What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[Scott]

Bad pics, Scott. Too blurry for accurate and pertinent analysis.

I don't see how anyone can say that with a straight face.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg
When I look at this picture I see a very clear nose of a craft that is obviously too pointed to be the nose of a 757. It has a very clear shadow under it. The shadow line is clear. The shadow is consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon.
The camera that took it may have had a fish-eye lens but would that distort the image of a 757 nose to make it look like that?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Paul; The Pentagon's security cameras show some aircraft being shattered by a missile automatically from one of the defense batteries that surround the Pentagon. The Pentagon admits the aircraft came in low. It did so to get under the radar that controls those missles. Fight 77 had a wing span of 129 feet. It CANNOT fly that low and that fast due to the ground effect cushion that is formed. 757's have to stall, that is quit flying, in order fly that close to the ground. Cruise Missles and remotely piloted vehicles such as the US's Global Hawks, however , can. What hit the Pentagon? Peace be with you, Paul

What hit the Pentagon?

A Bird.... Superman..... No! It Was A Plane!!

where did all the people on 77 disapear to if it was another plane? I'm sure all the families are in on it too?

To what end? Why wouldn't they just use the plane? It can't fly at low altitudes? It's a plane? It lands does it not? Drop the wheels and coast straight into the building.

[ZNFYRH]

What are you even looking at to get the impression there was a 757?

Have you seen the pictures of the Pentagon immediately following the attack?

Where was the 757?

http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911...gon-aerial.jpg

Can you find for me the wings of the alleged 757?

Let's do some math...

Floor count 110 Floor area 8.6 million sq ft

That's for the World Trade Center. Divide by 110 gives you roughly 78,182 sq ft per floor.

Let's find the root of that... 279.6 ft per side.

Look!! I was close!!

Image:World Trade Center Building Design with Floor and Elevator Arrangment.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

280 ft x 280 ft.

Now from the videos of the planes hitting the WTC, we can see that the plane did not completely pass through the WTC. Otherwise, it would have shot out the other side and plummeted to the ground.

So that means, even if it hit at a perfect diagonal (which it didn't), it failed to pass through the hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle. Which happens to be 396 ft.

The point of all this?

An accelerating plane failed to pass through 396 ft of office space. The fuel explosion passed through.

Yet from the pictures, we're supposed to believe that a 757, which just executed a tight dive and level maneuver (in order to pass under a bridge and hit the Pentagon straight on), managed to pass through the whole structure?

From The Pentagon

he crash caused a gash on the west side of the Pentagon measuring 30 yards wide and 10 yards deep; 185,693 square feet were damaged and 37,161 square feet were destroyed. Three of the five Pentagon rings were damaged.

Only 10 yards deep and it damaged three rings?

Then why do we see this?

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-b...ntagon9-11.jpg

It passed through three rings of one of the most structurally reinforced buildings in history, traveling at less than 200 MPH, and left a small exit hole?

I doubt it.

I'd buy this story first: Google Image Result for http://portland.indymedia.org/media/images/2005/01/307128.jpg

Give this amount of space:
http://rense.com/1.imagesE/pent.jpg

And the survival of an SUV in the presence of an allegedly high-speed 757:
http://car.batcave.net/8127p.jpg

You're going to have to drop your "straight face" comment and really come at me with some math of how the 757 story is plausible.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Scott; I don't see how anyone can say that with a straight face. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg When I look at this picture I see a very clear nose of a craft that is obviously too pointed to be the nose of a 757. It has a very clear shadow under it. The shadow line is clear. The shadow is consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. The camera that took it may have had a fish-eye lens but would that distort the image of a 757 nose to make it look like that?

What the heck are you all smoking? Man you guys have been watching way too much CSI. Not only it the picture loaded with lense flares, it's distorted, as well as a low resolution photo, not to mention no date of the image..... how the hell can this be used for any defense?

You try and blow that picture up and tell me what blobs you find, because I've tried all the tricks, and there's only so much you can do with a pixel based image, esspecially one from a digital video from security.

No matter what CSI tells you, two square pixels, when blown up, will just give you two big blurry pixels.... there's not enough quality or information in this shot to prove or disprove anything.

For all we know, this is someone's camera phone in front of their high school.

[Scott]

You're going to have to drop your "straight face" comment and really come at me with some math of how the 757 story is plausible.

You misunderstood me. I'm saying that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a 757. The picture I posted shows the nose of a plane that is too pointed to be the nose of a 757.

What the heck are you all smoking? Man you guys have been watching way too much CSI. Not only it the picture loaded with lense flares, it's distorted, as well as a low resolution photo, not to mention no date of the image..... how the hell can this be used for any defense?

