757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!, page 41

This topic is in the 9/11 Conspiracies discussion forum. (rss)

757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof! << 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >>

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 02:20 PM by jimmyx
reply to post by DoomX after looking at the landing gear wheel in the photos you provided ...just a question for you...the landing gear was up inside the plane when it hit the building and i assume the hydrualic landing gear doors were closed... so how did the tires inside the plane that went inside a building and exploded into a fireball and then emerged 4 blocks away have no burn marks on the rubber itself?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 02:22 PM by Caustic Logic
Originally posted by IvanZana In all those pictures provided of the pentagon wreackage. Can anyone point out any of this reinforcement mentioned in the above article? Gotta say that'ss a spooky logo. There should be plenty of pics. Here's one: For whatever it's worth, the attack did present a perfect case study in window performance, as well as before-after comparisons between renovated/non-renovated, etc. Also the last of the damage was in wedge two, un-renovated but just emptied as well to start its renovation. I'd never deny there are serious problems with what happened at the Pentagon. Even besides the lack of air defense (thanks 'phantom flight 11') there's the total lack of warnning. One const. crew pulled out on their own on a bad feeling after hearing about NY. Then bam. People were like 'what is that?' No clue. It's insane. check this out [edit on 3-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 02:32 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
I will demonstrate this one more time and maybe you can help me see what I'm missing here: In front means outside, right? Past the threshold, the ledge of the first floor slab? So why, just to the right of the solid plywood bracing, at the onetime location of double columns 11AA, am I seeing a sloping pile of rubble inside the building, sloping UP TO floor level? Here, two angles and some objects on that slope: You have simply labeled a bunch of debris piled in front of the building with a bunch of colors, groovy arrows, and a neato color coded font sprinkled with some speculation as to WHY there is a pile of debris. You have not pointed out any damage to the 1st floor slab at all let alone enough that could be attributed to a 90 ton jet slamming into and sliding on it all the way through to the C-ring of the building. And the rebar is left over from the removed vertical columns. We already went over that. [edit on 3-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 02:35 PM by TeslaandLyne
What if all the reenforcement was to contain the explosion from within. Workers got got after bad news from NY. Wise move. They acted quicker than Cheney Put them in as vice president. But there was aircraft debris at all sights, is PA still in question as to aircraft evidence.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 02:42 PM by Caustic Logic
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT Craig; You have failed to address the core point I have shown you again - the pile of rubble is ISNDIE the building, okay, as well as outside. But the part inside slopes up TO THE FLOOR level, it is NOT piled on top of it. Yes I love my digital crayons but that has no bearing. I'll take your silence as a tacit admission that you simply refuse to acknowledge a plainly obvious fact. And as for the additional photos, thanks for the expanses of of undamaged mud. When that stuff dried it probably showed cracks, but not from the plane, and when wet too mud can't tell us much about the state of the allegedly undamaged foundation beneath it. Ignore gouge + show mud = no foundation damage anywhere proven, ANOTHER silly FX oversight, and the 757 impact issue put to rest. With all due respect... and then some... that's reaching a bit.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 02:42 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Caustic Logic I love how you always have your bases covered. We're all not talking about a 'single broken column.' It would be silly of course to look at something like this and presume a plane's right wing edge did it. ULESS a plane was supposed to have crashed there, with its right eing right about there. Why are you using that photo AGAIN?? Why are you STILL suggesting that the damage depicted in that deceptive image was from the plane when most of it didn't even exist before the collapse? And BTW has anyone ever ID'd the MISSING chunk of the generator, before the emptied-out corner there melted down? Was it cartoony? I don't get what you are trying to say. The damage to the generator does not make sense with the fence, facade, itself, or the lack of damage to the 1st floor slab in relation to a 757. Do you blame the "gouge" on a flap track of the wing? If not then what is your explanation for the gouge?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 02:53 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Caustic Logic Craig; You have failed to address the core point I have shown you again - the pile of rubble is ISNDIE the building, okay, as well as outside. But the part inside slopes up TO THE FLOOR level, it is NOT piled on top of it. Yes I love my digital crayons but that has no bearing. I'll take your silence as a tacit admission that you simply refuse to acknowledge a plainly obvious fact. There is no damage to the first floor slab in that image. You are deluding yourself. The damage would be WELL into the building and could not be covered up by a debris pile in front of the building or on the very edge. You have no point. This image shows the full debris pile pushed up to the building all along the edge. It looks to me too like there is a slope leading up to the building. Whether the debris pile is larger at some points, spills onto the foundation edge, or the camera angle catches it differently OR whether the slope leading up to the building varies at different points is completely irrelevant to the fact that we have no evidence of ANY damage to the first floor slab here or going all the way in to the C ring hole.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 05:59 PM by unclecasey
