Reformed no-757 theorists weigh in here

No arguing but I think Lizzie and Gwion are right that it's not gonna get much better for footage. They are releasing it, all mid-late last year you'll recall. Nothing new this year yet, but we have now the full CCTV footage, two camera's worth (before just five stills from one) Camera 1 - Camera 2 We also got the Citgo video (nothing except maybea reflection from the plane?) and the Doubltetree video - nothing but the explosion (sorry Gwion, I still say no wingtip). More will probably be coming, but they still seem to be fine with the video secrecy.

Perhaps we should not get too worked up ourselves and act silly...

Check www.flight77.info... for latest updates on video releases and remember the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by talisman
No reason to lie, No reason to hide.

Or so it would seemm... never underestimate the power of reverse psychology...


What? I'm not arguing... okay, math corrections allowed for clarity: 124 foot wings into a 98 foot hole.

there was no 98 foot hole.
you didn't read the threads.
the wings "folded forwards" to be polite and pass through the tiny hole.

and then some perfect cylinder passed unheeded through the inner walls of two rings, and one inner and an outer wall in a third, making a cartoon cutout exit hole, subsequently evaporating before striking the NEXT wall in logical sequence(although, there was a 'blast' of soot on that wall, the outer wall of the fourth inner ring of the five by five ground broken ceremony on 9/11/1945 pentagon ley line lyin' building. but, i progressively digress).

the intense disinfo campaign proves who dunnit. the web allows the world to become a small town. find yourself on google earth. it takes a minute.
you can only believe yourself, and you shouldn't be able to believe (y)ourself if you constantly mold evidence into (y)our own experiential reality.

extrapolate. interpolate. cross reference. independently verify. reMEMEber patterns.

families. history. money. power. lies.

the bigger picture is often ignored in a "trauma black out" type denial that the world could actually be the way it actually is.

well, mcluhan's global village is a virtual reality.

i've got my fingers crossed.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by talisman
No reason to lie, No reason to hide.

Or so it would seemm... never underestimate the power of reverse psychology...


What? I'm not arguing... okay, math corrections allowed for clarity: 124 foot wings into a 98 foot hole.

there was no 98 foot hole.
you didn't read the threads.

Were you looking over my shoulder as I didn't read them? I've seen ALL the crap arguments and the good ones. Here's a pic - ignore the three "columns" on the right that aren't columns for too many reasons to go into here, see 77' bldg height and do just a bit of math - maybe not 98 feet EXACTLY...


Be sure you look on the FIRST floor, not the second, where the lower tailfin only entered. As if we haven't been over this enough times...

I'll weigh in here. I'm not a reformed no 757 theorist. I always believed a plane crashed into the pentagon. I don't think there was holograms, thermite, exotic weapons, flyovers, missiles, etc.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Be sure you look on the FIRST floor, not the second, where the lower tailfin only entered. As if we haven't been over this enough times...

Man, I feel for ya Caustic. It has got to be like being an elementry school teacher sometimes.

Although we don't agree on some issues, I really respect what you are doing, and how you go about seeking facts.

Thx GX. I actaully almost wanted to be a teacher. I don't like having too many rules, parents breathing down my neck, or having to actually BE IN THE ROOM with a bunch o retarded rowdy kids. But I do enjoy making lesson plans and materials.

Originally posted by billybob
there was no 98 foot hole.
you didn't read the threads.

Actually sorta correct. Okay, sorry for any confusion: I'm telling people to look at Cat Herder's old thread, and then showing pictures of a 100 foot wide hole. I didn't notice until now but CH got it wrong, himself citing the 14 foot hole on floor two, it's true, with no wing marks. All major damage, as in Meyssan, Loose Change, Killtown, etc.'s presentations, covered in foam spray beneath that.

So it's not just the 757 deniers, CH is wrong there too. To be fair, the original post was in late 2004, and maybe he or someone added the full damage analysis later.

And no matter what anyone says, THIS HERE is also NOT the entry point:

It's on the inside of the C-Ring, on the other side of TWO heavy walls. NOT six.

I admit this hole is odd, made by landing gear they say? But it's not a point against a plane, just for something else maybe but don't try to leverage this just cause it's odd because the main point of course is:

Where the fuselage, engines, and sturdiest part of the wings and tailfin impacted/entered the building.

