Let's kill the Pentagon Missile attack once and for all.

In response to an earlier post that talked about the interior rings being composed of a less thick walling material...you're wrong. Look at the picture again. I can clearly see at least 2 different kinds of material, including the bricks and limestone.


So EVERY outside wall of EVERY ring is built the same. We're still at the same 24 feet of rock that the plane had to punch through.

Sorry Joker, but I have to admit, he just nailed you. Even though I think he's still wrong on the overall event.

He threw away whatever victory he had by resorting to the Argumentum ad Hominem.

That's always the no-no in civilised debate. Why is it then that we use it in presidential campaigns all the freaking time, I wonder.

If he hadn't thrown in that line, I'd say okay, he'd have him, but then the whole FU part was like...well...okay...


But, Joker did it too...so...

I'm still trying to figure out why we were never allowed to attack the other speaker's character in forensics, only to discover that Potential National Leaders do it all the f'ing time....

Originally posted by Loki
Hmm...interesting stuff, catherder.

Can you help me?

I'm looking for someone to explain away the hole that has a smaller diameter than the fuselage of the 757 in the outermost wall.

Happy to help: The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building, designed to withstand a bomb blast and other similar terrorist activities. The outer walls are also designed to help block listening devices (that's why the building is multiple rings btw, it was designed so the more inner rings are more or less impervious to electronic listening devices from the USSR). The windows are special "blast proof" windows (basically bulletproof glass with special glazing panes), which is why they're not all smashed like some conspiracy theorists love to poiint out. The side that was hit was one of the 3 sides that was currently upgraded (this work has been going on since 1996 and will continue until 2008 on the building). It was not hit by a solid object, it was hit by a commercial airliner who's structurual design is bottom 2/5 cargo, mid 1/5 structure, top 2/5 empty space for human cargo (passengers).

It was the mid/bottom chunk that went through the wall, not the whole aluminum shell. Pretty easy to see. Take a walk around inside a 757 and note all the empty space and "soft objects".

Most people don't realise the size of a 757 - its NOT a 747... it's a mid-sized passenger airplane.


Here is an L1011 (pretty close to the same size of a 757) being scrapped, you can see that almost ALL of the support structure is in the bottom 2/5 of the plane. This is the part that punched the hole in the Pentagon, the rest of the thin, hollow, top of the plane just shredded into chunks, some of which are laying on the lawn and around the rescue vehicles. Most of a commercial airliner is just a thin aluminum shell, insulation, a thin plastic inner liner, some carpet and seats. They're designed to be as light as possible so they can carry more cargo and more people while using less fuel and at the same time remain "safe".


Apparently, here's a chunk of the plane held by an office worker from the Pentagon not long after the crash... pretty big hey? Wow, if that structural chunk of the plane is that small, wonder what happened to the aluminum peices?

The only sad thing about this whole "conspiracy" is that when the day comes that people are shown all the recovered parts, laying in a warehouse (just like the NTSB does with other crash investigation), all the conspiracy folks are going to holler "fabrication!!" It's an endless cycle...

And finally, here are (sorry they're large, but hey at least I dont rely on tiny pixelated crap like all you conspiracy folks) photos of the plane debris to the left of the main impact area. Check out all the tiny parts of it! Wow, you'd think that sucker hit a solid concrete object while going 300-500mph or something. Oh wait a second... it did.


Check out the chunks of the airliner insulation by the firehoses.


LOTS of debris here, including part of the logo from the plane.

I'll give this next image a link since it's so huge. The huge fires from all the jet fuel before the firetrucks arrived (no WAY a tiny drone caused widespread fires like this folks).

Somebody else here said "WHERE IS THE PICTURE OF THE CAB?!" Well, I'll tell you.

HERE is the picture of the cab. And here is another photo of the cab and a sheared off lightpole on the freeway.
Why don't one of you "savvy investigators" call up the cab company and see if you can interview the cab driver, his number is clearly posted on the door of his cab (Capitol Cab, DC, 546-2400) His licence plate is H=81340 and he's a black guy, in his 40's about 5'11". I'm sure he'd like to tell you all about the little missle that smashed his windshield and spun his car across the freeway before it hit the Pentagon.

Oh wait, right... you guys only go on what has been posted on the internet and not from eye witnesses and people who saw it all happen.

Nevermind.



[edit on 8-9-2004 by CatHerder]

great pics catherder...

by the way... get ready.. someone will be in here saying that those pics are fakes...