So what do you think it is? Is it the nose of a 757? It can only be the front of an aircraft.

Look at the nose of a 757.
http://www.aviacol.net/images/stories/N651AA-2.jpg

It looks more like the nose of a fighter.
http://www.markwaki.com/pages/images...20NG100SHR.jpg

This picture looks very clear to me.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg

[ZNFYRH]

And I'm saying that it wasn't even an aircraft.

A fighter jet wouldn't rip a hole in the side of the Pentagon that big, at that angle, and make a little hole on the other side like that.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Paul; In ALL the pictures that I have seen of the the Pentagon since AA Flight 77 disappeared or ['thecrash into the Pentagon'???] I have not seen any evidence of a Boeing 757 wreckage. Maybe I'm blind. Has anyone seen the wreckage of AA Flight 77 for the sake the passengers and crew members on that Boeing 757? Peace be with you, Paul

How many planes have you seen that didn't disintergrate on impact? Hence why nobody usually survives a crash?

Heard of Swiss Air off the coast of Nova Scotia, where I live? They just hit flat ocean.... obliterated into pieces. You hit a runway, and you sometimes get chucks, but any other impact for the most part will rip a plane to shreds, if it doesn't explode first.

And I've seen pieces in photos of the incident.

And why wouldn't they use the other jet if they used the other jets that day? Seriously people, I enjoy a decent conspiracy as much as the next one, but this has nothing.

[Praxius]

'd buy this story first: Google Image Result for http://portland.indymedia.org/media/.../01/307128.jpg Give this amount of space: http://rense.com/1.imagesE/pent.jpg And the survival of an SUV in the presence of an allegedly high-speed 757: http://car.batcave.net/8127p.jpg You're going to have to drop your "straight face" comment and really come at me with some math of how the 757 story is plausible.

yeah:



^ Exactly how do you gather anything accuratly from this, since the detail blends in with the treelines and three aluminum motor homes parked in the parking lot.

Why if you look off to the left part of the picture, you can actually see the Fist of God in the trees too!!!

[ZNFYRH]

That's exactly why I'd believe that first.

Heh heh... Fist of God.

I guess that makes the outline of the plane Lying Bastard.

[The Decider]

Scott, what happened to the passengers of the 757 you say didn't hit the Pentagon?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Scott; You misunderstood me. I'm saying that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a 757. The picture I posted shows the nose of a plane that is too pointed to be the nose of a 757. So what do you think it is? Is it the nose of a 757? It can only be the front of an aircraft. Look at the nose of a 757. http://www.aviacol.net/images/stories/N651AA-2.jpg It looks more like the nose of a fighter. http://www.markwaki.com/pages/images...20NG100SHR.jpg This picture looks very clear to me. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg

Looks like and is are two different things.... I could say it looks like a ChinCilla.

I know what the first two pics are, the third is nothing.... it could be the crack of my arse for all we know.... and if you were using this as evidence to get someone in jail, the judge would laugh at you.

All I see is a building distored in a perspective angle, two large lense flares and a gray thing in the top corner, which hold not enough information for any rellivent comparison.....

And that is my professional opinion on that, since I've been working 10 years in the graphic design and photography industry..... and starting at the peak of digital imagry.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ZNFYRH; That's exactly why I'd believe that first. Heh heh... Fist of God. I guess that makes the outline of the plane Lying Bastard.

Indeed it sure does.... considdering the line follows directly along the top of that box thing.... that's a pretty nice camera angle for a fighter jet to be positioned directly over it, that clearly needs an oil change :rolleyes:

Notice the treeline matches perfectly at the so-called "Nose" of the jet? It's just the continuation of the treeline, and the back tail? Check just to the right of that and you'll see a mirrored example of the same thing, which in other words, could be anything.

Like I said, I can also think of several examples of the so-called smoke... but there are certain conditions during the day, including factors that relate to that exaust pattern to exist in that manner.......

This is just a very poorly misjudged, low 72dpi resolution image, that proves nothing except that it was a relativly decent day out.

You can't even tell if that's a booth or a parking meter in the fore front.... what the heck makes you think you can determine a jet from that at a futher distance and worse focus? If this was from a video file, where's the video?

I garuntee you, if they removed that outline from the thumbnail and this poor excuse of a blow up, you wouldn't see anything.... they're subjecting the image of a jet by outlining it first and not displaying the original information.... which is BS.

PS:

It's not even a true JPG, as it was Indexed first to 256 colors, possibly even less by what I can see by looking at it.... they purposely distorted the quality of this shot.....

