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.

The Pentagon report also made note of the fact that:

"With the possible exception of the immediate vicinity of the fuselage’s entry point at column line 14, essentially all interior impact damage was inflicted in the first story: The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the first-floor slab on grade and the second floor."

That is impossible as the following graphic will show. Note the pink line, where the "13 ft cylinder" is supposed to have slipped "under."

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

...tends to lend a bit more credence to having been spun, thrown, twisted, damaged, etc ... no?

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.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
That is impossible as the following graphic will show. Note the pink line, where the "13 ft cylinder" is supposed to have slipped "under."

I am just amazed at this. Are you telling me that someone has to fly a plane that close to the ground and exactly parallel to get into that tiny hole? Who flew that plane anyway? That is some great flying.

I saw stuff like that when they were sending the bombs into Baghdad! Remember, they had those RealTV cameras on the front so you could see them go down the chimney. Like Santa Clause but with a bang!

Hey! Maybe it was one of those things! They really move around great, and they can go right through things! Hey, that might be why that round punched out hole in the end of that thing happened?

Wow! What if it was one of those drone missles? Wouldnt that get inside? And maybe that military guy who reported the helicopter just before the fireball was painting the target for the delivery vehicle?

That would certainly fit the picture better than a huge jet flying 3 feet over the ground. Man Tom Cruise would have to be flying that in a movie to happen like that.

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
yes i challenge that claim.

the "damaged spool" is not a recognizable spool at all

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.

Originally posted by ChapaevII

I am just amazed at this. Are you telling me that someone has to fly a plane that close to the ground and exactly parallel to get into that tiny hole? Who flew that plane anyway? That is some great flying.

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.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Lyte Trizzle
yes i challenge that claim.

the "damaged spool" is not a recognizable spool at all

If it was damaged, would it be recognizable?

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.

Originally posted by ChapaevII
I am just amazed at this. Are you telling me that someone has to fly a plane that close to the ground and exactly parallel to get into that tiny hole?

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.

The image in impact is much brighter than any of the other 4 images. The brightness is higher throughout the image, not just in regions that would be illuminated by the bright explosion. There is no evidence of shadows from the explosion that is supposedly the source of the heightened brightness. Note the setback in the facade in the middle of the images to the right. The setback is considerably closer than the explosion, yet it casts no shadow on the portion of the facade just in front of it. There is also an absence of any evidence of even faint shadows from other objects, such as the structures in the vicinity of the camera. The sky is also brighter and a different hue, as if an explosion could brighten a clear sky.

The last three frames show an explosion with a shape that is roughly axially symmetric around a vertical axis. The center of the impact zone lies approximately behind the center of the helicopter control tower. That places the central axis of the explosion well inside of the building -- easily 100 feet behind the facade. But the part of the building above the impact hole did not collapse until well after the impact and explosion. How could an explosion evolve in such a symmetrical manner around the obstacle of the building without reflecting the shape of the building? The only plausible explanation is that the explosion imagery was superimposed on the building through image manipulation.

By the last of the five frames, the explosion, which appears to extend to at least four times the building's height, has become dark with soot. Yet the huge explosion casts no shadow from the sun on the lawn below it. Shadows of other objects show that the sun is low in the southeast, as one would expect at 9:40 AM in September. The Pentagon's wall, which faces almost due west, casts long shadows extending to the left and toward the camera. But there is sunlight-illuminated lawn directly left of the huge explosion. The uppermost swath of white in the enlargement to the right is part of the heliport, which was directly under portions of the explosion. Yet it is illuminated by direct sunlight.

911research.wtc7.net...

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

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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?

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?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.

Originally posted by Theox
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

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:

The clear evidence that the video frames were manipulated further discredits the idea that the release of these images was just a miscalculation on the part of people involved in the cover-up. The source of these images must have known that they show a vapor trail, an obscured aircraft that is clearly not a 757, and an explosion that could not have resulted from jet fuel combustion alone. It is unreasonable to think that this set of five frames is anything other than a planned part of the cover-up. They fueled theories that the Pentagon crash involved a small plane and a missile, rather than a jetliner such as Flight 77. The perpetrators have correctly predicted that controversy between people rejecting and insisting that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon would divide skeptics.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why is it such a stretch?

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?