A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hiddenNZ

The aluminum used in aircraft has a stronger tensile strength than a lot of steel. And it hit the wall like a battering ram.

And then disappeared without a trace??

You just said the wings are made to hold fuel implying they are not designed for impacts and then say they are battering rams that as we can all see....DID NOTHING TO THE BUILDING.

Yep ya gotta give a break to common sense, helps to be an observer..

Or we could plow deeper into that days witnesses in the neighborhoods aroun there..... turn me loose, I'm curious what the teens and others.....in the know about air traffic and are familiar with watching them, identifying an have a little pilot time. In my hood we were flying by the fifth grade....I was on my childhood friend's dc 3 when we took off from white rock airport Dallas......cleared the light poles on I 30 by 55 feet.....right there at Dolphin road

But back to the witnesses...see how I have details......you're gonna have those details when you're a good observer, or recalling the story.

We have no kids in the hoods around there with a verify story......kids in the know.....should have been all over the news......hundreds of ...." yes, I saw that sucker turning final doin unGodly fast....right over that area right there....."

Nada.....tell me

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

The outer wall sections of the WTC were essentially beams riveted together end to end.

My understanding it that all the panels were bolted to each other and bolted to the floor section.
It was actually something of a concern as to how they behaved in the collapse, and very careful design of the bolts used in the new tower was made.

originally posted by: facedye
if that's your point of view, then "the burden of proof is on you" is a cop out answer as well. one of the worst ones, actually.

If you say so, once again, just like religion, we have to take things as faith since you do not want to provide evidence for your beliefs. Jesus saves and it wasn't a Boeing 757.

because it's more plausible than believing flight 77 actually crashed into the pentagon, based on all of the evidence available.

Yeah, sure. Fake an aircraft disaster after two already occurred, strew wreckage all over a place were thousands work and then off the people on the flight because, why? Oh yeah, it's sooooooo much easier than what actually happened.

Add a few more moving parts into that equation, it's not complicated enough for me.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

What was found was one of the turbine hubs. The claim that it was too small was because the fan blades that made it look larger were missing. It was far too large for the UAV engine they claimed it was.

They also found a combustor section that was inconsistent with a smaller engine.

a reply to: facedye

If you compare it to another high speed impact into something solid then the debris is consistent.

a reply to: ParasuvO

And something ENTERING a building with enough force is going to be EXITING the other side. Just as this debris did, just as it did at the WTC.

No, my witness scavenger hunt in the hoods will tell......kinda not a moving part really, and is top in my mind for it doesn't seem to want to add up why is the world buying this and where did they leave their mind out on the road did they come from another planet trying to take over...

Ha,,,ha..no the kids in the know would have tracked a near supersonic airliner on the deck.

a reply to: Zaphod58

no, it's not.

looks like you might know better than I would though. can you cite any example where we can observe the wreckage of a 757 crash into a building?

No, it's the facade now in our proof......solely that and my kids in the hood

We were spotting Constellations in the old days coming into Dallas Love with two screws feathered....always could spot one engine out......we could spot the air force by how fast the contrail hauled azz...F4s over the roofs all day turnin final for the naval air station...

The kids in the know are still out there these days,I betcha, you know young plane spotters.....future pilots they are

a


Add....I'm a construction and field engineer type too....that's why I'm like this, I know structures,,,,building one now

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I've provided *much* evidence for my beliefs.

you just don't seem to notice.

you also haven't provided a shred of substantiation on your end either.

projection can be a subtle b*#!h, eh?

it's also pretty interesting to me that you think a bunch of inexperienced Saudi terrorists subverting, undermining and outsmarting the entire air defense system of the united states on 5 separate occasions on the same day is more plausible than some players in our government helping this disaster along.

you probably think you're using Occam's razor on this one. the inconvenient truth here is that you're not.

I just figured this

The one hole through the walls means one missile turbine at full spool hit....two 211s 55 feet apart spooled all the way would do two marks at least......no nose gear could penetrate all those layers better than a spinning thus the resultant stability for penetrating power moments turbine...in my humble opinion.....just a last minute thought......nose gear don't leave blast marks either huh

Now we're plowin deep, no misdirects ....they are secondary now

Let's do primary evidence, you know....less skullduggery that way form the scene behind the camera

We gotta have marks......man I gotta have marks on the wall to sell this story

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: Zaphod58

no, it's not.

looks like you might know better than I would though. can you cite any example where we can observe the wreckage of a 757 crash into a building?

When I get a chance tonight or over the next few days, I'll review more of the tapes from the 911datasets site to see if anyone else on a frequency can corroborate the type as a B757.

Because this was a primary with no altitude readout, the traffic would have been called out to any other flight in its vicinity.

I just don't recall any other traffic call on a primary target that was reported as a B757. This would have drawn immediate attention no matter where it was.

Yup pale......and the involved traffic was being sent to the east staging area.....secret there

65 miles to the east.....staging traffic for the training scheduled that day by happenstance

65 miles ENE actually

originally posted by: facedye
I've provided *much* evidence for my beliefs.

you just don't seem to notice.

You have? I must have missed it between all the 'I don't knows'.

you also haven't provided a shred of substantiation on your end either.

Not my fault you think all the photos of aircraft parts you can find in a simple search were faked and/or planted. Those fake photos are my proof. Oh, and the dead people on the aircraft, those are my proof too.

you probably think you're using Occam's razor on this one. the inconvenient truth here is that you're not.

Nope, just the common sense of the religiously un-indoctrinated.

Jesus came back from the dead, Mohammed flew to Mecca and there was no plane at the Pentagon.

a reply to: facedye

Of course not. Because there are none. But we can compare other high speed impacts and the wreckage left. The wreckage at the Pentagon is consistent with those.

Naw, that's sounding too extreme Augustus.....too, how do you say too.....unencumbered by decorum, you know, let's back and forth a little more....we can address the facts still

That building front...dang, it bothers me...I'd buy everything else, but not with a housewife explanation of the exterior

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Yup pale......and the involved traffic was being sent to the east staging area.....secret there

65 miles to the east.....staging traffic for the training scheduled that day by happenstance

65 miles ENE actually

Am I missing something. You seem to be having a conversation with somebody but I don't see them answering. Things ok?

What staging area? Military flights?

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Naw, that's sounding too extreme Augustus.....too, how do you say too.....unencumbered by decorum, you know, let's back and forth a little more....we can address the facts still

Huh?