to talk tough and act like you know what you are talking about with this lame comment.. "There is plenty of evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. RTFT. " But it has been clearly shown that there is no evidence. It has been well picked apart by many. And your video.. where is it? Where is this great video of the jet hitting the pentagon? I've only seen a fireball. Humor me. Even the f**king Department of Defense says there is no other. I received confirmation from my senator's office. Although I know it to be a lie because of reports that other videos were taken by offers from a gas station and hotel. But the very denial of the existance of these videos by the DoD is strong evidence of a coverup.

Indy, from the beginning, as ably demonstrated by catherder in this thread, there has never been any doubt that flight 77 struck the pentagon. Persist in your delusions, I don't care.

Where is the proof? You can keep repeating that its true but that doesn't make it true. There is no physical evidence. There is no photographic evidence. We have seen the pictures of the pentagon after something hit and before the wall collapsed. There is no sign of a jet. No gaping hole, no metal all over. Nothing. Be we are just suppoed to take someones word for it? You may think that THIS thread proves something but there are others on here that prove it wrong. There is more evidence to support it being something other than an AA 757 then there is to support that it was one.

"It is the height of ignorance to claim that anything other than a 757 hit the pentagon." Actually it is the height of ignorance to think one did. You think a "C" student that had a problem with a little 4 seater could have pulled the move off that this supposed terrorist did? That is ignorance. It would have been difficult for a stunt pilot to pull that one off. Its like thinking I could qualify for the Indy 500. I can drive. But lets face it I'm not a race car driver. Its not just that this guy was a bad flight student you are talking about someone who took the controls of a real 757 for the first time and pulled off an incredible move. Its just absolute ignorance to believe that as fact.

Its not just that this guy was a bad flight student you are talking about someone who took the controls of a real 757 for the first time and pulled off an incredible move.

What incredible move would that be? Its not like he was doing barrel rolls and stunt tricks. I guess you have never read news reports of non pilots landing planes after the pilot dies or is incapacitated while flying. While uncommon it has happened. The basics are still the same on any plane.

Its like thinking I could qualify for the Indy 500. I can drive. But lets face it I'm not a race car driver.

No it would be more like simply being able to drive the race car. You don't have to be a great pilot to turn a plane and and crash it into a building, unless you buy into what all those other conspiracy theorists like to state as fact. [edit on 19/4/05 by Skibum]

There is a big difference between holding a plane steady (which I have done), making some course changes (which I have done) (in a lousy 4 seater like this guy had done in training) and taking a 757 a super high speeds, making a dive for a target and pulling up and holding steady a few feet off the floor before slamming into the building. All this without ever flying a 757 before. Most all cases involving a non pilot landing a plane usually involve the little 4 seaters or 2 seaters. I was able to take off from Merritt Island FL and Fly to Sandord FL my very first time in a plane. I had someone sitting next to me letting me know what to do. But it wasn't hard. A jet doesn't even compare.

How do you know that he wasn't aiming for the top of the building?

Hi guys...I'm back...haven't been here since October (a big scary being made me run away in disgust) ....and yes, I did read the whole thread... Howard, you said "Indy, from the beginning, as ably demonstrated by catherder in this thread, there has never been any doubt that flight 77 struck the pentagon." As the main thrust of this thread was proving that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, it's drawing a pretty long bow to then state that it was flight 77 Let's not jump to any conclusions here...there's absolutely no evidence (apart from the authorities, regarding DNA tests) that this was flight 77, regardless of proof that it was a 757. Another thing I noticed, which nobody has commented on, is the discrepency between the 'regular' and 'overexposed' surveillance footage. On the 'overexposed' version, you can see the compression of the cover glass from the explosion (slight movement of the smudges on the glass) On the supposed 'untampered with' version (put up in one of the early posts), I couldn't see this movement of the glass, in fact, it looked unrealistically static. To me, this indicated that it was the 'regular exposure' version that was tampered with. Or could I just not see the movement because it was smaller format? Peace to all

OK, I went and got the two vids so we can A/B them... Here's the supposed untampered with 'normal exposure' clip... Now here's the supposedly dodgy 'overexposed' clip... any comments ?....any glaring discrepencies here ? Peace dudes

Well, considering that the second video clip is composed of individual frames that have been extracted from the original, digitally manipulated then reassembled into a clip, no, not really. Note that the date label on the bottom of the second video jumps around also. Whoever did the photoshop contrast manipulation on the second video, did not do a good job registering the images to the same points. Even the shadow of the gate machine jumps around, and I don’t thing that the explosion was big enough to cause that