Nice find.. you get my way above vote..

this should really close this one now...

die die die

well thing is if the american goverment is lieing the sad fact is there getting away with it and no one is doin anything about nor can do anything about it

so whats every 1's conclusion to this

You have voted CatHerder for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Catherder, thanks for posting those pictures. I'm curious though, what's your opinion on the video feed of those 5 frames of the impact? What do you think of the object in it?

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Catherder, thanks for posting those pictures. I'm curious though, what's your opinion on the video feed of those 5 frames of the impact? What do you think of the object in it?

My experience, from security camera footage, is as follows.

The average security camera takes one photo every second, the more expensive ones take one photo every 0.5 seconds, and the even more ritzy ones do 6 frames per second (ohh la la!). I'd imagine the nearby gas station camera, and the other mall (I actually forget where the 3rd camera that was "confiscated" is supposed to be located) would be either the 1 or 2 fps variety of securty cameras and would more likely than not be of no real good use (honestly). Why do security cameras not take real-time video footage? Because you'd need to change the tape every 3 hours, or you'd have to invent a real big 24 hour tape and recorder the size of my fridge. There just isn't a commonly available digital solution for this yet, I'm sure one day there will be a pseudo dvd solution that captures video and stores it to a large hard drive - but I'm not sure the footage would be admissible in court (digital camera photos aren't allowed right now). So that's probably another reason security cameras aren't digitally recording. And besides, 99.999% use for a video camera is to get a single frame showing the face of a would be robber, or to catch your own staff stealing from you, or to save a picture of whomever it is accessing a secure area.

Back to the "footage" people are using here.

I see all these 200x180 grainy images, reduced in size from a previously compressed video (for broadcast over the web by CNN), and then I see the blind leading the blind (either side of the coin) by trying to use this multiple lossy compressed image as "proof" of any sort of an object. I also see the original video (from CNN) in it's lossy compression shows that it's at best a 6 fps camera that originally captured the explosion. The camera was set up, and focused, to capture images of people and vehicles entering the Pentagon area by one road, it wasn't set up to film the far off building area, but here it is being used as such as "evidence" to support whatever theory or whatever anti-theory by so many groups and individuals.

What do I see? I see a blurry image, with a blurry white smoke trail that most likely came from a damaged airplane jet engine after it hit some light poles 3 blocks away before finally crashing into the side of the building. Do I see ANY sort of a plane? Do I see any sort of a missile? No on both counts. But I do see a massive fuel explosion that I've seen quite a few other times - every time it was from aviation fuel as a large plane crashed...

Post the original video footage - perhaps ask CNN if they can forward the original (before they processed it for the web) footage to look at (what you mean NOBODY thought of that??). If somebody could show me the original footage so I could digitize it myself, at high resolution and with no compression, then I could give a decent opinion on what it is I see in each frame.

Until then? I'd just be talking out my arse like everyone else is when they use those images as anything other than armchair entertainment.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by Loki
In response to an earlier post that talked about the interior rings being composed of a less thick walling material...you're wrong. Look at the picture again. I can clearly see at least 2 different kinds of material, including the bricks and limestone.

So EVERY outside wall of EVERY ring is built the same. We're still at the same 24 feet of rock that the plane had to punch through.

Nope. Nice try, though. Look at the picture of the punch out on the inner wall and you will see that the outer wythe (yes, that is the correct spelling) is a glazed, whitish, brick, not large slabs of stone. It is only the outer wall of the outer ring (the part that everyone sees) is clad in slabs of Indiana limestone. There is no way that anyone would have spent money to clad the inner exterior walls in limestone, that is just stupid.

Furthermore, the concrete wall is also only present on the outer wall. Note that the metal bars that you see in the punchout photo are not rebar, but rather they are the black iron suports for the old plaster lath ceiling.

Originally posted by Loki
He threw away whatever victory he had by resorting to the Argumentum ad Hominem.

That's always the no-no in civilised debate. Why is it then that we use it in presidential campaigns all the freaking time, I wonder.

If he hadn't thrown in that line, I'd say okay, he'd have him, but then the whole FU part was like...well...okay...

But, Joker did it too...so...

I'm still trying to figure out why we were never allowed to attack the other speaker's character in forensics, only to discover that Potential National Leaders do it all the f'ing time....

I was just responding to the "Bob the Buildier" crack.

Originally posted by piboy
There is only one way to kill this once and for all: there must be evidence that supports only one explanation.

Early in this thread I thought we had established that there is no evidence that it actually was flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There is only evidence that some craft hit the pentagon (read the earlier posts if you don't understand why).