Cameras haven't been this piss poor in detail since 91....

[ZNFYRH]

Again... I'd still believe that before I believe the 757.

Regardless, I left my flycycle in Hot Needle of Inquiry. Maybe I'll find what hit the Pentagon somewhere in there, too.

[Muckraker]

I think it's fairly obvious what happened. The hamburger that hit the Pentagon clearly wasn't a standard hamburger. The bun indentation is more along the lines of a government-issued superburger.



As you can see by the tell-tale pile of pickles and the flow of the special sauce, this superburger is a likely culprit.

As for the passengers of the missing flight...the man in the picture was still hungry for dessert.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Muckraker I think it's fairly obvious what happened. The hamburger that hit the Pentagon clearly wasn't a standard hamburger. The bun indentation is more along the lines of a government-issued superburger. As you can see by the tell-tale pile of pickles and the flow of the special sauce, this superburger is a likely culprit. As for the passengers of the missing flight...the man in the picture was still hungry for dessert.

Oh yes, I've heard the hamburger theory too. Proponents usually cite the heft of the sirloin patty and the added weight of Russian-style coleslaw to "prove" that it could indeed penetrate the Pentagon's three super-reinforced outer rings. But they fail to account for the burger's rotation speed upon impact. By the time it reached the Pentagon wall, much of the coleslaw, American cheese, and pickle slices ended up on the lawn which significantly lowered the burger's impact weight.

The theory about ingested passengers also fizzled upon closer examination of patrons known to consume such burgers. The gentlemen in the picture had his feces examined---no passengers!

[Scott]

And I'm saying that it wasn't even an aircraft. A fighter jet wouldn't rip a hole in the side of the Pentagon that big, at that angle, and make a little hole on the other side like that.

I still can't be sure of that either. All I know is what I see on the internet. That picture might just be the front of a cruise missile. Whatever it was, it wasn't a 757.

Have you seen this?
Pentagon 911: The Missing Wings (physics911.org by Kee Dewdney)

The theory goes that just before a small fighter-sized plane hit the Pentagon, it fired a missile.

Scott, what happened to the passengers of the 757 you say didn't hit the Pentagon?

There are a lot of plausible scenarios.

portland imc - 2004.10.10 - I know what happened to flight 77

Have you seen "Painful Deceptions?
Another theory is given during the last five minutes of part one.

Painful Deceptions DVD Part 1 (WMV 39megs)
Question911.com Downloads

Painful Deceptions DVD Part 2 (WMV 42megs)
Question911.com Downloads

Painful Deceptions DVD Part 3 (WMV 35megs)
Question911.com Downloads

I got that from here.
Downloads


Here's some more stuff about 9/11

911 Mysteries Part 1 - Demolitions (Full - 1ed.) What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse Steven E Jones Nov 11 06 Lifting the Fog Lecture UC Berkeley Campus 911Truth.org Crash of Flight 77 - 911 Witnesses at the Pentagon on September 11th YouTube - 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1 YouTube - 9/11 Truth: Dr. David Griffin & David Shayler Interviewed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgRTS...elated&search= http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf YouTube - Here's the video that Google Video pulled down! Loose Change Forum Snowshoe Films, News, Documentaries, Lectures, Interviews ,investigative Reporting, Independent Media, Videos, Real, Windowsmedia, Quicktime: for social and economic justice

[Mr.Vicchio]

It was a 757. If you think otherwise, you're just deluded, and a fool.

[ZNFYRH]

How concise, Mr. V.

Way to debate.

Now how, exactly, do you explain the things I mention in my earlier posts?

[Scott]

And I'm saying that it wasn't even an aircraft. A fighter jet wouldn't rip a hole in the side of the Pentagon that big, at that angle, and make a little hole on the other side like that.

I still can't be sure of that either. That picture might just be the front of a cruise missile.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/...gon1_plane.jpg
Whatever it was, it wasn't a 757.

Have you seen this?
Pentagon 911: The Missing Wings (physics911.org by Kee Dewdney)
The theory goes that just before a small fighter-sized plane hit the Pentagon, it fired a missile.

Scott, what happened to the passengers of the 757 you say didn't hit the Pentagon?

There are a lot of plausible scenarios.
portland imc - 2004.10.10 - I know what happened to flight 77

Have you seen "Painful Deceptions?
Another theory is given during the last five minutes of part one.

