The 757 Hitting the Pentagon

I'm almost convinced the people who still talk about the Pentagon theories
are hellbent on trying to make the whole 9/11 Truth Movement look like a bunch of whackos.

I can buy partial government complicity, I can buy even remote guidance...but saying a plane didnt hit the pentagon is really retarded, especially given all the evidence as of 2005 that yes, that 747 really did hit the building. Theres even a brief shot of the 747 in video stills released.

The more people tlak about missles hitting the pentagon, the more people will go 'oh, 9/11 skeptics...like aliens, bigfoot and elvis'.

Absolutely right, (it was a 757 though), I'm starting to almost believe a lot of these people arn't actually stupid, but dis-info agents working for someone, whose purpose is to make the rest of us look stupid, discredit us and drown the legitimate theories in a sea of extravagent stories and sometimes even blatant lies..
But whatever their motivation, that's what's happening.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

this is enough to prove that the 757 did crashed into the Pentagon. dont need ani more persuasion than dat.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by deltaboy]

If this is a proof then would you believe that submarine hit Pentagon if there were parts of it around after explosion ?

It's all very well arguing if a 757 hit it or not but numerous people, including people on this board I believe, saw the plane hit.
It would also beg the question, why the hell would they risk messing around with missiles with thousands of witnesses when they just had to use a real plane?
Why complicate things more than necessary?

The fact there may be a conspiracy of sorts isn't unbelievable, but some of the tall tales that people manufacture and think of to fulfill it are.

EDIT: I found several references to members or their families seeing the plane hit after a quick search, one of them was SkepticOverlord's (one of the three guy's that runs the this site for those that don't know) brother:

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
You do realize the plan struck the Pentagon on the side facing one of the busiest highways in the nation during morning rush-hour and there are dozens of eye-witnesses (if not hundreds) who saw the plane (including my brother). The plane flew low-and-fast over the highway before hitting the Pentagon.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

DeltaBoy,

Even though I'm inclined to believe that some large aircraft did strike the Pentagon, that piece of debris only serves to make me suspicious of what kind of aircraft it actually was. It should not have been there, and certainly not in that condition.

Here's what happens to aircraft when impacting such surfaces at such high speed.

For example:



And yet, from an impact of similar speed, into similar material (concrete) at the Pentagon, we somehow get this:



I can not even begin to imagine how in the world such an irregular shape, with such cleanly-cute edges, and so conveniently showing the appropriate markings, could result from an impact such as Flight 77's.

That's not to say Flight 77, or even any Boeing 757, didn't hit the Pentagon. I'm simply saying that piece of debris is suspicious, and I don't think it should be there.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by bsbray11]

depends on how fast it was goin bsbray. not to mention the type of material the craft is crashing into. wen u look at the video large debris are comin out. compare to that craft in yer pic that was goin like really realy fast.

So now, instead of “where are the wings?” we get “where did this piece come from?”

I tell you what, seeing as common sense means nothing here to some people, hear this:

I am infact the offspring of the alien that initiated human life on this miserable planet as a Saturday night parlour trick for his mates. It's just coming back to me know, that's why I havn't said anything before as I couldn't remember. You can't do any tests to prove it because I have simply inhabited this body and my presence is on an electrical level - you might call it a 'soul'- so none of your current Earth technology can confirm what I am saying, though it is in fact true.
You can't ask me anything to test me either as it is against Intergalactic orger #16744 to disclose anything other that what I am saying now.

I can confirm that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, as I can see everything, everywhere at the same time throught the lifespan of the Universe. No really I can.. Prove me wrong - you can't can you!

So what it doesn't make any sense and is deeply improbable - you can't prove it's wrong, not conclusively! So it could be true, along with everything else in your world of fantasy.

/sarcasm off....

EDIT:

No order is spelt 'orger' here, prove me wrong...

[edit on 10-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

It seems most of the the other pentagon thread was spent arguing that the small amount of wreckage was from a 757. Most people arguing that there wasn't enough wreckage to prove this.

I cannot believe it is now being argued that there is TOO MUCH wreckage.

All crashes are different. Some will follow a similar pattern but none will be the same in terms of damage. There are literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousaands of unforseen variables that will place pieces of wreckage in some places and not others.

Originally posted by deltaboy
depends on how fast it was goin bsbray. not to mention the type of material the craft is crashing into. wen u look at the video large debris are comin out. compare to that craft in yer pic that was goin like really realy fast.

It was going 480 mph. I've seen CatHerder argue Flight 77 was going around 500 mph on the massive Pentagon thread but don't know where she got her figures. 480 mph and approx. 500 mph are comparable, right?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So now, instead of “where are the wings?” we get “where did this piece come from?”

