757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Very crude approximation but it makes sense to me. I doubt it will to anyone who believes no 757 crashed at the Pentagon.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
...You might not like it, but your beliefs and opinions do not constitute logic, or evidence of anything either.

I never said it did. I have always said it is my opinion that a 757 could not have hit the pentagoon. I feel my opinion is based on logic and my experience with aircraft.

No one has proof on either side or we wouldn't still be here.

IMO there is no way a 757 could have been that low and not hit the ground.
Witnesses contradict the official flight path, which contradicts the official story.
It only takes one part to be found false for the whole story to fall apart.

You can show pictures all day it's not going to convince me a 757 did that.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Very crude approximation but it makes sense to me.

With all due respect, "crude" is an understatement.

Peace

reply to post by darkbluesky


I apologize. I should have been clearer. I simply wanted a photo of the holes and a plane going in horizontally at belly ground level, as stated in the "official" reports. Which should have left deep trenching along the Pentagon campus from the engines. Thus, slowing down any alleged plane. and potentially tearing off the engines and possibly parts of the wings and fuselage before any alleged impact.

I am referring to these relatively small sub-divided holes alleged to be, but never proved to be, one huge impact hole allowing an entire 757 to completely enter the Pentagon:

911review.org...

911review.com...

911exposed.org...

From the way you were writing, I thought perhaps you had something else showing what could be distinctly identified impact holes from engines and wings of a 757. I do not see any sign of any such impact evidence in the photos at the links I presented. Do you have any which do concur with you?

reply to post by ANOK


Like I said, I didn't expect to change anyones mind.

The reason I post on this thread, and threads like it, is to provide information and ideas to those who have not yet made up their mind(s).

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Very crude approximation but it makes sense to me.

With all due respect, "crude" is an understatement.

Peace

Admittedly.

Everyone wants to be a critic.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by darkbluesky

 

I apologize. I should have been clearer.

Perhaps.

Here, I've got a deal for you Orion. You show me a picture of a cruise missle, a global hawk , or any remotely guided aircraft you wish, about to, or actually impacting the Pentagon on 9.11.01, and I'll show you a picture of AA77 crashing into the pentagon on 9.11.01.

I'll make it easier, show me pictures of explosives residue at the pentagon...

or pictures of the MIB planting airplane parts and staging lightpoles,

or pictures of the AA77 crew and passengers being abducted,

or pictures showing where they are now or were they were killed by the government.

Deal?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I'll make it easier, show me pictures of explosives residue at the pentagon...

or pictures of the MIB planting airplane parts and staging lightpoles,

or pictures of the AA77 crew and passengers being abducted,

or pictures showing where they are now or were they were killed by the government.

If the government won't let us see video footage from around the Pentagon, what makes you think the public has access to the pictures you want to see?

It's easy to take your side because you know it will never be allowed for you to be proven wrong.

You don't need ANYTHING but a picture of the hole in the Pentagon to, in the very least, show discrepancies in the official story.

Nice "MIB" reference by the way. Those kooky conspiracy theorists and their MIBs. That tactic is not unexpected.

Peace

Originally posted by Dr Love

If the government won't let us see video footage from around the Pentagon, what makes you think the public has access to the pictures you want to see?

Because it's not unreasonable to think that some pictures could have been taken by the public. The government doesn't have a monopoly on cameras.........yet.

You don't need ANYTHING but a picture of the hole in the Pentagon to, in the very least, show discrepancies in the official story.

Sorry, I disagree. I have absolutley no trouble seeing how a 757 could have caused the damage to the front of the Pentagon.

I do however have trouble understanding how a missle could have caused such a large failure of the facade.

Nice "MIB" reference by the way.

Thanks

Those kooky conspiracy theorists and their MIBs. That tactic is not unexpected.

Sorry

Peace

same.

Originally posted by Dr LoveNice "MIB" reference by the way. Those kooky conspiracy theorists and their MIBs. That tactic is not unexpected.

Sorry, can't let this topic go.

