Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

Originally posted by wsamplet

I do not use google, i have professional and governemt research sites. You should try it sometime.


AND YOUR EVIDENCE IS ???????????



[edit on 12-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Calm down remember all caps or for the mods.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You are using government site? By your own statements doesn't that in it's self taint your research?

Originally posted by wsamplet
Calm down remember all caps or for the mods.

Still waiting for your evidence, are you ever going to show any?

I stated governmet (research sites) some of the sites do research and collect data for the government.

Here is an example:

www.trackingthethreat.com...




[edit on 12-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by wsamplet
The security camera footage is interesting, the video post I watched looked as though it was either sped up, or the camera did not take rolling video but consecutive stills. Would the people posting the videos comment on that?

I do see however, the triangular tail of an airplane. It is low, maybe even skidding on the ground. That object is on the "official trajectory". The subsequent explosion seems to coincide perfectly with the impact of the object and the building. The impact seems to be carrying toward the center of the pentagon as demonstrated by the fireball and the heavier debris(top left of explosion). The smaller debris is cast back against the trajectory as would be expected.

Good observations there. I've done some analysis on that video you can review here. Main point is that tailfin is mostly there in other frames too, and the plane is actually the white stuff. No details like tailfin are visible at that distance, resolution, and speed. It could not have been skidding on the ground (no marks), tho about as close as possible (or else it wouldn't fit).

ETA: frame rate for these cameras was 1 fps, or so we're told. All video basically takes consecutive stills, with standard video being 30 or 32 fps. That's why when it's played backin real speed it comes out choppy and only one frame shows the plane. If it were recording at 32 fps we'd see like i dunno, six frames?

The wings of a 757 are sweeped back, the exact angle of which I am not certain, however it is not important. What is important is that they would fold back leaving a smaller hole than the original wingspan.

No need to explain the tiny hole - it's actually 90 feet wide - no walls, columns, anything for 90 feet of the first floor. If you can figure out how a 757 could fit into that, then we're in business.
entry hole overview
details on what was removed
But these are off-topic.

During my military service I have witnessed in person and in video crippled aircraft use this same trajectory while attempting emergency landings. Due to the shape of the belly they slid like a shuffle board puck and not until they lost significant momentum did they begin to leave notable damage to the surface.

Interesting. Do you think this pattern would hold up with concrete? Do you think the damage would be minor enough that a layer of mud and grit packed down by workers and vehicles and rained on would make it appear like smooth undamaged concrete?

What I do find interesting is the apparent color of the tail section, it does appear blue or darker in color. If I am not mistaken American Flight 77 had the silver paint scheme, however if I recall correctly American Airlines did have a paint scheme where the tail was painted blue. I will look for pics.

I cannot say from that vid that that is flight 77, but it is an object that resembles an airplane.

Mmm... it's not an object (see link above), but again, agreed on general principal anyway. So would you say then this case does NOT prove no 757?

[edit on 13-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

wsamplet: I think Ultima does have the stuff. He and I and others requested some NTSB docs while back and everyone but me got discs. I think he's got other files too from elewhere, FOIA stuff. As for what they say, I dunno as he's never shared a scan. In my exp. Ultima doesn't have much to add other than having gotten some information, but he has done that.
thread
thread

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

The wings of a 757 are sweeped back, the exact angle of which I am not certain, however it is not important. What is important is that they would fold back leaving a smaller hole than the original wingspan.

During my military service I have witnessed in person and in video crippled aircraft use this same trajectory while attempting emergency landings. Due to the shape of the belly they slid like a shuffle board puck and not until they lost significant momentum did they begin to leave notable damage to the surface.

The wings i believe have a 22 -25 degree sweep depending on model.

Militay aircraft are different then a civilian aircraft.

A military witness that was close to the Pentagon stated that the planes aft section was sticking out of the building then a fireball came out of the building and destroyed it. Where are the burn marks on the grass? where is the aft tungsten counterweights and debris from the tail?

I am staill waiting on any official reports, actual videos or photos.



[edit on 12-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by Caustic Logic


I think it is worth mentioning that if you tried to recreate the pentagon event you would get a differernt result everytime.

As far as the concrete damage, I believe it could be insignificant enough to be covered by water and dirt as seen in the photos.

I have only used the word"object" because there has been debate about whether it is a plane or some other object. I believe it is a plane. The interesting thing to me was that it appeared to be white with a blue tail. This is probably due to the lighting and the video quality.

Will try to find some video of E-landings

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
What you actually mean to say is that you have no experience in forensic investigation of aircraft accidents, you do not have a clue that the preponderance of evidence comes from multiple independent sources and NOT the government, that ALL of that evidence converges on the inescapable conclusion that what was known as it happened: AA77 hit the Pentagon.

I have aviation experience and can post evidence of it , ...

I have aviation experience too. So what? The onus remains on you to refute ALL of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon despite your continued efforts to evade that responsibility.

....but like most people that believe the offiical story you would not accept it, like you cannot accept people with intelligence actually doing research and proving your media fed theories wrong.

That was a good indication of the weakness of your position. Knowing full well that there is no so-called "official story," you resort to that desperate crutch to support your untenable position.

I'm sorry, but your evasion of the fact that there is ONLY the evidence form multiple sources and NO "official story" gives you away as having little interest in the truth, Ultima1.

So i see you could not post any evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. All talk and no evidence, just like a person who believes the offical story. Your so called multiple independent sources are just something made up.

I am still waiting for some actual evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

Evasion noted. YOU are the one claiming the evidence is wrong. But WHAT evidence? You refuse to tell us.

