There Was No Missile At the Pentagon - But the Plane Did Not Hit

reply to post by adam_zapple


dude, it had a question mark, what is that suppost to mean? do you know what argument means? or everytime you hear/read that word you picture two people screaming and about to punch each other?

ar·gu·ment (ärgy-mnt)
n.
1.
a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
b. A quarrel; a dispute.
c. Archaic A reason or matter for dispute or contention: "sheath'd their swords for lack of argument" Shakespeare.

Anyway from all facts that we have, pictures, withness' testimony, official story and etc etc...

You can pretty much come to the conclusion that what the goverment says does not fit into your quack analogy because even though we have some facts that point in one direction we have some more that point in the other direction.


[edit on 5-3-2009 by Arsenis]

Originally posted by Arsenis
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

dude, it had a question mark, what is that suppost to mean?

It means it's a question I asked, "dude", not a statement/argument that I made.

Originally posted by Arsenis do you know what argument means? or everytime you hear/read that word you picture two people screaming and about to punch each other?

An argument, in this sense, would be a statement presented to defend a view. I asked a question...it was not an argument.

Originally posted by Arsenis
You can pretty much come to the conclusion that what the goverment says does not fit into your quack analogy because even though we have some facts that point in one direction we have some more that point in the other direction.

The government didn't have to tell us that the plane hit the building...all of the eyewitnesses said so, the airline companies said so, the rescue workers said so...etc.

There is more evidence of a plane impact than there is of the plane MISSING the Pentagon.

There are several problems with the wall breaching and planted explosives theory.
The most obvious is the fuel fire. If an explosive were to be used, it would need large amounts of jet fuel internal and external to the building. There would had to have been a tanker truck parked outside, or an equivalent container of jet fuel. There would have been evidence of such a container. There is none.
The damage internal to the building is not consistent with explosive but with physical impact.

A large flying object filled with jet fuel struck the building and caused the damage.

Check out the list of passengers who were on Flight 77, which allegedly slammed into the Pentagon. What do these people all have in common?

www.thewebfairy.com...


[edit on 6-3-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Many were from DC which has a high population of ex-military and government contractors.

posted by pteridine
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

Many were from DC which has a high population of ex-military and government contractors.

And they were all flying to Los Angeles? And who were the alleged hijackers since there were no Arabs on board Flight 77?

It does seem odd that this married couple managed to be together on the same flight which did not crash into the Pentagon, but disappeared, when they could possibly have set up a new life together with a large paid bonus and new names. What are the odds of them being on the same flight on 9-11 when normally they were assigned different flights?

Flight 77 never returned to Virginia, but was replaced with a different commercial aircraft which flew a completely different flight path than the official version included in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, across the Potomac to the east, and banking around Reagan National, and flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, flying much slower high above the light poles and overhead highway sign which were not knocked down. This aircraft could not possibly have knocked down the five official light poles nor created the official damage path through the Pentagon interior. The official aircraft was supposed to be knocking down light poles and flying low and level inches above the lawn, and hitting a generator trailer and flying at 535 mph.

4. Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was a flight attendant for 17 years.
5. Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was a flight attendant for 15 years.

Friends thought flight attendants Jennifer and Kenneth Lewis were such a good match that they collectively referred to them as "Kennifer." Though the husband and wife team from Culpepper, Va. often worked separate flights, they were together on American Airlines Flight 77, planning to vacation when they reached Los Angeles.

reply to post by SPreston


Yes, Preston, they were all flying to Los Angeles. If they had wanted to fly to New York, they would have been on a different airplane. This may surprise you but people do travel to LA. It is what we call an important city and has a nice big airport.
The problem of the fuel still has not been explained away by you or CIT. You need more than a few thousand gallons to make such a fire.
Damage is also not consistent with high explosives so I think you and CIT are better off with a big airplane striking the building. You can always claim "CIA Mind controlled terrorists" or "Remote controlled aircraft" if you want a conspiracy.

CIT is not better off with a big plane hitting the Pentagon because of the small amount of initial damage to its facade plus the lack of debris expected form such a plane. So, unless one is so desperate enough to support the official scenario that one suspends the laws of material physics by supposing that the wings folded back neatly in place and were squeezed through a hole 18ft wide instead of breaking off, one has to accept that a smaller jet did hit the wall, perhaps firing bunker-busting missiles ahead of impact in order to create a large explosion consistent with a commercial jet hitting the Pentagon. Otherwise, what caused the external damage to the facade?