Those who witnessed an American Airlines 757 crash into the newly fortified walls of the Pentagon most probably saw a cruise-type missle sporting an American Airlines paintjob. So why hit the Pentagon? ... To test the newly constructed fortifications against missle attack. The eye trained to recognize the paintjob on an American Airlines passenger jet would extrapolate the distance and ASSUME that a small airframe (as evidenced by the small hole in the Pentagon wall) thusly painted would be much farther away in flight than it really was.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 06:07 PM by unclecasey
Interesting graphics on the alleged 757 @ the Pentagon. The same result could have been accomplished by conventional shape-charges placed before the alleged surprise attack; just as small battlefield tactical nukes took out the foundation columns of Towers 1 & 2 @ WTC. And please tell me again ... just how did an "earthquake" take down WTC bldg.#7?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 06:25 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by unclecasey So explain which cruise missile in the US arsenal has a high vertical tail, two underwing jet engines, windows and is as long as a passenger jet? The members of the Pentagon fire department who literally had Flight 77 coming straight at them, would have recognized a missile as opposed to an airliner.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 07:14 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 The members of the Pentagon fire department who literally had Flight 77 coming straight at them, would have recognized a missile as opposed to an airliner. Agreed. You must mean Allan Wallace, Mark Skipper, & Dennis Young. The ones who did NOT see the plane hit the building because they were running for their lives, right? "So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. We only saw it approach for an instant." archived link to Allan Wallace's account available here Allan also said the thought the plane was white. "The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Air Bus 320- white with blue and orange stripes." Just like all these other people: Since the firefighters were all at the heliport where the controller in the tower Sean Boger saw the plane on the north side of the citgo station headed right towards them I have 100% faith that if we could get a hold of Allan Wallace that he would confirm what all the other witnesses have told us so far. The plane was on the north side of the citgo.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 07:30 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT So Craig, when will you admit that you are playing fast and loose with some of the aspects of your whole "it was north of the Citgo station" story? Even the majority of the people you say you have talked to, say it was an airliner that hit the Pentagon. Construction workers, law enforcement, reporters, military members, hundreds of people had a front row seat that day and watched an airliner hit the Pentagon and its "it was a flyover" or "it was a missile" from the CIT types...... As it has been said, and documented, many times on ATS, from the witnesses, the wreckage and the bodies recovered, there is no doubt that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 07:38 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT So Craig, when will you admit that you are playing fast and loose with some of the aspects of your whole "it was north of the Citgo station" story? That is a reckless and completely baseless accusation. Fast and loose? Prove it or retracted it. Everyone we spoke with who were in position to tell independently saw the plane on the north side. We merely reported it. How is that "fast and loose"? It's actually proof beyond a reasonable doubt using the scientific method of independent corroboration. Even the majority of the people you say you have talked to, say it was an airliner that hit the Pentagon. Construction workers, law enforcement, reporters, military members, hundreds of people had a front row seat that day and watched an airliner hit the Pentagon and its "it was a flyover" or "it was a missile" from the CIT types...... Wrong. Allan Wallace had a front row seat. He did not see the plane hit the building and very accurately describes what most would see. Sean Boger had a front row seat. He saw the plane on the north side just like everyone else. This proves it was a DECEPTION. The fact that people were deceived does not prove they are all wrong about where the plane flew. As it has been said, and documented, many times on ATS, from the witnesses, the wreckage and the bodies recovered, there is no doubt that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Then you don't read much. We have proof it did not hit. We have proof it flew over DC and came from EAST of the Potomac proving the NTSB and 84 RADES data fraudulent. There is no doubt that the plane could not have crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. We have the evidence and you have nothing but faith in the government.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 08:10 PM by Swampfox46_1999