Do these shots, unobscured by fire foam, look familiar to any 757 deniers? No? Huh... you should all look into how you missed such an oozing, hundred-foot hole in your denials. Things to make you go hmmm....

Okay it WASN'T about arguing, so sue me I'm sniping again. But no more talk of sixteen-foot holes unless you can first explain how THIS (SEE ABOVE) constitutes a sixteen foot hole.

Looking for a few at least partial surrenders here anytime...




[edit on 19-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Since pretty much everyone agrees that a large plane was flown to within a gnat’s # of the Pentagon on 9/11, I cannot think of a good reason not to actually fly it into the building. Why, for example, would you pull-up and execute a flyover whilst simultaneously either flying a different plane or firing a missile at the building? This just adds an extra and unnecessary layer of complexity to the operation.







[expletive removed]

[edit on 19-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

[removed quote of entire previous post]




People add stuff like that IMO because
1. make themselves feel important
2. disinform people
3. get their 15 minutes of fame
4. they're possibly delusional
5. They like to argue
6. They have the tinfoil hats on so tight that they think everything under the sun is a lie.



[edit on 19-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

I have read hundreds of posts on this topic, lots of reasearch and I believe a 757 hit it, but the government in there usual manner handled it in secure manner that created suspicion.

One thing I would like to ask all the 'passionate' commentators of this event... for all your shouting, pontificating and mud slinging - what have you actually done about your beliefs and theories? If it is all so obvious and provable that a 757 did not hit the pentagon - why is the majority of any of your efforts confined to the safety of a little forum?

Carry on squeeling....... if you stand still long enough perhaps the world will start revolving around you?

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Quackmaster]

My 2 cents: I still don't know what happened at the Pentagon.

I've read several book's worth of website materials and just slogged through CH's thread, which isn't definitive at all, though the presentation sure made it look like it. The posts by dissenters unraveled the evidence rather persuasively, in that they proved major questions of ID of plane parts in the photos was based more on faith than fact.

And why haven't we all seen the various security films from the Pentagon and Citgo? What exactly is being hidden, and what advantage is there to allow exactly this speculation to flourish?

And then there is the question of the FDR and the weird anomalies of that hijacker resetting the altimeter at 18000 feet spot on, using barometric information that could only have come from a flight controller in real time; the testimony of professional pilots who simply cannot believe it could have been done, even by an experienced, first-class 757 pilot, let alone someone who had only had a few hours of flight-simulator training, was a pathetic flight student, and who hardly spoke English.

Then there is the conflicting witness testimony; the most damning of which are the two Pentagon police officers who were at the Citgo and offered a different flight path.

And the lack of wreckage, tailfin and rear stabilizers...

Maybe, I lean right now to a bit more than possibly, a 757 did hit the Pentagon, but if so, it's clear everything else about the official story is bunk. The pilot wasn't a green Arab hijacker, the plane was probably fitted with explosives (lots of reports of cordite smell from military witnesses who should know) to destroy the evidence, i.e., the plane itself, and it was probably remotely controlled and pre-programmed.

So, even if it was a 757 that went into that hole and vaporized, how it did it and why ain't nothin' like the official story.

Cat Herder has a big history here for being a con. The evidence is inconclusive. THe fact that most debunkers come up with false arguments, and that the government still has'nt released the security camera footage they are holding since 9-11 simply implies that there,s something going on in there that we don't see.

It was no 757.
There are many points why it was no 757 but ill keep it short.
A 757 cant go trough multiple layers of extra reenforced pentagon even if it was going maximum speed..

I've seen car wrecks that produced more debris.

Originally posted by gottago
the plane was probably fitted with explosives (lots of reports of cordite smell from military witnesses who should know) to destroy the evidence, i

but would your opinion changed if someone with a lot of experience with explosives pointed out that cordite is a propellant for bullets and some artillery rounds and NOT a high explosive?

the only "bombs" you will ever find made of cordite are cheesy pipe bombs made by kids who got ahold of their dads ammunition reloading powder.