I still wonder what the plane seen by the Pentagon police officers was doing there. If it was not off-course (i.e., intended to fly south of the Citgo gas station, then fly over the Pentagon), why would the perps risk creating evidence of a contradiction to the official story if people saw it (as in fact happened)? CIT would make more converts if it could provide a plausible reason for this plane being there. I think it has proved beyond question that the official story is false - a magnificent achievement. However, it would help its cause if CIT could offer a reason for the plane being there in the first place. If they are unable to understand why the perps flew this plane low over the Pentagon, some people may prefer to believe that all the witnesses placing the plane north of the gas station are lying, however unlikely that it is. After all, why not just fly it into the Pentagon? Surely, the most likely reason is: because the plane was off-course?

[edit on 7-3-2009 by micpsi]

reply to post by micpsi


There was more than a "small amount" of initial damage. Pictures of the fire and immediately after supression show the damage. It was not a single hole.
No aircraft fired missile holds enough fuel or can carry enough fuel to produce the required fires. The type of explosion and extent of fire require large amounts of fuel. The damage was kinetic and not from shock waves. The only thing that fits is a large, fuel-laden aircraft. Start there and build a conspiracy, if you wish. Any other version of reality does not fit the evidence.

www.geoffmetcalf.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
avel to LA. It is what we call an important city and has a nice big airport.
The problem of the fuel still has not been explained away by you or CIT. You need more than a few thousand gallons to make such a fire.
Damage is also not consistent with high explosives so I think you and CIT are better off with a big airplane striking the building. You can always claim "CIA Mind controlled terrorists" or "Remote controlled aircraft" if you want a conspiracy.

Prove it.

You have provided zero evidence demonstrating that it would take "more than a few thousand gallons (of jet fuel) to make such a fire".

You completely made that up!

Based off what?

The images you stared at with fire in them??

That is not evidence, it is your wild speculation and it is ridiculous.

This completely unsupported assertion of yours requires you to accept the notion that it would be impossible for the richest most powerful defense agency on earth to create the fire you see in the pictures internally without a 757.

Is that really what you believe?

If so I think the U.S. would have to be one rather weak and defenseless country!

Now if your absurd suggestion is merely based on the fact that some people reported "smelling" jet fuel it's clear you have absolutely no case at all.

Primarily since most who have looked into this already know that this diesel fuel generator trailer had been billowing out copious amounts of smoke for hours.



(hint: look up jet fuel and look up diesel)

But also because we know that "aviation fuel" tanks were near by (no doubt due to the heliport tower being right there) and according to military man Ted Anderson, they were exploding during the aftermath.

One of the Pentagon's two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was "totally engulfed in flames," Anderson says. Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one.
mainstream media source

So there is plenty of evidence proving why people would think they smelled jet fuel even though no plane hit the building.

But inside the building was an entirely different story.

April Gallop was able to escape through the hole barefoot.

We spoke with one of the hero first-responders who helped her.

So frankly there is nothing whatsoever to support your fallacious "thousands of gallons of jet fuel" claim yet plenty of evidence that this wasn't the case.

Your wild speculation and conspiracy theorizing in favor of the official "CT" is not evidence at all let alone evidence against the proven north side approach.










[edit on 7-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by micpsi

However, it would help its cause if CIT could offer a reason for the plane being there in the first place. If they are unable to understand why the perps flew this plane low over the Pentagon, some people may prefer to believe that all the witnesses placing the plane north of the gas station are lying, however unlikely that it is. After all, why not just fly it into the Pentagon? Surely, the most likely reason is: because the plane was off-course?

Yes it's a fair question micpsi and we have in fact answered it many times in detail in more than one presentation with evidence presented.

I used to think that perhaps the plane was simply off course but now we have an incredible amount of evidence for a very detailed "2nd plane cover story" so we are convinced that they did this very much on purpose.

First of all realize how the OP in this thread points out how the counter-intelligence operation getting us all to focus on "missiles" via that fraudulent security video has successfully kept people diverted from focusing on the flight path for years anyway.

And obviously the north side approach was not considered an anomaly for the federal police officers or any of the witnesses we spoke with who were actually there and had no clue of the implications of what they saw until we interviewed them and released our presentations spelling it all out

So even they were successfully deceived and diverted DESPITE the fact that the plane was not where it was supposed to be.