This is what the real Sean Boger is on record as saying about that day... "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." Watched it hit the building..... Gary Bauer She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment. Donald R. Bouchoux "At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car Pam Bradley I work in Washington DC area, and was on my way to work, in my car, sitting on a bridge, and saw the plane hit the Pentagon. I am in a complete state of shock. Joseph Candelario He was first alerted that the day was drastically changing when one of the medics told him that a plane hit the World Trade Center. While watching the tower burn, another plane hit the second tower. “Thinking that this was a very serious terrorist attack, I went outside to the river to take a break. As I was looking across the river towards the direction of the Pentagon, I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it. James R. Cissell He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.'' Daryl Donley "It just was amazingly precise," Daryl Donley, another commuter, said of the plane's impact. "It completely disappeared into the Pentagon Bobby Eberle It was then that the other events of the morning crystallized in the realization that tragedy was about to occur. With all of these images spinning in my head, the only words that came out of my mouth were "Oh no!" With that, the airliner crashed into the Pentagon and exploded. Kat Gaines Her commute to the airport took her south on Route 110, in front of the parking lots of the Pentagon. As she approached the parking lots, she saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles. She then heard the plane power up and plunge into the Pentagon. Albert Hemphill As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. Terrance Kean "I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. James Mosley The building starting shaking, and I looked over and saw this big silver plane run into the side of the Pentagon. It almost knocked me off." Vin Narayanan The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away. The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed Steve Riskus (email response to another conspiracy site) am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first.... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... Mike Walter, in response to him being misquoted as saying it was a cruise missile..... I said that as a metaphor. To me it was like a missile was fired at a building. It exploded as you'd imagine a missile to explode. ... It was an American Airlines jet. And I watched it go into the building. I saw the big 'AA' on the side.." Not " I saw a missile hit..." Not "I saw a jet fly over..." No, they ALL say they watched Flight 77 slam into the Pentagon. People like you, have been driving some of my friends nuts almost since Sept. 12, 2001. For all I know, it was you that used my friends names on other websites to promote your "investigation"
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 09:02 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 This is what the real Sean Boger is on record as saying about that day... I fell to the ground and covered my head. Exactly. After seeing the plane on the north side headed right towards him he fell to the ground, covered his head, and missed the pull up. Watched it hit the building..... Gary Bauer Gary Bauer is a well known neocon and former member of the Project for a New American Century who even signed their famous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document that laments for a "new Pearl Harbor". The fact that people like this are blatantly used as "witnesses" is a joke. He claims he was on 395 and it is quite unlikely he would be able to see the impact from there at all. Well here is the "the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395", as he said he was "heading to Washington DC"... (Red line is "AA77" trajectory...Red Circle is the exit...Green Arrow is the exit lane...Yellow arrow is "just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395") -So he had no view of the impact. -He did not debunk the North side flight path. -He said the plane 'banked right', which DOES support the North side flight path. -THERE IS NO PROOF HE WAS ON EVEN ON THE HIGHWAY. -He is one of the PNAC signers. That would make him a suspect "witness". Donald R. Bouchoux "At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car How come he is the ONLY one to say his car moved? Do you really think that happened? He does NOT contradict the north side claim at all. He does not even claim to have actually witnessed the plane impact. Stating that you believe it impacted is not the same as saying you watched it enter the building. Pam Bradley I work in Washington DC area, and was on my way to work, in my car, sitting on a bridge, and saw the plane hit the Pentagon. I am in a complete state of shock. You can not see the alleged impact side from the 14ths street bridge or any bridge. She simply deduced the impact. Joseph Candelario He was first alerted that the day was drastically changing when one of the medics told him that a plane hit the World Trade Center. While watching the tower burn, another plane hit the second tower. “Thinking that this was a very serious terrorist attack, I went outside to the river to take a break. As I was looking across the river towards the direction of the Pentagon, I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it. Dude it is IMPOSSIBLE to see the impact side at all from the other side of the river! Joseph Candelario's account of the flight path over DC skies is further PROOF that the NTSB and RADES data is fraudulent and is exactly what our new presentation will be about. James R. Cissell He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.'' Does not debunk the north side. Admitted he did NOT see any people's in the windows and that the reporter lied. Daryl Donley "It just was amazingly precise," Daryl Donley, another commuter, said of the plane's impact. "It completely disappeared into the Pentagon He talks about concrete from the building being blown out to the road. Sounds like explosives. Regardless he does NOT debunk the north side claim. We know that there are quite a few people who were fooled or lied. So? The north side evidence still stands. Bobby Eberle It was then that the other events of the morning crystallized in the realization that tragedy was about to occur. With all of these images spinning in my head, the only words that came out of my mouth were "Oh no!" With that, the airliner crashed into the Pentagon and exploded. Rose to fame as the creator of GOPUSA and the boss of fake white house reporter/former gay male prostitute Jeff Gannon. Could you find anyone more dubious? His account reads like a fiction novel. Kat Gaines Her commute to the airport took her south on Route 110, in front of the parking lots of the Pentagon. As she approached the parking lots, she saw a low-flying jetliner strike the top of nearby telephone poles. She then heard the plane power up and plunge into the Pentagon. You can't see the impact side from route 110 south. No "telephone poles" were hit. She deduced it and the reporter is embellishing. Albert Hemphill As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5. Does not debunk the north side or say anything about the impact. The notion that he saw it "level it's wings" makes no sense with the FDR or official flight path.