I'll accept that the wings should've shattered, but shouldn't they have left some sort of evidence of their presence on the facade? The black lines CatHerder has pointed out grossly mismatch where the rest of the plane would've hit. That was the body of what I was going after earlier, only assuming that the wings would have survived an impact in some recognizable condition. Now, especially for the sake of argument (many unanswered questions here for me anyway, let alone lack of evidence), I'm going to assume that the wings wouldn't have made it. I haven't really committed with any certainty to either possibility, so try to bare with me on this point among others in relation to the Pentagon.


AgentSmith,

I hope the sarcasm there isn't directed towards my last post, because if it was, then I must've missed something somewhere where opinions were no longer allowed, as I'm pretty sure I used phrases such as "I'm saying" and "I think"/"I don't think."

I'll have no trouble admitting there is no equivalent of the angular momentum problem for the events that unfolded at the Pentagon (ie, nothing conclusive either way, but simply circumstantial, and thus my lack of any definite position on the issue, even though I suppose I should take this as another opportunity to state that I am inclined to believe a large aircraft struck the Pentagon), but unless there has been some conclusive evidence of a 757 released, your sarcasm can be used on either side.

look into my eyes. you are getting sleepy, ...very ssllllleeeeeeeepy.
*blink*
you will not connect the dots.
you will not notice that there is suspicious, strange, contradictory data concerning 911. you will not notice that the only story that really makes any sense is not the official lie.
you will isolate every 911 factoid in your mind, and not cross correlate or look for inconsistencies. any inconsistencies will be explained as alternatively 'incompetence', or 'systemic error'. only establishment established facts shall be considered to be facts by you. even if they are erroneous. if the different branches of establishment facts do not mesh, it is to be explained as 'incompetence' or 'systemic error'. if one branch is found to be hiding or fabricating data, it is to be explained as 'incompetence' or 'systemic error'.
you know nothing. you are not qualified to know anything. your thinking is flawed.

oh yeah, and from now on, whenever i say 'terror', you will give me all your money, and all your familiy's money for the next five generations, and yours and their freedom.
*blink*

you are awake.
bring it on.

Originally posted by billybob
look into my eyes. you are getting sleepy, ...very ssllllleeeeeeeepy.
*blink*
you will not connect the dots.
you will not notice that there is suspicious, strange, contradictory data concerning 911. you will not notice that the only story that really makes any sense is not the official lie.
you will isolate every 911 factoid in your mind, and not cross correlate or look for inconsistencies. any inconsistencies will be explained as alternatively 'incompetence', or 'systemic error'. only establishment established facts shall be considered to be facts by you. even if they are erroneous. if the different branches of establishment facts do not mesh, it is to be explained as 'incompetence' or 'systemic error'. if one branch is found to be hiding or fabricating data, it is to be explained as 'incompetence' or 'systemic error'.
you know nothing. you are not qualified to know anything. your thinking is flawed.

oh yeah, and from now on, whenever i say 'terror', you will give me all your money, and all your familiy's money for the next five generations, and yours and their freedom.
*blink*

you are awake.
bring it on.

Glad to see you have the same twisted sense of humour as I do there Billy, but are you ever going to contribute anything to a discussion anywhere?
I might be an arrogant, sarcastic, annoying little p**** but at least I manage to back up my claims.
(Quoting articles that are even dismissed as garbage by Rense don't count by the way - nor does the constant repetition of statements already proven false).
I know you must have written good material in the past on some subjects, so please try and do so now. I'm waiting for you over in the Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77' thread as I write this by the way - looking forward to your 'proof'.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'll have no trouble admitting there is no equivalent of the angular momentum problem for the events that unfolded at the Pentagon (ie, nothing conclusive either way, but simply circumstantial, and thus my lack of any definite position on the issue, even though I suppose I should take this as another opportunity to state that I am inclined to believe a large aircraft struck the Pentagon), but unless there has been some conclusive evidence of a 757 released, your sarcasm can be used on either side.

I tell you what, I have grown to trust a number of members on this board, and a number of them have said that they or their families were present and can confirm the aircraft hitting the Pentagon.
So you a start - if you think they are lying - why don't you buzz a U2U off there to SkepticOverlord and inform him he can no longer trust his brother, as he is a lier too - obviously...
And if you think you can't trust this site and it's staff - then why do you grace it with your presence?

I don't doubt that they saw something. That's actually the main reason why I believe a large aircraft did hit the Pentagon. Please reread this statement from my last post:

I suppose I should take this as another opportunity to state that I am inclined to believe a large aircraft struck the Pentagon

What I do doubt is how positive of an identification they could make of a plane going about 500 miles per hour across their field of vision for only a few seconds, and just preceding a very traumatic event, especially with so much explicit talk afterwards of a 757.