But we believe that the 2nd plane cover story was absolutely critical to the operation and understanding this will really help you put the pieces of the puzzle together.

In a nutshell....they wanted to be able to write off the plane flying away to being a "2nd plane" so people who saw it would still believe that AA77 hit the building.

Police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr (the first known flyover witness) was clearly fooled by this as he completely thought the "commercial jet" he saw at less than 100 feet immediately after the explosion was a "2nd plane".

We go into this in extreme detail along with a complete explanation for the entire operation in our comprehensive full-length release, The Pentagon Flyover -How They Pulled It Off, but also in our 34 minute short The 2nd Plane Cover Story, or you can also read an article about it here.


But I also wanted to answer your other related question "After all, why not just fly it into the Pentagon?".

The answer to that is actually quite obvious.

Clearly they did not plan to completely demolish their own headquarters as they did the WTC.

Therefore complete control of the damage (and no doubt who was murdered) was of utmost importance. They would want to ensure that with surgical precision and clearly this would be infinitely easier to predict with strategically planted explosives/shaped charges/incendiaries as opposed to the impact of ANY plane that would certainly cause more random damage and risk debris from the wrong aircraft being strewn all over the place.

Originally posted by pteridine

Damage is also not consistent with high explosives so I think....

This always cracks me up too.

Where is your independent forensic analysis of the physical evidence supporting this?

Obviously none exists because the crime scene was COMPLETELY controlled by the suspect.

The ASCE report is not independent.

True skeptics require independent evidence.

Once again you are merely making stuff up based on your personal belief from staring at pictures.

But let's stare at the pictures a little closer, shall we?

First off I agree with you that the hole can't fairly be classified as limited to 18 feet which is why pseudo-skeptics love hearing this claim that is easily debunked.

But the damage is certainly NOT consistent with a 757.

Although you can fairly say there was 90 feet of "damage" it's not fair to say the "hole" was 90 feet.


Here's a composite image:


Here's a good one with measurements:


The ASCE report admits that the damage from the alleged plane was mostly on the first floor but limited to the first two floors. The plane simply doesn't fit.



Remember the ASCE report says the right wing was tilted up as they depicted in this official image:



But if you take a closer look at where the right wing supposedly entered there is no continuity to the damage:


And if you take an even closer look at where the right ENGINE supposedly entered you see columns still intact as well as some actually blown up and out as we would expect from internal explosives:


So although the alleged right wing/engine damage is entirely anomalous we can't forget how this officially reported wing tilt requires the left engine to burrow more than half way into the foundation as they show in this official image:



RB-211's are really big:


Yet there is no photographic evidence of damage to the foundation as outlined in detail in this article.

So it's 100% clear that there have been NUMEROUS questions regarding the physical evidence as observed by the photographic evidence and compared to the official reports which is what got people questioning the event in the first place.

Now we know why and have the evidence to prove it.

The plane was on the north side and therefore did not hit the building.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Craig,
The damage does extend to 90 feet but the complete removal of supporting columns does not. This is because the wings outboard of the engines begin to taper and are not as physically strong or as massive as the fuselage and wing roots. The bent columns that you claim are from explosives could also further argue for the "official" flight path as they are consistent with entry SoC. In fact, the contrived "flyover plus timed explosives" theory has too many inconsistencies to be believed by any rational individual.
You should first address the topic of the fuel deflagration and fires if you wish to make any converts to the latest version of CIT truth. Come up with about 3,000 gallons of fuel external and about the same amount internal. Mix some light hydrocarbons in with the fuel to ensure ignition. You'll also need a burster charge and ignition sources. I'd add about a 100 millisecond delay on the ignitors to make it believeable.
Conspire away!

I'm not really too concerned whether a missile was used at the Pentagon or not. I think CIT has done an outstanding job presenting a case that something other than the government version of events happened that day. Other people have done similar jobs with other aspects of the 9/11 story. I'm sold. 9/11 was an inside job.

Unfortunately in the world that we live in, it doesn't matter what you can prove. The perps at the top control access to the courts and justice and have control over the legislative branch.

The Bush administration continually thumbed their noses at the law, at due process and at the relevance of truth to anything they did. They murdered 3000 people in New York and are responsible for somewhere approaching 1,000,000 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. These crimes are going to go unpunished, at least here on earth. Why is that?

