It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11

reply to post by peacenpizza


Sorry are you a conscript or a volunteer? I can understand if you have been conscripted but i find it odd, if you have not, that you would want to serve a government you believe capable, or at the very least as the current President was not in office at the time, complicit in the murder of thousands of your own people.
I would think that if you truely believed them to be traitors to the people you would seek to either leave or start a political movement of some sort. It just leads me to believe that a lot of people who claim it was orchestrated by the U.S lack the conviction of their stated beliefs because at the back of their mind they know in this instance their was no conspiracy.

reply to post by ATH911


I've seen enough accident results and know enough about aircraft construction to easily understand the crashsite at the Pentagon. As I said, the only thing that surprised me was that the Pentagon wasn't damaged worse.

I've also spent enough time at the Pentagon to understand why that 1. That section was upgraded first and 2. Why the hijackers aimed for it.

reply to post by Rocketman1


I understand your point. I enlisted after the 911 attacks, right out of HS. I didn't know about what was going on, and was totally in the dark. Had I known, of course things would be different. It's easier said than done to just leave. Family, friends... etc. Now that is what life really is about. I don't have the money, nor do I have the resources to move my entire family and life elsewhere. It's not about serving the government anymore; for me, it's about standing beside my fellow troops. It's a really hard situation, and it's hard for other people to understand what it feels like. The more and more I learn, the more uncomfortable I feel.

reply to post by vipertech0596


viper.....thisis intriguing. Could you elaborate??

I've also spent enough time at the Pentagon to understand why that 1. That section was upgraded first and 2. Why the hijackers aimed for it.

.....because, as for "aiming"....I've thought on this a bit....quite a bit.....and looking at he arrangement of the five sides, AND the area and topography......the obvious "approach" of following Columbia Pike seems natural.

OTHER sides of the Pentagon (the "south" portico, for example) have more buttresses.....the other (eastern) wedges, working counter-clockwise....are where the Bus Stations are....more barriers.

Only OTHER "attack" direction is from the North....OR, the NorthWest, into those segments. Again, terrain and other obstacles (AS you can see, with your own eyes, whilst walking or driving around the vicinity) might have been an issue...in the planning.

Certainly, there ARE other attack paths, and lack of obstacles.....they (hijacker terrorists) chose a plan, and it used a VERY obvious street/highway (Columbia Pike - Route 244) as a perfect"guide"....since the final steering to HIT the Pentagon was done visually.

(Actually, once in the area, it was ALL "visual"....from the hijacker's perspective, as he steered....)

Originally posted by vipertech0596
I've also spent enough time at the Pentagon to understand why that 1. That section was upgraded first and 2. Why the hijackers aimed for it.

You're saying Hani intentionally aimed for the section that would do the least damage?

.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by youngdrodeau
reply to post by Soloist

 

Your first link about a helicopter simply arose from the confusion of that morning. There was no subsequent witness confirmation of a helicopter flying around any more than there was subsequent confirmation of a car bomb going off at the State Dept as also reported that morning.

With regard to the second clip it is well known that there was a C130 in the area. Nearby Reagan National airport asked the C130 to look out for AA 77. They picked up AA 77 visually and reported the crash to ATC at Reagan. So that flight crew's testimony is to be added to all the rest.

Actually there were other similar reports from other witnesses.I just don't have a link to those news clips.I used to have them in my YouTube favorites.I'll have to find them again.

But funny you bring up the confusion of the day.Cuz that was part of the beauty of the conspiracy.With all the stuff that was goin on,all the aircrafts flyin around & speed of it all,anybody who said they witnessed something else could be easily dismissed as confused.It works beautifully.It worked on you.You naturally assume these witnesses were confused & brush them off without even considering that they could be right.