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 09:11 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 Terrance Kean "I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. Does not debunk the north side. We know that a lot of people were fooled or were lying. Have you talked to him direct to confirm his account? Have you tried? James Mosley The building starting shaking, and I looked over and saw this big silver plane run into the side of the Pentagon. It almost knocked me off." Does not debunk the north side. We know that a lot of people were fooled or were lying. Have you talked to him direct to confirm his account? Have you tried? Vin Narayanan The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away. The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed We interviewed him on the phone. He is one of MANY USA Today reporters and editors who claim they were on that highway but when questioned their account starts to fall apart. He told us that it clipped a highway sign and that it did NOT hit any light poles. He claims he saw a "2nd jet" fly over the building. Works as good cover for a flyover doesn't it? Steve Riskus (email response to another conspiracy site) am sorry to rain on your parade, but I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first.... It did not hit the roof first... It hit dead center on the side... I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building... Wait to you hear more details from Steve. That's all I have to say for now. Mike Walter, in response to him being misquoted as saying it was a cruise missile..... I said that as a metaphor. To me it was like a missile was fired at a building. It exploded as you'd imagine a missile to explode. ... It was an American Airlines jet. And I watched it go into the building. I saw the big 'AA' on the side.." Yet another USA Today reporter. I had dinner at Mike Walter's house. I got his entire story in person. The "graceful bank" he describes destroys the official story and supports the north of the citgo flight path we report perfectly. People like you, have been driving some of my friends nuts almost since Sept. 12, 2001. For all I know, it was you that used my friends names on other websites to promote your "investigation" EXCUSE ME?? Exactly what you are you accusing me of here? You better prove your claims or retract this libelous statement right now.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 09:17 PM by Swampfox46_1999
Its only libel if I say it WAS you...not people LIKE you...sorry thats not libel. And you are STILL playing fast and loose with some of the facts. But thats okay, I understand the human need to garner attention to oneself. BTW, reread your post and see if you can find the out and out misrepresentation of facts you made.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 09:32 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999 I misrepresented no facts and your personal accusation was hollow and baseless. The fact is that very few people would be in a position to physically be able to see the alleged impact. Go there and you will see. The topography is not flat and there is a maze of highways. Most people are honest witnesses who may have seen the plane for a split second and simply heard or saw the explosion. Of course they would believe it hit the building and of course they would say "I saw the plane hit the Pentagon" when in reality they just deduced it. Add these people together with planted operatives and you've got your published witnesses. But when you GO THERE and TALK TO PEOPLE and ask specific questions about where they were, what they really saw, and where the plane really flew an entirely different story comes to light. It was a deception. We can prove it.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 09:34 PM by OrionStars
Bobby Eberle, as a witness on 9/11, has zero credibility. rawstory.com... Neither does anyone associated with PNAC.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 3-2-2008 @ 09:55 PM by Alienmojo
Forget all the evidence for a moment. I want to say something about all this. At first I believed the towers were a conspiracy, but after careful reading I decided it wasn't. HOWEVER, I still had a problem with the pentagon crash. I agreed with all the experts who said it WAS a plane..that the hole was as big as it should have been and all that. BUT..and here is the big BUT... how come if they have nothing to hide all the film footage (like from the Citgo gas station) were confiscated? That screams something is being hidden to me. I am the normal citizen who actually believed the government... BUT HOW CAN I??? How can I be expected to believe when so much is being hidden??? I personally don't believe that this was an act by our government to secure more money and power to fight terrorism here and aboard...all they would have had to do is take down the towers to achieve that...why the overkill? I don't have any answers, only lots of questions. I mean, guys, there are websites saying ufo's did this for Pete's sake!?! Do I believe the government would do something like this? Yes, absolutely. It has been done so in the past to instigate wars and change opinion...but never on this scope. So I say to you Mr. Government... if you wish me to be on your side totally then release ALL the footage that will help to prove your side. By keeping it surpressed that only tells me that you have something more to hide. Maybe we only had a part to do in this and terrorists had the rest...who knows? But until you prove to me it was no missile I am going to question this and continue to question. I may not always agree with all of you... BUT NEVER STOP QUESTIONING!!! Something is wrong here. Something is not quite right. And the American people deserve the truth...whatever it may be! [edit on 3-2-2008 by Alienmojo]
copyright & usage