9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I didn't make an error anywhere ray, but you have all your lines on the building in the wrong places, and you have even failed to put your lines on the bottom of the circle where the wings ARE on a 757. They are NOT in the middle of the fuselage they are below it. Come back when you can post something true and not more of these intentional lies.

Originally posted by CatHerder I didn't make an error anywhere ray, but you have all your lines on the building in the wrong places, and you have even failed to put your lines on the bottom of the circle where the wings ARE on a 757. They are NOT in the middle of the fuselage they are below it. Come back when you can post something true and not more of these intentional lies.

I was aware of the fact that the image is a little off and therefore my placement of the bottom of the fuselage was too high. The way I see, it just gives you an advantage, as it appears as less fuselage than you would actually have to account for. But besides that trivial detail that's actually to your benefit, the rest of it stands. It's understandable that you should not want to touch it. But ah, well. It's there for anyone who would like a little eye-opener in regards to some of the more ridiculous things you claim to further your ego-driven agenda here.

Alrighty then. Enough of the back and forth sniping. If you cannot conduct your debate with a modicum of civility please take a virtual 10 second count and peruse another thread until you can. Also, please refrain from misusing members names as though your were taunting them etc. Thanks

Originally posted by FredT Alrighty then. Enough of the back and forth sniping. If you cannot conduct your debate with a modicum of civility please take a virtual 10 second count and peruse another thread until you can. Also, please refrain from misusing members names as though your were taunting them etc. Thanks

Out of curiousity, would this include mis-addressing a member after they have offered corrections several times? From the way you word this, I would assume not; which means as long as my mis-rendering of CatHerder's username isn't a taunt, it's apparently legit?

From what I remember from way back earlier in the post, the picture of the apparent wing damage went up at an angle from the hole the fuselage put in the building, just like if the plane had rolled and the wing struck the building. It crossed several beams, going at an upward angle towards the roof of the building.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 From what I remember from way back earlier in the post, the picture of the apparent wing damage went up at an angle from the hole the fuselage put in the building, just like if the plane had rolled and the wing struck the building. It crossed several beams, going at an upward angle towards the roof of the building.

I know what you're talking about, and I think that was in address of the right wing, which apparently hit some generator and was knocked upwards. The left wing, however, suffered no such incident.

No, it didn't, but if the right wing was going up, and the plane was rolling to the port, then the left wing wouldn't have reacted the same way you would expect it too either. It would hit pretty level, due to the fact that the wings are angled up slightly when the plane is in level flight.

Sure, but what I'm pointing out is that the wings are connected to the bottom of the fuselage, and their positions are relative to where the fuselage is. Nothing hit the left wing to knock it out of place, and yet there is no evidence of the fuselage hitting the facade of the Pentagon anywhere above that line that Herder claims is damage from the left wing. Source. Notice two things here. A) Where the wings would have struck (around the middle of the first floor). B) The amount of fuselage sticking out above the first floor, that would have impacted the second floor. Taking into account the tilt: Same source. So, once again, Where is the damage to the second floor? The portion of the second floor that is damaged isn't even a full puncture wound, and in fact the windows there aren't even knocked out. The full puncture in this region is all on the first floor. So are you guys saying that's where the top of the fuselage, hanging above the first floor, went in on impact?

It was pointed out much earlier in this thread that the strength of the top half of the fuselage is much less than the bottom, the top is virtually just a 'skin'. If you look back you'll not only see the post but also photos of a plane being built where you can clearly see this, I can't remember which page it is on though and with nearly a 100 of them now, I can't frankly be bothered to look as I've already seen it. When you understand how they are built then it becomes pretty obvious to be honest, I was dubious until I found out and then it became clear. It's also worth noting with regards to the 'lack of debris' that in the recent Greek crash the largest part of the plane that was left was that bit of tailfin we all saw on the news. They smash up pretty good you know. And that one had run out of fuel: news.bbc.co.uk... I don't know what the terminal velocity of an airliner is that is falling from the sky, but I would not be suprised if it is considerably less than the speed at which the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. When you bear that in mind and see how little there was left intact, it says a lot. [edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith It was pointed out much earlier in this thread that the strength of the top half of the fuselage is much less than the bottom, the top is virtually just a 'skin'.

So you're saying that since the top of the fuselage is much weaker than the bottom, A) It wouldn't cause much damage at all to the facade of the Pentagon at all after a 500-mph impact while its much weaker left wing allegedly leaves clear impact evidence, and B) It would then somehow, in its entire length, be folded into the small hole along the bottom of the floor, along with the wings and everything else that is missing from the crash site (basically a whole 757). Well, if that's what you want to believe, then ok, because I'm too lazy to dig out any physics or etc. to show how likely that would've been. But it would take a little more than that to finally convince me of a 757's impact. Also, did anyone take a look at this page?: www.kolumbus.fi...