Have you seen the studies showing how horribly off witnesses can be, even when being very open and sincere? Maybe you can prove eyewitness accounts to be far more accurate than currently held? Or maybe that people you know somehow are more qualified as witnesses, simply because you know them?

And I would appreciate it especially if you didn't try to play with emotions (ie, family references). Emotions don't need to be dragged up. We all know that people died, too, btw. Just thought I'd like to mention that before your next post.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
And I would appreciate it especially if you didn't try to play with emotions (ie, family references). Emotions don't need to be dragged up. We all know that people died, too, btw. Just thought I'd like to mention that before your next post.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by bsbray11]

Nice try, but the point is that the information available to us here on ATS isn't just media 'spin' or government 'lies' it the word of individual members speaking first hand, including senior staff. I know what's choking you - accusing people here of being liers - but if you truly believe in what you say then it's something you can't escape. I'm not trying to 'use' anyone here for anything other than the simple fact is the people on here that we have grown to know and trust are probably the best 'reliable source' of information we could ever hope for. I believe it to be one of teh fundamental functions of ATS - a network of people that can independantly verify and document events as they happen. Obviously trust has to be earned and how much better can you get than the word from a top administrator? If you don't trust the mainstream media and you can't trust a senior member of the Web's leading conspiracy and alternative topic disucssion board, then who can you trust? Deny that....

And why wouldn't they use a 757? (if 'they' staged it).
If Spielberg can dish an airliner up for his WOTW movie and they can use them on things like 'Lost', then don't you think that the Government would have even less trouble acquiring one?
Or is it really more likely they would use one of their military craft for no real reason, risking leaving clues and witnesses?

The point is anything is possible, but most things are not likely or realistic.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

To prevent a rambling circle of posts (as the subject is already sliding as you pick convenient points of my posts to address), I'll simply repost what I just said with an additional comment.

What I do doubt is how positive of an identification they could make of a plane going about 500 miles per hour across their field of vision for only a few seconds, and just preceding a very traumatic event, especially with so much explicit talk afterwards of a 757.

Have you seen the studies showing how horribly off witnesses can be, even when being very open and sincere? Maybe you can prove eyewitness accounts to be far more accurate than currently held? Or maybe that people you know somehow are more qualified as witnesses, simply because you know them?

And the additional comment is that we could guess all day as to what happened, but all I'm saying is that we can't know exactly what went down at the Pentagon, and what I originally brought up here was simply a point to show such inconclusiveness in the "evidence." I can't know what exactly happened, and you can't, but apparently even that's too much to swallow, I guess, or at least admit. So until the next time I feel like adding something to this thread, I will, but I've seen my share of circular posting both here and elsewhere, and will refrain from this bout as I feel that the point I wanted to make has been made, and that point, again, is that there is insufficient evidence to make any conclusive case regarding the Pentagon. You can contest this if you'd like but I don't really think I'll feel like responding anymore.

If you were to reopen one of the old WTC threads and offer up some explanation on the disappearance of angular momentum where an esteemed physicist we have contacted has failed, then I may be a little more up for that, because then at least we can know what exactly we're talking about, instead of arguing in this gray realm of things like "how do you know" and "it's possible" and "he said she said and he has magic eyes." But I'd rather leave most of the guesswork to others at this point, or at least avoid repeating arguments for the thousandth time.

Best of luck with your obviously sincere discussion.

You know how long it takes me to identify a plane, at any speed? about a second. I can spot them when they're on 8 or 9 mile final, and tell you the type, and the airline. If you study planes it's actually quite easy to do. Not to mention that the 757 has several distinctive features that no other plane has.

secret raytheon project pimps a3 skywarriors with globalhawk guidance systems and air to ground missile systems
so, you don't like tom flocco.
oh, well.
there are some other names in the article for you to add to your hate(red) list.

Hey Billybob, I'd forgotten about Flocco. Thanks for the link.

It's been a couple years since I'd seen the photo's of the white collar and black tie guys moving around the physical evidence like that. Very interesting. And what the heck is that wing-like item all covered in blue tarp and being carried off by more white collars? It just shows that if the govt. had the evidence that it was the jet they claim it was they could simply produce it. The blue tarp says it all - you may not see this. Why?

I had heard that we were an open society.

Oh yeah, I forgot, these are matters involving national (in)security so the public cannot know what's really going on. Hey guys, thanks for protecting us from the truth since you apparently suck at protecting us from them thar pesky terrorists. We feel so much safer now.