9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

yes i challenge that claim.

the "damaged spool" is not a recognizable spool at all but point is even if it was it's ludicrous to assert the others were untouched

and i am going off these graphs....





furthermore........

the measurements don't add-up considering all the official claims anyway.

no because i am not asserting that they weren't moved by the impact/explosion of whatever craft that hit. i am asserting that the damage isn't consistent with a 757 hitting them.

If it was damaged, would it be recognizable?

Here is another view of the site.

pics.soohrt.org...

Note of course that some of the materials had obviously been moved by the. The steam vent/hatch for the building is still in the same place, however.

actually no.

i am claiming that the damage is inconsistent with a 757 even if they did happen to pull off that amazing flight!

there was no 757 at the pentagon.

probably not.

but to expect ALL of the spools right next to it to be untouched while one is mangled beyond recognition is more than a stretch.

your linked pic shows nothing as it is clearly not on 9/11.

I think I have a new signature line.

I hope that I am not the only one who can see the logical absurdity of that statement. :

Why is it such a stretch? If it was an engine impact you're talking about an area that's only about 6 feet across. Prove that the damaged spools are still in the same place they were when they were hit. Do you really think that the spool is just going to sit in the exact same spot after getting hit by the engine? It's gonna go spilling and move. How do you know that it's sitting in the exact same spot it started in?

One thing that has bothered me (and a recent chat with Valhall reminded me of it), is frame two of the video. Here's a quick animated GIF of frames 1, 2, and 3 as released by the Star Tribune.

(file size is big, wait for it to load)


Frame two is very different from 1 and 3. I know this was discussed somewhat in the giant CatHerder thread, but I don't think there was ever any resolution.

Maybe this is a good time to put the wire spools aside (for now), and look at this interesting tidbit from 9/11/2001.





Courtesy of your friendly neighborhood Overlord.

The ambient light levels change went the plane explodes. If the camera automatically compensates, how does it do that (i.e. is it a mechanical aperture, or is it totally electronic?

The other mior movements can be attributed to the shockwave.

911research.wtc7.net...

This is the best analysis of the video I've been able to find so far.

this is just another example of how the official story requires you to discount the force/kinetic energy of the plane at the pentagon and exaggerate it at the towers.

Really? Explain that to me then How does saying a jet engine hitting a spool an t spinning and moving disregarding or ignoring kinetitc impact?

for a jet engine to hit spools and spin them and move them but leave them visibly undamaged is simply illogical.

i don't explain common sense.

After having read the posts in this thread, I have acquired a new
and profound appreciation for the fact that the final moments of
American flight 11 and United flight 175 were captured on video.
Imagine what conjecture would be expounded in its absense.

Theox

My problem with those five frames has nothing to do with ambient light. It is the same problem I've had since they came out. I can't see a plane. No matter how hard I try.

but did you read the article of the OP?

and there IS more video of the pentagon impact.

they just refuse to release it.

i wonder why?
o

believe me..............you aren't the only one "happy" about the tower impacts being captured on video.

it was key in order to allow for the massive global emotional affect of this psyops operation to take hold.

I bet there is a ratio for frame rate capture to how fast something is moving, and or explosion rate.

since of course they are withholding other videos of the impact AND the existence of this video was flat out denied until just after the release of Thierry Meyssan book, L'effroyable Imposture (The frightening Fraud), explaining his theory that the damage to the Pentagon resulted from a truck bomb rather than a plane crash; there is no reason to accept the validitiy of this video.

NOBODY AT THE PENTAGON WILL EVEN CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR RELEASING IT!

Evidence the Images Were Edited

Motive for Fabrication:

Well, I am still in awe over such a master flying job to be that low on the ground. But if I can ever get over that amazing feat, to think about the turbulance some kind of object flying really fast might do some moving around of the stuff at least within a couple feet or it I would think?

But flying a couple feet above the ground with a huge plane? This guy is an artist, why would he go out like this? Some kind of strange performance art?

So after this amazing pilot brings this huge jet full of people into the tiny hole there and I am supposed to think he does this like a rat squeezes into a hole? What did it compress the engines and wings into its 2 foot ground clearance and dispense with the formal procedures for solid objects to encounter each other? This is an amazing story. Maybe more amazing than that NYC city one.

I have not got to that PA one yet, but this, this one is like a bad cartoon. Are you sure this is the story yor government is putting out?