Also,the reports of the State Department bombing were part of the conspiracy.FYI,the State Department bombing was reported repeatedly and confirmed by AP.Also,it was reported that there was a fire at the National Mall.I ask you...how does a completely false story like that get reported in the first place?And how does it get confirmed?I've seen a couple of videos about it from that day.In one (The first report of it,I believe),the reporter says that the person who called in to the news to report it made it a point to say that they would like to remain annonymous.In another,they say that 'senior law enforcement' have confirmed it.How do you get a car bomb exploding at the State Department & a fire at the National Mall,when nothing remotely close to that has happened?Why would someone just make something like that up?And why would annonymous people & 'senior law enforcement' report this?I'll tell you why.Because the conspirators needed to distract the media & give them other places to go & point their cameras while they set up the scene.If you haven't noticed,there was a full media blackout around the Pentagon for at least an hour after the "plane crash".No live footage of anything happening in the area.The perimeter was locked down by armed military personnel & no media was allowed in.This is because they didn't want any cameraman to get footage of them staging the "lightpole in the cab" scene.Media was only allowed in after all witnesses had been screened & all camcorders had been confiscated.You'll notice that of all the footage taken by civilians released by the FOIA,none show the area that Lloyde England's cab was at.

reply to post by youngdrodeau


There was NO "conspiracy"!!! (EXCEPT, on the part of the hijackers).

Sooner you can excise that from your head, sooner you can view the events from a rational stance.

reply to post by ATH911


No, he aimed for the section that offered the greatest chance of success. It was also viewed as the section easiest to attack due to the highways, hence was the first to be reinforced.

reply to post by youngdrodeau


The same way that they reported Congresswoman Giffords dead last week. The media got in a hurry to scoop the competition.

reply to post by thedman


ATTENTION EVERYONE.

Please stop making strawman arguments,asking questions & making comments that don't relate to the thread.This thread is not about witnesses,passengers,etc.And I don't care if you don't believe it was an inside job.Save the "There was no conspiracy..You're crazy comments.".

None of the replies I've read have actually addressed my claims.

Also,please stop saying things like "How many crashsites have you been to".I'm quite sure none of you making those comments are crashsite inspectors or have been to crashsites either.And it really doesn't matter that I'm not an expert.You don't have to be an expert at something to know basic common sense things.You don't have to be a chemist to know that soda goes flat.And you don't have to be an expert in crash mechanics to know that an object (The tail section in this case) can't tunnel through another object.

So,in conclusion,if you don't wanna discuss my claims that the tail section would had to have cut through the floors or snapped off to be seen,please don't comment on this thread.

PEACE.

reply to post by youngdrodeau


And, in conclusion....you have indicated that you DO NOT understand physics, nor the mechanisms and specifics of airplane desing and consturction??:

So,in conclusion,if you don't wanna discuss my claims that the tail section would had to have cut through the floors or snapped off to be seen,please don't comment on this thread.

INSTEAD of "dismissing" the many, many salient points raised that countered your "claims"....why not try to ADDRESS them??

This is a "teaching moment" for you, and for the readers.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by youngdrodeau

 

And, in conclusion....you have indicated that you DO NOT understand physics, nor the mechanisms and specifics of airplane desing and consturction??:

So,in conclusion,if you don't wanna discuss my claims that the tail section would had to have cut through the floors or snapped off to be seen,please don't comment on this thread.

INSTEAD of "dismissing" the many, many salient points raised that countered your "claims"....why not try to ADDRESS them??

This is a "teaching moment" for you, and for the readers.

There is nothing to address.NOBODY has made any points that challenge my claims.EVEN YOU.Saying "You don't know what you're talking about" isn't a sailent point.Do you have anything to say to challenge my claims?Am I wrong when I say the tail section would have to either cut through the floors or snap off?Is there some other possibilities?

reply to post by youngdrodeau

Do you have anything to say to challenge my claims?

YES....yes I do.

Not only am I an AIRLINE PILOT (with +20 years of experience in large passenger jets...TO INLCUDE several thousands of hours in the Boeing 757/767 family).....

Am I wrong when I say the tail section would have to either cut through the floors or snap off?

YES. You are wrong.

Is there some other possibilities?

YES. There "are" other possibilities....as I have already explained. The structure of the vertical fin SHATTERED on impact.

PLEASE comprehend this....those pictures? In your OP?? Of American 587 and Air France 447 VERTICAL FINS??

Very, very different reasons, in each case (and separate from American 77) for those events.

The FACT that you chose to use those images?? Indicates that you do NOT understand (yet) the differences...sorry, but I TRY to educate. YOU will only learn, if receptive.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Oh,you're a pilot.Congratulations.Doesnt mean *snip*.I drive cars & have been in accidents,doesn't mean I'm anymore an expert on auto wrecks than people who don't drive.Your opinion is no more valuable than mine.