Great page, but there is more evidence of it BEING a 757 than anything else. The top portion of the fuselage would have caused significantly less damage than the rest of the fuselage, but with all the pictures, and the way the building collapsed it would be very easy to miss the damage it caused. All of the pre-collapse pictures were too obscured to tell much from them.

Well there isn't much left of that greek crash either than that piece of tailfin, as I pointed out. So I guess that was infact just a missile or drone too. Like you or someone pointed out with that jet fighter video, when you look how little damage it made and how little was left, then it makes perfect sense when you scale it up slightly. And yes, the top section of the airliner is substantially weaker than the bottom. How many times do we have to say it? Have a look at photos of one being made and it's pretty obvious.. And why do you keep pratting on about it being folded in? It disintegrated mate, just like the fighter did in the crash video and just like the greek airliner. [edit on 28-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith Well there isn't much left of that greek crash either than that piece of tailfin, as I pointed out. So I guess that was infact just a missile or drone too. Like you or someone pointed out with that jet fighter video, when you look how little damage it made and how little was left, then it makes perfect sense when you scale it up slightly.

I'm not convined of what hit the Pentagon yet, which is one of the reasons I'm posting on this thread at all: to learn. It may very well be that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, but nonetheless, some points that CatHerder have brought up appear to be inaccurate if not outright wrong (ie, the misplaced, alleged wing damage that he refuses to address). Maybe those points are trivial to the whole case, but they're also the points worth looking into more.

And yes, the top section of the airliner is substantially weaker than the bottom. How many times do we have to say it? Have a look at photos of one being made and it's pretty obvious..

I'm not contesting this at all. You're using a straw-man here in suggesting I am. But don't you think the top of the fuselage, especially in all its length, would be able to inflict a little more damage on a 500 mph impact than a mere wing? Or maybe even the same general type of damage? On one hand, you have a long black line, and on the other, a small indention in the facade with not even a full puncture. You've yet to explain away this problem.

And why do you keep pratting on about it being folded in? It disintegrated mate, just like the fighter did in the crash video and just like the greek airliner.

Do you know how long the fuselage is? The whole damned thing, in all its length, would not disintegrate from this impact no matter how you look at it. Maybe the nose of it would "disintegrate," who knows. But the whole damned thing? And common (official) Pentagon theory suggests that they wings were sucked into the hole. So, somehow, at least portions of the wings would've been sucked into this hole, but at the same time, you think the whole fuselage disintegrated. When it comes to unfounded theorizing, you guys sure are imaginative. [edit on 28-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11 So you're saying that since the top of the fuselage is much weaker than the bottom, A) It wouldn't cause much damage at all to the facade of the Pentagon at all after a 500-mph impact while its much weaker left wing allegedly leaves clear impact evidence, and

The wings are NOT "much weaker" than the top half of an aircraft's fuselage...

B) It would then somehow, in its entire length, be folded into the small hole along the bottom of the floor, along with the wings and everything else that is missing from the crash site (basically a whole 757).

Nobody anywhere has said it would be "folded into the hole" -- it broke up, shattered, it smashed and shredded into small pieces that "rained down for minutes" as numerous eyewitnesses were quoted saying regarding the debris falling from the sky after the crash.

Well, if that's what you want to believe, then ok, because I'm too lazy to dig out any physics or etc. to show how likely that would've been. But it would take a little more than that to finally convince me of a 757's impact.

bsbray11, I highly doubt that you are "too lazy to dig out physics" but I strongly suspect you are not educated enough to do so. It's extremely apparent given your basic lack of understanding of what is strong and what is weak. You then go on to COMPLETELY REVERSE YOURSELF in the next post where you do a 180 and prattle on about how you don't think the top half is strong etc etc. If that were the case, what the hell was your point of repeating how strong the top half is, and how it didn't punch a hole in the building. Surely you remember this, it was in all your posts where you were busily calling me "Sheepherder" among other things (funny how you pretended to not do that either when a mod mentioned it). Was your sole point in going on about how the top portion of the fuselage didn't fit into the hole merely to attack me? You seem to take great pleasure from posting meaningless bullshit in response to any of my posts. Even when you're shown to be 100% wrong you still babble on about nonsense just to see yourself type... [edit on 28-8-2005 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by bsbray11 I'm not convined of what hit the Pentagon yet, which is one of the reasons I'm posting on this thread at all: to learn. It may very well be that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, but nonetheless, some points that CatHerder have brought up appear to be inaccurate if not outright wrong (ie, the misplaced, alleged wing damage that he refuses to address). Maybe those points are trivial to the whole case, but they're also the points worth looking into more.

