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

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

My orignal thoughts on foundation rebar may've been wrong, and on sticking to core issues Craig's winning here. Someone add something good!

seanm doesn't have anything he is just being a bully.

Obviously the posters here aren't falling for it.

They all know that you fell flat on your face evading having to answer an easy question. Now your evasions and lack of knowledge are on the record, Craig.

yes i am a new poster, but i have a question, has anyone ever wondered why there arent more video's of a building that has 100's of security camera's watching 24/7 ???
seriously, if they wanted to squash the rumor that it was NOT a plane that hit the building then they could easily post it from a variety of different angles and definatley have at least ONE video of the plane coming down from the sky??????? And wht is it that the only videos they have released only show a quick white blur and at horrible angles mind you???

So let me get this straight -
The govt had NO problem with killing 3000 people on 9/11. However they let guys who are posting "irrefutable" proof of this continue to walk around. That's about all I need to make my decision.

But, if we must have the point by point, then:

Let's remember back to HS geometry for the definition of "proof"

If a plane did not hit the pentagon, and a missile did, then it follows that the govt planned ALL the events of that day. Were they waiting for some random hijacking to set off what the "powder monkeys" planted? The powder monkeys who we are supposed to believe were kidnapped and placed on the non-existent plane or otherwise rubbed out? How about those who easily carried the small amount of uncharred wreckage to the scene.
Hey maybe they were paid off really good.

conclusion: the govt was in on all or nothing.


How about the small hole and the no foundation damage? Does anyone really know what exact shape of hole, what exact amount of damage, or what exact amount of wreckage will result from a 500 mph collision and fireball? Aren't planes made of aluminum? have you ever melted a can in a campfire?
You cannot predict the result of such a collision, nor can you analyze these collisions without controlled testing that consistently proves your theories of the results. The collisions at the Pentagon, WTC, and PA all fall within the realm of possible results for such collisions.
Therefore ALL analysis of these collisions are subjective and offer no proof of anything.

As I read these threads during the past week or so, I can't help but notice the prolific use of the words "probably" "could have easily" "maybe". That does not constitute proof.

That the plane most likely would have damaged the foundation, is not "proof" the plane did not exist. It is proof that the plane did not follow a layman's ballistic theory. Wow, a 1 sentence explanation. Not 4 pages of html and 3 movies to download, all presented in classic Michael Moore fashion to support
this theory. There's plenty of stuff the govt is really lying about, but I'm afraid this ain't one of them.

You know, if your theory does not work, you can always add holograms to the arsenal of the conspirators, and MAKE it work.

then why not release that tapes and prove it??

for all the holes in the story of what happened and how on 9/11, it would be irresponsible not to question them.

Maybe they won't release more tapes because then you know where the cameras are. Most likely they are not threatened by those who are questioning.
There may be some holes, but any theory put forth to show the govt even knew anything is so full of holes as to be laughable, especially when the holes are plugged with holograms, maybe's, what if's and let's assume....

Originally posted by me262

......but any theory put forth to show the govt even knew anything is so full of holes as to be laughable, especially when the holes are plugged with holograms, maybe's, what if's and let's assume....

Not the work of CIT.

We base all claims on hard evidence that we have personally obtained.

The plane has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt to have been on the north side of the citgo station proving a military deception.

Originally posted by Mcyeah
then why not release that tapes and prove it??

for all the holes in the story of what happened and how on 9/11, it would be irresponsible not to question them.

There are no "holes" in the evidence. There's a lot of wishful thinking by Twoofers like Craig who "imagine" holes wherever they look.

No video nor photo is needed to ascertain what hit the Pentagon. Craig wants you to think he can "prove" or "disprove" anything on the basis of a handful of photographs, all the time denying the evidence he cannot refute.

Now that Craig has bellyflopped imagining there was no 757, we can just chalk up another silly "theory" by a person who has revealed he has no grasp of the evidence.



[edit on 1-10-2007 by seanm]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Security video showing object low and perfectly level with on frame of a strange squiggly smoke plume that doesn't cast a shadow.

Did you even considered distance as a factor? As to emphasize the point, the gif you put out shows how wide the shadow is from a distance just from the size of the explosion. The farther away the shadow is from your eyes, the thinner it will looked, hence you have a hard time seeing the shadow of that white smoke.

Originally posted by Mcyeah
yes i am a new poster, but i have a question, has anyone ever wondered why there arent more video's of a building that has 100's of security camera's watching 24/7 ???
seriously, if they wanted to squash the rumor that it was NOT a plane that hit the building then they could easily post it from a variety of different angles and definatley have at least ONE video of the plane coming down from the sky??????? And wht is it that the only videos they have released only show a quick white blur and at horrible angles mind you???