Originally posted by micpsi
As for the photographed engine components inside the Pentagon, the fact that it may look that of a 757 is hardly proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The engine parts might have been secretly planted there before people came on the scene. Indeed, that is precisely what one would have expected had the plotters wanted to create the deception that a passenger jet had crashed into the Pentagon - they HAD to plant debris looking like it came from one. So the photos proves nothing.

You don't think folks would've been asking questions if trucks showed up and people started planting debris at the scene. It requires a lot more suspension of disbelief to accept that explanation. The fact is that airplanes don't make cartoon shaped holes of themselves when they strike solid objects. Wings fold back and go with the path of least resistence as the mass/inertia of the aircraft were what had the most ability to penetrate the structure. A Global Hawk most certainly wouldn't have made a hole the size that there was in the Pentagon, and no eye witnesses could possibly mistake the two. The human remains/DNA recovered pretty much makes that an impossibility too, unless, they'd already killed all the passengers, and planted them on the scene along with the engine parts and other assorted plane wreckage debris.

Damocles,

No, it wouldn't be swayed much, because that is but one worm in a brimming can.

Whether it was cordite or C4 or something nifty cooked up from the trillions we've been pouring into black-ops since the end of WWII, really makes no difference. I listed almost a dozen reasons why the whole thing is bunk. I really don't know if the 757 did hit the Pentagon or not, but even conceding it did for the sake of argument, everything around it simply strains credibility beyond any reason.

Begin rant:

I for one, seeing how 9/11 has been shamelessly used in its aftermath to institute a sleeping police state and launch foreign wars straight from the PNAC manifesto, am not about to give that gang of pathological liars and traitors the smallest benefit of the doubt.

The larger point is that the whole story is just that, a fairy tale. Like "let's roll" in Shanksville. What a lot of cheesy nonsense. They really do think we're idiots, and I for one resent the staggering improbability of the whole official 9/11 claptrap. It shows such a perfect disregard for human life and our intelligence.

Rant over. And really, believe me it's not directed at you, just being clear on my opinions. It is NOT a personal flame aimed at you.

Question: Is cordite used as a detonator for other explosives? What in your opinion best describes the nature of the fireball? I'm asking not for a trap but only for info.

didnt take it as directed at me at all, and honestly even if i disagree with parts of your opinion i still respect them.

cordite to my knowledge isnt used as a detonator for anything. we've used the same blasting cap design for over 100 years cuz, well its just really good.

the fireball to ME looked like burning fuel. most HE explosions wont give off that huge lingering fireball.

of course i could be wrong but thats my opinion.

Damocles,

If you were going to wire up the plane to blow it to bits on impact, what would you use?

To me this seems a rather intriguing hypothesis, given that there obviously was a 757 bearing down on the Pentagon and basically what was left could have fit in a doggy bag.

Also, I lean to the modified military jet theory at the WTC; there was some weird bump under that wing, and the offset flash, etc. So this falls in line with it.

Essentially they'd want to vaporize the 757 on impact to minimize damage. Obviously it can be done, but how would you go about it?

This would also explain why the facade shows no traces of wing and stabilizer impacts.

Oh, and the HE would be subsumed in the jet fuel fireball, conveniently disguised.

[edit on 19-3-2007 by gottago]

problem with hypothesising on how to blow the plane to bits on impact and yet not have it be an obvious explosion is kind of tough. too much you wipe out the building immediately, not enough and youve wasted your time.


honestly, id just let the jet fuel do the work for me.

Perhaps, but you're faced with two of the most bizarre airplane crashes in history with Shanksville and the Pentagon. Just small holes, confetti left over.

Like three of the most bizarre building collapses in history at the WTC.

It's all so staggeringly improbable, and none of the normal investigative protocols were followed afterward to offer any reasonable answers, so you've still got to explain the inexplicable.

You have to acknowledge that these guys were pros even to ram that 757 into the only re-enforced facade on the first floor--why did the hijacker take the most staggeringly complex and improbable flight path? Why didn't he just do a kamakazi dive and plunge straight down into the big building mass? That is simply ridiculous on its face.

Given that, they'd also be expert in setting up a sophisticated detonation system to go along with the aerial tour-de-force that got that Boeing to impact where it supposedly did.