The conspiracy theories on the Pentagon are all centered on the "no airplane" line of reasoning.

Well... if no airplane, then no light poles getting knocked down, but they were, so someone must have done that.

What are the chances that someone did that and weren't seen by someone not involved in the plot? If they were seen by anyone not involved in the plot it seems reasonable to me that some patriot somewhere would have come forward by now with this information.

Some conspiracy stalwarts will say that it occured immediately after the attack and with all the activity and focus on the building, no one noticed the poles being taken down, strewn on the lawn, and being laid on top of the cab on the highway.

Now...I'll admit that even as unbelievablely improbable as all this sounds, it is not imposible. But in return you at least have to admit that if this was what happened, then those guys HAD to be MIB!

I am not certain if the following directly responds to one poster's inquiry. However, I found the information highly infromative, as a counter to the "official" reports concerning the Pentagon.

The author's name is Peter Tiradera. His biography states he is both a physician and an ex-USAF officer, who flew interceptor planes and did forensic investigation of military airplane crashes. After reading his book, from which the website is excerpted, I consider him well-qualified to present his points of argument, concerning the Pentagon and other events of 9/11/2001, when opposing the presentations of the "official" reports:

911exposed.org...

OK let's presume that a 757 hit the pentagon just like you have in this picture.

How did it get all the way through the third ring at that tilt and position?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Very crude approximation but it makes sense to me. I doubt it will to anyone who believes no 757 crashed at the Pentagon.

reply to post by Realtruth


Please, watch these videos. I don't think anyone can watch them and not conlcude that it's possible the damage done to the Pentagon was caused by an airliner.

I don't deny that some unbelievable flying was required. Maybe Hanjour could have done it, maybe not. Maybe the aiplane was remotely piloted or flying on pre-programmed GPS data. Since your thread is about whether AA77 hit the Pentagon or not, the only evidence or theories I'm presenting relate to that idea, not about who did it, why they did it, or if 9-11 was an inside job, etc.



These are from Purdue University. In one link you can get to animations for the WTC as well as the Pentagon.

Pentagon Only - various models and parameters

Another Pentagon Model
This one is actually a mini promotional video for the Purdue Engineering School Computer Department, but is has the highest quality/full length visual model. It also discusses the science and math behind the modeling process. There is a semi-famous celebrity poster in ATS who dismisses these visual models because they're the product of Purdue, and he says Purdue is in the back pocket of Government and does whatever it's told. You can watch the video and decide for yourself it makes any sense.

World Trade Center and Pentagon








[edit on 1/31/2008 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Please, watch these videos. I don't think anyone can watch them and not conlcude that it's possible the damage done to the Pentagon was caused by an airliner.

Do you have any actual footage, rather than something entitled "Designed to reality"? With all due respect, that and animation blatantly implies virtural not physical reality. People can manually design anything they please, but does it meet the tested criteria of physics reality?

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Please, watch these videos. I don't think anyone can watch them and not conlcude that it's possible the damage done to the Pentagon was caused by an airliner.

Do you have any actual footage, rather than something entitled "Designed to reality"? With all due respect, that and animation blatantly implies virtural not physical reality. People can manually design anything they please, but does it meet the tested criteria of physics reality?

Orion, Once again, I'll ask you....

Do you have any...repeat, ANY physical evidence that shows that anything except an airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01?

Please save me the mind-numbing regurgitation of these old lines based on incredulity and speculation...

Wheres the plane?
How does a 757 fit into that hole?
How does the fragile nose cone penetrate three reinforced walls and break through the C ring wall?
White Plane..
Grey Plane...
Black plane...
Where's the video? Why won't the give us the video?

People on my side of this argument have pictures of airplane parts, a video that shows "something" streaking toward the building, video of a huge fireball occuring at the time of impact, supporting evidence of a 757 in the form of damage to light poles, damage to a generator trailer, damage to structures on the Pentagon lawn, and damage to the Pentagon itself characteristic of a twing-engine wide body airliner.