We discussed the problems with the eye witnesses and that the proper way to use eye-witness accounts is to have them state in their own words exactly what they saw. No paraphrasing by the news, no "my brother-in-law saw the whole thing."

What we need is video evidence, photo evidence, hard evidence (actual airplane parts) to show that it only could have been flight 77 and nothing else.

Otherwise we continue to go around in circles where everyone uses the inconclusive evidence to try to prove their own theories. And the evidence we have is consistent with both flight 77 and something else hitting the Pentagon.

Inconsistencies are not evidence. Simulations are not evidence. "Eye-witness" accounts from news reports are not evidence. Explantions by the government and\or experts are not evidence.

We need evidence to put this thing to rest. All other investigations of disasters like this have thorough and meticulous procedures to produce evidence that only supports one explanation (or at least they try to get to that point).

I quoted this post because I think is very centered and gets to the point of the thread.

So HERE I GO WITH SOME OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER:

2 Years ago I was Banned for asking the same questions I am going to ask I hope somebody can answer them with REAL FACTS and not just childish answers and corny plots.

A 757 is a real big plane its considered a "heavy" the Heavy Jets start with the 757 the 767 the 747 and the 777 (boeing ones). The FAA made some mistakes when the 757 entered service because it weights 12 tons more than a 727 fully loaded, so they tought the 757 would not induce wake turbulence, after 3 accidents the 757 was cosidered a "heavy" due to wake turbulence and size.

There has been some incidents on ..that planes crash with unmovable objects at high speed, guess what the wreckage is amazing, no stupid, idiotic, fantastic and plain unexplainable vaporization here is a picture of such incident:


This airplane crashed with a mountain at 320 knots ( I guess the mountain is a Little bit harder to crack than the pentagon!) see the pic, also the AMERICAN AIRLINES that crashed at Lima Peru (again with a mountain) has some of it parts INTACT.

To put a nice end to thi spart of my argument I was at a wreckage of Mexicana flight 930 in 1986 the 727 came down almosyt supersonically and guess what the tail was very much complete and the engines charred but recognizable, the plane had fuel and made a huge explotion.

That brings me to the "problem" with a 757 hitting the pentagon here are the "holes" to the official story.

*I am an Airline fan, quite knowledgeable in this field

1) In the photo of the ONLY remains of the craft with colors there is no blue color ALL THE PARTS OF PAINT IN RED OD AA 757 have the red stripe flush with blue and the silver color of the skin. NO BLUE? EXPLAIN THAT.
2) The Fan blades of the Rb (rolls royce) engines are made of titanium and are very sturdy yet the photo of the "engine" has only the "center" PRESUMED TO BE and doesnt have any blade and worse the main stage compresor and the shafts where are they?
To me that photo looks like an air ram jet engine that almost always propels missiles and or drones (very cheap, reliable and made to be used once)
3)The 757 is a big Sucker and was not traveling at 500mph, its imposible to fly at that speed close to the ground, the wings would be torn appart. So Its quite posible it was traveling at 250-270 Knots and even at that speed its quite a feat to travel so close to the ground, even a skilled pilot may not do it without crashing first or skiding, an amateur pilot highjaker IMPOSIBLE.
4)The wings and the engines (I have stablished those are quite sturdy parts) must have made some impacta to the sides of the "entrane" hole of the fuselage, see the large pics that is not the case, you can even see the cars parked and burned but almost clean, no debris no engines and NO HIT TO THE BUILDING , The Rb 211-535 is by turbofan engines quite heavy and the main fuel tanks in the 757 are in the wing so THERE SHOULD be AT least 2 holes to the sides of the main hit hole.
THE MAIN THING YOU MUST EXPLIN IS THIS ONE....

Ojk you say a 767 fully loaded with fuel crash the twin tower south the plane was going at 310 knots the 767-200 weights quite a lot more than the 757 and it entered the building ( A BUILDING CONSIDERABILY LESS STURDY THAN THE PENTAGON) and guess what it penetrated it and exploded ...now the 757 pierced trough some 8 to 10 walls of the pentagon disintegrating to oblivion in the process.....

So a big one crashes a normal building (with large open spaces inside -if you had been there) and disintegrates, a smaller one with less fuel goes cleanly (see prevoius post photos) through 8-10 reinforced walls.

Some other things to ponder about. NO MAGAZINE like Airliners, Airways or major one dealing with planes has made ANY comment on this inconsistencies.
With the data has become secret and withheld from public?