We're ALL waiting for those videos to be released. On a positive note, I recently heard from a reputable source that they will release them soon!!

... Along with some other key videos: The Roswell wreckage footage, a secret JFK assassination film and a great little video of the Bilderberg group meeting with the Purple Reptoids to go over the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by JRCrowley]

Originally posted by deltaboy

Did you even considered distance as a factor? As to emphasize the point, the gif you put out shows how wide the shadow is from a distance just from the size of the explosion. The farther away the shadow is from your eyes, the thinner it will looked, hence you have a hard time seeing the shadow of that white smoke.

The lack of shadow is secondary.

The real smoking gun is the fact that the plume and object approaches perfectly level while the FDR reports a noticeable descent angle which would be expected due to the significant quick descent in the topography after the Navy Annex.

Clearly there is no descent angle in that security video so the government's own data fatally contradicts itself.

Add that up with the citgo witness north side testimony and the lack of any visible damage to the foundation whatsoever and a military deception has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt via hard evidence from multiple data sources.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Wonder if anyone else has noticed the problem with the "no foundation damage" claim in regards to the pictures posted on the thread.

Long time forum reader. First time poster. The Mechanical Engineer inside of me finds it hard to believe that a 757 flying anywhere between 150 and 500 mph did so little damage. I remember hearing a plane hit the Pentagon. I figured the damage would have been on a gradiose scale. Granted, of all places, the Pentagon is probably built as stout as any building in the US. Civil Engineers I knew in school would talk about the factor of safety of a nuclear power plant was being able withstand a direct hit by a 747 (allegedly). I do not have evidence of the US building a mock power plant and ramming a plane into it. Nor do I have evidence that a plane did or did not hit the Pentagon. Common sense tells me that the kinetic energy a Boeing 757 (200,000 lbs approx depending on fuel consumption), even flying only at 150-200 mph (hypothetically on the low end), would gut that section of the building to a larger extent.

Now everyone can get on their soapbox and scream at me yelling for evidence. I really do not care. The truth is, we live in an imperfect world. In most cases, you are not privy to all of the evidence. One has to draw their own conclusions from what is available. I believe in general there are conspiracies that were perpetrated for certain reasons. Is this one of them? We may never know. Some things are never fully explained or are simply phenomenon that are beyond our understanding.

Regardless, 200,000 lbs moving at any speed will pack a hell of a punch, even on a glancing blow. I am not convinced that a plane hit the Pentagon. Not at all.

Have a nice day.

"www.airdisaster.com/photos/5b-dby/photo.shtml"

Click on the link above - and look at the Helios Airlines 737 crash photos(3 pictures) in Greece of August 2005-read the story--.

Here are my points and how they connect to the alleged Pentagon 757 crash.

1) Why did the Helios 737 - after suffering oxygen depravation at approximately 35,000ft agl- start a slow dive - and eventually - impact good ole solid mother Earth - thick- solid- immovable hard scrape ground, and yet the tail is virtually intact on the hillside...look at he photos....! The engines were found in big burned hulks also -

2) The Alleged Pentagon 757 crash - flying low at near 500 mph( paraphrashing here) hits a slightly movable-pliable outside wall structure- though re-inforced- but has openings- windows- nooks and crannies- yet disintegrates to almost nothing - except a few non-charred pieces out side the building...?

3) Why does the red ball of fire seem to go straight up and not blow sideways also? Was the flashpoint in the 757's wings so ready that it instantly exploded upwards...? Why not down and sideways - boiling jet fuel aflame all over the ground running down gutters every which way? No blast back charring the ground for hundreds of feet..? Watch the video of the recent China Airlines 737-800 landing and burnout and see how long it takes to get ignited..plenty of time to escape - why didn't it explode 'right away"..?

4) Why was there a hole in the C ring - opposite side - an Aluminum jet piercing that far through the building - strong enough for that - but not strong enough to show a little bit of tail after rapid deceleration into the building - d*mn strong noses on that 757.!!!

SEA Alien


[edit on 1-10-2007 by SEA-Alien]

Originally posted by SEA-Alien
"www.airdisaster.com/photos/5b-dby/photo.shtml"

Click on the link above - and look at the Helios Airlines 737 crash photos(3 pictures) in Greece of August 2005-read the story--.

Here are my points and how they connect to the alleged Pentagon 757 crash.