There are actual photographs in the recreation I provided that cleary (to me, at least) show the damage left behind by an airliner passing over and hitting the light poles, hitting the generator, and hitting concrete curbing outside the Pentagon. There is also the actual video frames showing an outline that matches an airliner and shows a smoke trail that can be attributed to a damaged jet engine.

People on my side of the argument have the support of scientists and engineers that explain, in painstaking detail, the sequence of events, and the results left behind, whan an airliner crashes into a building.

You have a former USAF surgeon? You have Kiltown? Alex Jones? CIT, P4911T? These are just a small sample of a whole group of people and organizations that have generated a cottage industry of selling books and DVDs exploiting the fears and gulibility of a subsection of our population.

Originally posted by darkbluesky


Orion, Once again, I'll ask you....

Do you have any...repeat, ANY physical evidence that shows that anything except an airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01?

I presented websites showing no plane was impacting the Pentagon walls, which further clearly implies I have no such evidence you request of anything else. I never claimed I did have any. You gave the impression you do have bona fide evidence, in something besides crude overlay graphics and virtual reality animation.

Therefore, it is up to you to provide bona fide evidence any plane impacted any Pentagon wall. If you cannot do that, then it is time, from my perspective, to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Realtruth
OK let's presume that a 757 hit the pentagon just like you have in this picture.

How did it get all the way through the third ring at that tilt and position?

RT,

"It" didnt get all the way through to the third ring. Parts of it did....heavy parts. Parts of it were showered on the lawn, and parts if it were strewn throughout the building as it was shredded while passing through. And parts of it were consumed in the fire.

[edit on 1/31/2008 by darkbluesky]
trying to fix quotes

[edit on 1/31/2008 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
RT,

"It" didnt get all the way through to the third ring. Parts of it did....heavy parts. Parts of it were showered on the lawn, and parts if it were strewn throughout the building as it was shredded while passing through. And parts of it were consumed in the fire.

[edit on 1/31/2008 by darkbluesky]

That begs these questions:

Where is the debris from what may have been Pentagon video frames after alleged impact and explosion? The lawn campus lawn, where very large chunks of solid debris should be, is very pristine in appearance from the US bureaucracy's own video frames:

911research.wtc7.net...

Where are all the construction trailers that were there, along with enormous wooden spools scattered all over in front of that particular wall? Explosions could not have hidden all that. Where are they? That is the side the renovations were being done on the Pentagon. As I recall, at least one of those construction trailers contained gas tanks, including oxygen tanks, for welding purposes.

reply to post by OrionStars



I've posted dozens of pictures of all these things you're asking for in this very thread. If you really want to see them...just scroll back through the pages. Pages 8-13.

At the very least, you can enjoy some of the exchanges I've had in the past with other members.

In carefully examining the photos of the Pentagon at the following website:

911research.wtc7.net...

these are part, of the major opposition arguments, I have against acceptance of the "official" reports.

1. If a plane goes in vertically, one wing and engine must be trenching the Pentagon campus, to allow the side portion of the fuselage, other wing and engine, and tail assembly to even begin to penetrate at ground level.

2. If a plane goes in diagonally, see above.

3. If a plane goes in horizontally, the engines would have to trench through the campus lawn, to allow the nose to pentrate and the cockpit, fuselage, wings, and rear tail assembly to be "swallowed" by the Pentagon.

4. There are still vertical supports at a hole (whichever hole that is for I cannot determine from the photos) which states that no nose and cockpit, much less any fuselage of a 757, penetrated, and made a hole big enough for an entire 757 to be completely "swallowed" by the Pentagon. Particularly, when so many windows and their vertical supports are unbroken at the same and higher floor levels, in same immediate area of the most carbon residue.

5. All those construction trailers, equipment and materials were not touched by any 757, though they sat directly in the path of any alleged incoming 757.

6. The photo taken by FEMA personnel showing what is left of demolitions charges attached to the outside vertical support beams inside the Pentagon.