Something struck the pentagon that morning but a 757 IN MY DREAMS.....NO WAY

Here is the 757 in question .......

Originally posted by kix
Ojk you say a 767 fully loaded with fuel crash the twin tower south the plane was going at 310 knots the 767-200 weights quite a lot more than the 757 and it entered the building ( A BUILDING CONSIDERABILY LESS STURDY THAN THE PENTAGON) and guess what it penetrated it and exploded ...now the 757 pierced trough some 8 to 10 walls of the pentagon disintegrating to oblivion in the process.....

So a big one crashes a normal building (with large open spaces inside -if you had been there) and disintegrates, a smaller one with less fuel goes cleanly (see prevoius post photos) through 8-10 reinforced walls.

Pretty easy answer, your information is wrong to begin with in at least four regards.

First off, it was loaded with fuel.

Secondly, only the outer wall of the pentagon is reinforced - the inner walls are all double layer brick/laythe as stated in any freely available Pentagon documentation.

Third, even from the (poor image quality) security camera video you can see it EXPLODE in a huge fireball right when it hits the building. Too bad the plexiglass in front of the camera is covered with birdsh!t and dried rain droplets...




Fouth, the planes that hit the WTC towers didn't exactly "desintegrate" but thanks for lending support to the theory that a 757 hitting a reinforced concrete wall would indeed sustain more damage than one hitting the WTC.

I'm curious now, which side of the argument are you on here exactly?

Once again, I'll state that I don't see anything in these over compressed and out of focus images other than a huge explosion from something filled with jet fuel hitting the building, but I don't recall anyone using this larger uncropped (CNN.com) version.

Like the rest of you I have an uneducated guess, but I'm waiting to see if CNN will either mail me, or email me the original video footage (you only have to pay $9.95 for a tape of any CNN broadcast segment boys and girls).

Such as this one - I sort of see a silver nosed, silver tailed air plane at a 60 degree angle relative to the camera angle, obscured behind the entrance gate stand. But that's entirely subjective - you can see ANYTHING you want to see in this following image. I'm waiting for the originals before I offer any real opinion on it.

You have already voted for CatHerder this month.

Crud...Well I tried.....

It does look as though there is something there behind the gate box.
I do agree that better quality photos would be helpful in determining what it may be. It doesn't look like it is in the background of the photo because it doesn't seem to appear in subsequent photos.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by Skibum]

You did not answer my question, dont go to the ring sides explain how a smaller plane disintegrates piercing 10 walls and a big one disintegrates, also if you want to pour more in to it, lets say (for argument sakes) its without any doubt a 757, where is the debris the missing blue paint and the shafts of the Rb 211...... see, if you try to explain all those thogheter (FACTS) things do not add up, also you may or may not remember that day there was a fire in the White House, since sept 12 I havent heard of it again....... I guess there was more going on in Washington that day ......we may never know

Originally posted by CatHerder
The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building, designed to withstand a bomb blast and other similar terrorist activities. The outer walls are also designed to help block listening devices (that's why the building is multiple rings btw, it was designed so the more inner rings are more or less impervious to electronic listening devices from the USSR). The windows are special "blast proof" windows (basically bulletproof glass with special glazing panes), which is why they're not all smashed like some conspiracy theorists love to poiint out. The side that was hit was one of the 3 sides that was currently upgraded (this work has been going on since 1996 and will continue until 2008 on the building).

Just a note. The building was built in 1943, durring WWII, when the Russians were our allies.

The open areas between the rings are basicaly light courts to let in sunlight and fresh air (the windows used to open).

Yeah they said that a bomb had gone off at the State Dept also but just like the reported fire at the White House as soon as it was shown to be not true it wasn't worth mentioning anymore. Errors like that usually happen in the media's rush to be the first to report an event. Isnstead of trying to be the first the media should try to get the story at least half straight before they start reporting on it.
Just watch one of the cable news channels and pay attention to the breaking news, notice how the first reports are often incorrect and how the story changes as the facts are gathered.

Originally posted by kix
You did not answer my question, dont go to the ring sides explain how a smaller plane disintegrates piercing 10 walls and a big one disintegrates, also if you want to pour more in to it, lets say (for argument sakes) its without any doubt a 757, where is the debris the missing blue paint and the shafts of the Rb 211...... see, if you try to explain all those thogheter (FACTS) things do not add up, also you may or may not remember that day there was a fire in the White House, since sept 12 I havent heard of it again....... I guess there was more going on in Washington that day ......we may never know

Simple, after you get through the outer wal, the remaining walls of the pentagon are relativly thin, weak masonry construction. Haven't you seen pitures in the news of car crashes where a car goes through the brick wall of a building? If a car can do it, an airplane can.