I have already responded to it NINE TIMES IN THIS THREAD. I have NEVER refused to respond to it, and I have spent far more time on it than it is worth. It's not my fault that you are either too inept to grasp the reality of the evidence for yourself, or that you are just posting to perpetuate some sort of bickerfest with me. If you came here for a war of wits ray, I decline -- I take no pleasure in going to battle with somebody who comes unarmed. Either start posting truths and informative counterpoints or shut the fuck up already. You make this forum extremely unpleasant.

Please keep this discussion civil, DO NOT take it or make it personal. Final Warning.

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by bsbray11 So you're saying that since the top of the fuselage is much weaker than the bottom, A) It wouldn't cause much damage at all to the facade of the Pentagon at all after a 500-mph impact while its much weaker left wing allegedly leaves clear impact evidence, and

The wings are NOT "much weaker" than the top half of an aircraft's fuselage...

What, then? A little weaker? 4/7ths weaker? lol... The point is, you're claiming that the wings, in their massive enourmousness (sarcastic), made a big black line across the facade, but the top 3/5 of the fuselage did absolutely nothing to the facade. Rather than damaging the facade, you claim the top 3/5 of the fuselage exploded into fragments and rained down. Let me tell you, that it doesn't look like that happened in the least. I'll give it to you that there were some fragments that blew into the air, but not 3/5 of the fuselage. I don't think the personal attacks need to be addressed. I'm still wondering where the top of the fuselage went, if your assessment of the left wing's damage is as accurate as you believe it is. Let me try to present these again to make sure my point is understood.. Look at the representations, and then imagine one of them being placed over the Pentagon photograph so that the yellow lines match up with the left wing. Then look above the alleged wing damage. Where is the damage from the top 3/5 of the fuselage? I don't think it's really that big of a point, for example, if you were to just admit that the black line could not possibly have been damage from the left wing of a 757. At least, not in this situation. If it is, then there was something horribly wrong with the placement of the fuselage. [edit on 28-8-2005 by bsbray11] Er, btw,

Originally posted by CatHerder Surely you remember this, it was in all your posts where you were busily calling me "Sheepherder" among other things (funny how you pretended to not do that either when a mod mentioned it).

I never pretend as though I hadn't but rather I was simply and honestly inquiring. SheepHerder is, of course, more of a taunt than you constantly calling me "ray." However, I have asked you several times by now to address me as "Bray" or simply "bsbray" if you want, which are actually more accurate, but you continue to call me "ray." I've gotten over it by now, but I think it's become apparent that your use of it is indeed meant to mock me, which is why I was inquiring about its usage. [edit on 28-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11 Also, did anyone take a look at this page?: www.kolumbus.fi...

Good site there. Someone who is actually using official story to make their claim and showing the obvious holes in the governments physics.

Yeah, and an interesting note in the abstract, too:

This article looks at The Pentagon Building Performance Report (January 2003) by the American Society of Civil Engineers (available on the internet). The key conclusion reached is that the Report fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 was caused by a crash by a Boeing 757 aircraft. The main purpose of the Report seems therefore to be to back the official, untruthful story about the events of 9/11. However, part of the inconsistencies are so glaring that an intention of sabotaging the said main purpose cannot be excluded.

Emphasis mine. www.kolumbus.fi... But then again, you know, NIST and FEMA made some pretty arrogant blunders in their dealings with certain aspects of the WTC. I suppose as long as it appears as though they're debunking conspiracies, people won't look too much further. And I'm sure they're right on that point for the most part. "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." - GWB [edit on 29-8-2005 by bsbray11]

i don't know. first, not so sheepish catherder convinced me that maybe a hijacked plane DID hit the pentagon. there are pictures of burnt stuff that clearly show the right type of wheel. that couldn't be faked, eh? and then some scraps of metal with the right primer from boeing. couldn't fake that possibly, eh? so because of some TOTALLY IRREFUTABLE evidence(tongue in cheek) that points to a passenger jet, there is no reason to consider the points of impact being so kindly illustrated by bsbray11, here? i have changed my mind(again), and decided that whatever hit the pentagon is completely UNCLEAR, according to AVAILABLE EVIDENCE(why do "official" agencies keep destroying and hiding evidence?). apparently on that fateful day, the HAARP array in alaska was unusually active. can the HAARP array be used to induce mass hallucination? this tinfoil hat-wearing REALIST doesn't know. ats may not be as safe as it seems to innocent "seekers" who have no idea of the REALITY of a real-world "skynet". p.s. You have voted bsbray11 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month. [edit on 29-8-2005 by billybob]