And shattering on impact is exactly the same thing as snapping off.Snapping off in its entirety or into small pieces,its still snapping off.And in that case,we should see pieces of it,which we don't.Now,if you are suggesting that it shattered on impact,are you suggesting that we shouldn't see these pieces?

And FYI,I put those pictures up to show how huge a tail section is so that people could get a good mental picture of what I'm talkin about.It was not meant to compare accidents,although comparison is indeed valid.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

we dont need to be a pilot air crash investigater or any other professional body to know the OS stinks and the no evidence of a boeing crashing there and the us gov refusing to release the footage of that supposed plane is a major smoking gun.

it doesnt matter how many times ppl like weed come on here claiming they know every aspect of 9/11 we dont belive the OS and never will so do something more contructive with ur life please

alot of witmesses reported seeing the plane on a northern approach if this is true then bushy an his palls have a serious problem.

another of the many things of 9/11 i find strange is when the plane hit the wtc it didnt create a perfectly round exit whole on the other side yet the pentagon that was recently renovated did

reply to post by kaya82


No, but if you had any experience in the subject you might realize that its not the OS that stinks so bad, but that its the stuff being shoveled out by the so-called "truth" movement. Take the OP, it is claimed that it is scientifically impossible for a plane to have hit the Pentagon (his definition of "science" seems to be different from Webster's). One of the reasons is that the tail of Flight 77 did not slice into the building like the nose/fuselage did. Of course, he also admits he has no idea of how its constructed, so he's basing his whole argument on what he thinks....rather than on facts.

Whereas, quite a few posters DO know how aircraft are built and how they react on impact....but we are dismissed out of hand because pointing out reality just screws with what he thinks.

reply to post by kaya82


?????

we dont need to be a pilot air crash investigater or any other professional body ....

Well....I am NOT an "air crash investigator"...but AM a professional body. BTW, next time you need some medical procedure.....keep in mind the comment: "...we dont need.....any professional body...."

GOOD LUCK with your appendectomy or heart transplant, there!!

the no evidence of a boeing crashing there .....

??Indeed?? Guess you haven't watched the videos.....

....and the us gov refusing to release the footage of that supposed plane is a major smoking gun.

??? ALL video HAS BEEN RELEASED!!! Sheesh.....it's on YouTube, for gosh sakes! (Search "DoubleTree" and "Sheraton" videos....besides the one from the Pentagon Guard Gate security camera).........

...alot of witmesses reported seeing the plane on a northern approach ....

Oh, THAT old chestnut??? (Define "alot"...).

Here, THIS will explain how those FEW "witnesses" testimonies were intentionally MISREPRESENTED by....yes, by that "crack" team known as the "C.I.T."....because, THAT is likely the source of your misinformation, per your post....HERE is a video to explain a LOT of what was misrepresented by the "Citizen's Investigation Team"... (derp!! Fools, [both] of them)...:




A THREAD you should read: www.abovetopsecret.com...

another of the many things of 9/11 i find strange is when the plane hit the wtc it didnt create a perfectly round exit whole on the other side yet the pentagon that was recently renovated did

HUH?????

Might want to think that one through, again......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDING....."TTWT" (The Trouble WIth Turcios) link:

www.veoh.com...

There is ample, indeed irrefutable, evidence a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon whether you believe it or not. A quick Google search turned this up which should completely shut you down:

www.rense.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker

You will never convince anyone the OS of the Pentagon is true, it been 10 years where is your evidence to support the OS?

I agree with the OP it is scientifically impossible for a plane to fit through a tiny hole, while leaving the windows above, and on each side of the impact hole unbroken.
I will like to add that earlier photos taken right after impact shows there were no airplane debris on Pentagon lawn, which clearly proves later photos showing airplane debris on lawn was planted. Perhaps the photos of all these men with black garbage bags that were captured in many photos are men planting airplane bone yard debris, care to explain this?

Care to explain to why for the first time in American aviation history that four commercial airplanes crashed on the same day and were not investigated?

Many debunkers continue to push a fairytale based on proven lies from the OS in hoping to convince ignorant people.

reply to post by vipertech0596


When did I admit to not having any idea about airplane construction?Don't put words in my mouth.