1) Why did the Helios 737 - after suffering oxygen depravation at approximately 35,000ft agl- start a slow dive - and eventually - impact good ole solid mother Earth - thick- solid- immovable hard scrape ground, and yet the tail is virtually intact on the hillside...look at he photos....! The engines were found in big burned hulks also -

Did you forget to consider the angle of impact, or did you just assume it must have been straight down?

2) The Alleged Pentagon 757 crash - flying low at near 500 mph( paraphrashing here) hits a slightly movable-pliable outside wall structure- though re-inforced- but has openings- windows- nooks and crannies- yet disintegrates to almost nothing - except a few non-charred pieces out side the building...?

So what?

3) Why does the red ball of fire seem to go straight up and not blow sideways also? Was the flashpoint in the 757's wings so ready that it instantly exploded upwards...? Why not down and sideways - boiling jet fuel aflame all over the ground running down gutters every which way? No blast back charring the ground for hundreds of feet..? Watch the video of the recent China Airlines 737-800 landing and burnout and see how long it takes to get ignited..plenty of time to escape - why didn't it explode 'right away"..?

On what basis should you imagine what should have happened?

4) Why was there a hole in the C ring - opposite side - an Aluminum jet piercing that far through the building - strong enough for that - but not strong enough to show a little bit of tail after rapid deceleration into the building - d*mn strong noses on that 757.!!!

Did you consider that the landing gears are not made of flimsy aluminum? You realize that the hole was created by one of them, don't you?

Sometimes, "unanswered" questions have long-since been addressed, legitimate questions or not.


SEA Alien


[edit on 1-10-2007 by SEA-Alien]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The real smoking gun is the fact that the plume and object approaches perfectly level while the FDR reports a noticeable descent angle which would be expected due to the significant quick descent in the topography after the Navy Annex.

Yet a 757 hit the Pentagon nonetheless. How are you goingt to explain away that?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Wonder if anyone else has noticed the problem with the "no foundation damage" claim in regards to the pictures posted on the thread.

Obviously not.

Why don't you explain it to us?

All of the 9/11 conspiracy theories were initiated by disbelief at the result of the collisions. Disbelief by those who really have no idea what damage would be caused by a plane. No idea of actual airspeed, actual weight, angle of impact, actual structural composition of buildings and foundations, etc.

So all (I mean ALL) the evidence is based upon dissecting the crash damage and shadows of smoke and assumptions of the level of destruction. AND all of these analysis' are conducted without the benefit of a "control" crash, where you actually know the weight, speed, angle, tilt, building composition,etc, upon which you can base your claims with some modicum of authority. How do they know which cars are safe -by crashing them under controlled conditions.

As far as other evidence, there is none. No one has come forward. No blast teams, no govt officials, media, nobody. No evidence of demolition, nor anyone who knows of it. No documents or memos. No money trail.

We were all kind of surprised to see the buildings fall, but that is how the physics of the collisions worked. Certainly more reasonable than holograms.

I have more trouble believing there is a massive conspiracy (really MASSIVE) than believing the destruction could not have been caused by planes.

Not to say the govt hasn't capitalized on this, which they obviously have.

Originally posted by me262


As far as other evidence, there is none.

You are quite incorrect.

The plane has been shown to be on the north side of the citgo station proving the plane did not cause the physical damage.

Click on my signature for the evidence.

Not to mention the government provided FDR fatally contradicts the physical evidence as well.

None of this is based on speculation or conjecture and proves a military deception beyond a reasonable doubt.

No idea of actual airspeed, actual weight, angle of impact

This is also incorrect - we have FDR data that tells us exactly what we'd like to know, and more.

If you really want to get technical about it - FOIA the load sheet for the flight. It'll tell you exactly how much that jet weighed when it left the gate and how much fuel was on board. From there, you can work it out approximately and be pretty close.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Sorry, I watch your whole video.
This video proves beyond any doubt the failure and limitations of human memory. Very useful in a psychology class.

Is there GPS data in the black boxes? or radar? Those are the things that prove trajectory. Or film from a camera that was mounted in a known location. That would prove how the plane traveled.

Film of light poles that were broken the day before would do it. Film taken before the crash that is.

Film of a still existing plane after the crash.

Eyewitness of still existing plane.

eyewitness of broken light poles.

Some evidence of an actual coverup, explosives, not just a crash that in your opinion should have been bigger?

But it must be, since the govt has "so much riding" on the war on terror?
Not even enough here to cast reasonable doubt, let alone the "end of debate proof" you claim.