We now live in the new Nazi era.

The new Nazis are far more sophisticated than the group led by Hitler. Gone are the bar room bullies, the fancy uniforms, the street fighting thugs, and the Aryan blood quacks. The slavering greedy industrialists are still in the mix, but the Nazis and their rich backers have learned from history.

No more fire breathing orator at the front. Taking a leaf from Howard Stern, who championed the oratorical style of "Crackhead Bob", the new Nazis had at their head the suet brained George W. Bush. Why? To help Americans believe that contrary to the obvious chaos around them, nothing was really happening. It worked.

There is a lot more to the story. Read Jim Marrs's book, The Rise of the Fourth Reich.

Nobody is going to drain the 9/11 swamp until Americans wake up and realize that they are up to their asses in alligators and that they better start doing something about the alligators before it's too late.

Job 1 is a political job. Until that job is done, nothing else matters.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by pteridine


You have presented zero evidence.

Your opinion is not evidence.

I have presented scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence proving the plane did not hit.

Why is your faith in government so strong that you are willing to abandon true skepticism and critical thinking principles in order to dismiss evidence contradicting what you were told?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You have presented your opinion bolstered by selective quotes from witnesses. The physical evidence says a plane hit. Other witnesses say a plane hit.
Your story has yet to explain the large quantities of fuel required, internal and external to the building, for the deflagration and subsequent fires.

Originally posted by pteridine

You have presented your opinion bolstered by selective quotes from witnesses. The physical evidence says a plane hit. Other witnesses say a plane hit.

No I present entire first-hand accounts filmed on-location proving the plane did not hit.

That is not opinion, it is evidence.

You have not presented a single first-hand account or any evidence at all.

Media reports are hearsay, not evidence.

Your story has yet to explain the large quantities of fuel required, internal and external to the building, for the deflagration and subsequent fires.

You have no idea how much "fuel" it would take for the fireball.

Hollywood makes them all the time, I'm sure the Pentagon has the same capabilities as Hollywood. Agreed?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Actually, Craig, I do have an idea of how much fuel it would take. It would take 3000 to 5000 gallons. If you were going to stage it, you would mix gasoline or another light hydrocarbon in with the diesel or jet to be sure of ignition. As I stated earlier, you would need a burster charge to scatter the fuel and an ignition source to light the mixture. Make sure that the burster has a persistent high temperature source and that the fuel mix contains a light hydrocarbon and you may do it with one charge.

reply to post by pteridine


Please provide the independent verifiable evidence proving the exact size, intensity, amount of energy dissipated, and exact fuel source of the fireball.

Then please provide your calculations that enabled you to come to your figures regarding gallons of fuel required.

And then prove to me, with evidence, that it's impossible to simulate in any other way than your conclusion.

If you don't have this evidence please admit that you are merely speculating based on nothing but a dubious security video that was sequestered, controlled, and provided for by the very suspect implicated by the north side approach evidence.

Oh and then provide independent verifiable evidence proving the plane was not on the north side as all confirmed first-hand eyewitness accounts unanimously agree.

So far you have provided zero evidence.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pteridine

 

Please provide the independent verifiable evidence proving the exact size, intensity, amount of energy dissipated, and exact fuel source of the fireball.

Then please provide your calculations that enabled you to come to your figures regarding gallons of fuel required.

And then prove to me, with evidence, that it's impossible to simulate in any other way than your conclusion.

If you don't have this evidence please admit that you are merely speculating based on nothing but a dubious security video that was sequestered, controlled, and provided for by the very suspect implicated by the north side approach evidence.

Oh and then provide independent verifiable evidence proving the plane was not on the north side as all confirmed first-hand eyewitness accounts unanimously agree.

So far you have provided zero evidence.

Please provide photographic proof of an aircraft flying inbound NoC and then away from the Pentagon. Please provide physical evidence of explosives or explosive residue at the site of the attack. Please provide physical evidence of disrupted fuel contianers, tanks, or pipelines at the site of the attack and fires. Please provide physical proof that evidence was planted such as video of aircraft parts being planted in and around the Pentagon. Please also provide locations and final disposition of all aircraft and passengers on Flight 77 or admit that you are merely speculating based on nothing but dubious eyewitness accounts and heresay and that the official story of the Pentagon attack is the best explanation of the evidence.
So far you have provided zero evidence.