Painful Deceptions DVD Part 1 (WMV 39megs)
Question911.com Downloads

Painful Deceptions DVD Part 2 (WMV 42megs)
Question911.com Downloads

Painful Deceptions DVD Part 3 (WMV 35megs)
Question911.com Downloads

I got that from here.
Downloads

Here's some more stuff about 9/11
911 Mysteries Part 1 - Demolitions (Full - 1ed.) What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse Steven E Jones Nov 11 06 Lifting the Fog Lecture UC Berkeley Campus 911Truth.org Crash of Flight 77 - 911 Witnesses at the Pentagon on September 11th YouTube - 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1 YouTube - 9/11 Truth: Dr. David Griffin & David Shayler Interviewed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgRTS...elated&search= http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf YouTube - Here's the video that Google Video pulled down! Loose Change Forum Snowshoe Films, News, Documentaries, Lectures, Interviews ,investigative Reporting, Independent Media, Videos, Real, Windowsmedia, Quicktime: for social and economic justice

[tivodan1116]

What hit the Pentagon?

American Airlines flight 77. Anything else is unfounded idiocy.

Quote by: Sonart I wouldn't even bother trying to disuade Paul, guys. Nothing you or I could possibly present has the power to escape the "Yeah, that's what they want you to believe!" black hole.

Holy shit is that ever true. Just look at the reactions on here.

Quote by: Paul In ALL the pictures that I have seen of the the Pentagon since AA Flight 77 disappeared or ['thecrash into the Pentagon'???] I have not seen any evidence of a Boeing 757 wreckage. Maybe I'm blind. Has anyone seen the wreckage of AA Flight 77 for the sake the passengers and crew members on that Boeing 757?

Other than the wreckage pictures already posted, how about the evidence of going to the people who knew people on that flight and ask where those people (the ones on the flight) are now? That thought has been posited several times on this thread, and the tinfoil-hat people always conveniently avoid answering it.

Quote by: Milton Bradley :) Yeah, its always easy to provide links when you tout the official government story.

You keep repeating this nonsense of the "official government story". This is nothing more than a logical fallacy, you might call it the "Appeal to Fear of Authority."

If you say that we are touting the "widely reported by thousands of unaffiliated news outlets and seen by witnesses around the world" news story, that makes the conspiracy seem silly. But, by saying it's the "official government story" you appeal to those who ascribe to this theory - those who don't trust the government anyway - by saying "it was the government, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan."

The official pictures provided by the media

Again, a misnomer intended to incite belief in a conspiracy. What is "official" about pictures coming from many different sources?

Something tells me those pictures werte taken well after the cleanup crews had been on the scene.

I saw pictures that included plane wreckage live on my television mere minutes after the impact. That must be some cleanup! Hard to believe efficiency that great can come from a government that wastes more money every year than the GDP of several small nations... :rolleyes:

Quote by: ZNFYRH What are you even looking at to get the impression there was a 757?

New simulation shows 9/11 plane crash with scientific detail

That, for starters.

Have you seen the pictures of the Pentagon immediately following the attack? Where was the 757?

A piece of lightweight aircraft aluminum struck a concrete and steel structure that was designed as, among other things, a military fortress, at 350 mph. Frankly, I'm surprised there were any pieces of the plane left that didn't fit into a Cracker Jack box.

Now from the videos of the planes hitting the WTC, we can see that the plane did not completely pass through the WTC. Otherwise, it would have shot out the other side and plummeted to the ground. So that means, even if it hit at a perfect diagonal (which it didn't), it failed to pass through the hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle. Which happens to be 396 ft. The point of all this? An accelerating plane failed to pass through 396 ft of office space. The fuel explosion passed through. Yet from the pictures, we're supposed to believe that a 757, which just executed a tight dive and level maneuver (in order to pass under a bridge and hit the Pentagon straight on), managed to pass through the whole structure?

No, the point is you're comparing apples to oranges. Unless you're an accident reconstruction specialist and not telling us, you have no clue what would happen when anything hits anything else more complex than a hammer and nail.

It passed through three rings of one of the most structurally reinforced buildings in history, traveling at less than 200 MPH, and left a small exit hole? I doubt it.

Unlikely =/= impossible. It happened, get over it.

And yet you buy the story of a MUCH smaller plane doing the same thing? How does that work?

And the survival of an SUV in the presence of an allegedly high-speed 757: http://car.batcave.net/8127p.jpg

Yeah, that thing looks great. Shit, I could drive that home right now... You have a funny definition of "survival".

The plane hit between the 1st and 2nd floors, that much we know... plenty of space to clear an SUV.

You're going to have to drop your "straight face" comment and really come at me with some math of how the 757 story is plausible.

1) Take evidence
2) Apply Ockham's Razor
3) QED.