The question remains on the table: what wreckage did the hundreds of firemen, rescue workers, and wreckage recovery workers remove form the Pentagon in the hours and days after the "event?" Where are their statements? What do they say? Do they contradict your story so you won't bring them to the table and discuss them?

Ultima1, just how is it that you can ignore the hundreds of people who saw and KNOW what they saw?

By the way, where is your "explanation" for what happened to AA77, Ultima1? Are you going to dodge your responsibility to tell us or will you dodge that like every truther before you?

And you do not have to take my word for the FDR data, you can go to the NTSB webpage and file an FOIA. Unless you are afraid the data would prove you wrong.

Evasion noted. You can't bring any evidence to the table.

Originally posted by wsamplet
I think it is worth mentioning that if you tried to recreate the pentagon event you would get a differernt result everytime.

I am still wating for the evidence you stated you had.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by wsamplet
I think it is worth mentioning that if you tried to recreate the pentagon event you would get a differernt result everytime.

I am still wating for the evidence you stated you had.

Dodge noted. We're still waiting for yours.

Originally posted by seanm
Dodge noted. We're still waiting for yours.

My evidence for the Pentagon is that we have no official reports, actual videos or photos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. No reports of the parts found matching flight 77.

As for the towers we have no official reports matching the parts found to the planes.

Can anyone post evidence to debate this?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
Dodge noted. We're still waiting for yours.

My evidence for the Pentagon is that we have no official reports, actual videos or photos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

Please explain to all of us how the absence of videos and photos means there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon? You must realize by now that repeating the same illogical statement isn't going to magically make it true.

No videos or photos are needed. None were needed to now the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank.

No reports of the parts found matching flight 77.

How would you know if you refuse to ask those who removed the wreckage? And, of course, you have reason to dismiss the photos of the wreckage, right? If so, present it.

As for the towers we have no official reports matching the parts found to the planes.

Yes, we have plenty of evidence from multiple sources that AA11 and UA175 hit the towers.

Can anyone post evidence to debate this?

There is nothing to debate. If and when you can demonstrate that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon and tell us what happened to it and its passengers and why no evidence has surfaced to the contrary, we're all ears. As we have been for the last six years waiting for any 9/11 truther to cough up some evidence.

Start with the rescue and recovery crews and tell us what wreckage they recovered. You do know what they stated, don't you?

Originally posted by seanm

Please explain to all of us how the absence of videos and photos means there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon? You must realize by now that repeating the same illogical statement isn't going to magically make it true.

No videos or photos are needed. None were needed to now the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank.

How would you know if you refuse to ask those who removed the wreckage? And, of course, you have reason to dismiss the photos of the wreckage, right? If so, present it.

Yes, we have plenty of evidence from multiple sources that AA11 and UA175 hit the towers.

1. If we have no official reports, no photos or videos, how do we know for sure it was FLight 77 that hit the Pentagon. Can you actually tell me with 100% garantee that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon with no actual evidence to support you?

I have filed FOIA requests to the NTSB and FBI. I have the FDR data from flight 77.

I have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero. In fact Tully construction e-mailed me back and stated they could not answer my questions due to the 9/11 lawsuts.

2. They might not have been any photos or videos of the Titanic but we had lots of official reports, something we do not have for any of the 9/11 crime scenes.

3. PLeas show me the multiple sources you claim to have that flight 11 and 175 hit the towers, please show research done and sites used to verify information.

Please show me something from the FBI or NTSB since they are the official investigators.






[edit on 13-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Help for Ultima1:

www.911myths.com...

www.gwu.edu...

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.aerospaceweb.org...

www.ukfssart.org.uk...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Get back to us with your detailed evidence against the above, Ultima1. Don't blow it off this time.

No need to explain the tiny hole

Not if you arent looking for a realistic explanation.

There is no way you can explain how a jumbo jet made the hole in the pentagon based on either physics or case history. sorry. it hasnt been done (fact) and wont be (opinion).

you can explain it away all you want but not using the scientific method

Originally posted by seanm
Help for Ultima1:

www.911myths.com...

www.gwu.edu...

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.aerospaceweb.org...

www.ukfssart.org.uk...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Get back to us with your detailed evidence against the above, Ultima1. Don't blow it off this time.

Is that the best you could come up with, some unofficial conspiracy sites? Those are just reports on the FDRs. Where do they state any facts about the planes hitting the builidngs and what happnened to them?

Where are the actual facts and reports that stated the planes hit the buildings and the parts found match those planes.

Please try to do some better research before posting so you do not makes yourself look bad.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Double post

[edit on 14-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
Help for Ultima1:

www.911myths.com...

www.gwu.edu...

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

www.aerospaceweb.org...

www.ukfssart.org.uk...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Get back to us with your detailed evidence against the above, Ultima1. Don't blow it off this time.

Is that the best you could come up with, some unofficial conspiracy sites? Those are just reports on the FDRs. Where do they state any facts about the planes hitting the builidngs and what happnened to them?

Where are the actual facts and reports that stated the planes hit the buildings and the parts found match those planes.

Please try to do some better research before posting so you do not makes yourself look bad.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I'll point out for the record that I wrote: "Get back to us with your detailed evidence against the above, Ultima1."

This would be a good time to let others respond to your post. I'll ask readers here to state whether they think your response is correct and appropriate or not.













[edit on 14-10-2007 by seanm]

seanm

I've been watching this conversation now and I think Ultima is asking whether you can show where in these reports do they match the recovered pieces of the plane with the said plane in question?

Is it in these reports or not?

[edit on 14-10-2007 by talisman]