WTC was an entirely different style of construction. you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Originally posted by kix
You did not answer my question, dont go to the ring sides explain how a smaller plane disintegrates piercing 10 walls and a big one disintegrates, also if you want to pour more in to it, lets say (for argument sakes) its without any doubt a 757, where is the debris the missing blue paint and the shafts of the Rb 211...... see, if you try to explain all those thogheter (FACTS) things do not add up, also you may or may not remember that day there was a fire in the White House, since sept 12 I havent heard of it again....... I guess there was more going on in Washington that day ......we may never know

Well, see again you're just wanting to hear what you choose.

Six walls does not equal 10 walls: View Of Pentagon, From Space on 9-12-2001

You can see it only went through 6 walls - and I'd like to add, if you had any background in physics or engineering you would understand that at the point where it penetrated the first outer wall ALL the mass of the outerwall that broke off with it became part of the projectile penetrating the next wall, and that mass became part of the projectile for the next wall - and so on - right up to the point where inertia could no longer overcome gravity or the last object it ran into... An arrow fired from a bow has more penetration power than a bullet fired from a .22 cal rifle - because the mass of the arrow is about 500x that of the .22 even though the arrow shaft is approximately the same diameter as a .22 cal bullet (betcha think that's made up too). A jet flying into a wall is basically an arrow; albeit weaker horizontally, it's mass is still going to act like an arrow.

6th Wall penetration (and NO more!) [link instead of photo because it's huge]

Good source for highres photos of post-Pentagon impact.
Another great website with unbiased and factual 757 hits Pentagon information.
Although I do not adhere to some of the beliefs of this website, they still do have a great bit of coverage of the Pentagon 757 crash as well.

Hard to tell for sure, some some of the chunks in this photo inside the Pentagon sure look like parts of a plane to me...

Here's some obvious plane bulkhead complete with yellow primer and rivet holes.


A chunk of the landing gear: note how charred everything else is around it. Man was that one hot fire inside there from all that plane fuel.

It sure looks like part of the nose gear to me:


Wheel rim in the crash (showing inside rim or side that attaches to gear):

Landing gear (and wheels/rims) of a 757:


Photo showing hole in inner wall, wheel from nose gear, chunks of fuselage...


Down one of the hallways in a debris pile - one of the tires (half of one) complete with tire tred...


Of course, feel free to take these images from the crash site and spin whatever fantasies you guys want - we all know it's what you'll do anyway. Reality is as real as YOU choose to let it be.


A small plane? A Boeing 757 is classified as a "Large Airliner" by the NTSB, its maximum takeoff weight is 272,500 lb (123,600kg), it's length is 178.7ft (54.5m), can carry a maximum of 11,466 US gal of fuel, and has 243 (class 2) seating capacity - comparatively, the 767 that hit the WTC is 201ft (61.4m) long, has a maximum takeoof weight of 450,000lb (204,120kg), maximum fuel of 23,980 US gal, and has 304 (class 2) seating capcity. The 767 is 40% heavier, can carry twice the fuel and is 23 feet longer than the 757, and can carry about 60 more passengers.

I'd agree that the 767 is about twice the size (cargo-wise) as the 757 (2,370 cu ft cargo vs 4,580 cu ft) and it's twice as heavy if loaded completely, but it's only about 35% larger dimensionally. 767: 55.7Hx201Lx170Wing 757: 44.7Hx178Lx124Wing. The 767 is designed to be a wide body passenger plane, or a 60 ton mid-sized freighter. It's not a 747... The 757 is designed to be a mid-sized passenger plane with the best fuel use and lowest cost per seat-mile of any plane in the air (and it is). However - most domestic flights are never at 100% capacity (cargo wise) and normally fly at about 65-70% takeoff weight...

Enough blah blah blah... this is a dead horse, I don't feel the need to beat it any longer.

About the fire you mention: If I recall correctly, the fire wasn't in the WhiteHouse but was a small kitchen fire in the Executive Offices which was put out by one of the cooking staff (I actually remember seeing that on CNN - and it was a day or two after 9/11). Couldn't find it in a quick search though as it wasn't relevent to the topic.

[edit on 8-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by Skibum

Instead of us 'conspiracy theorists' having to prove that it wasn't a plane why don't all of you sheep who see it the other way, prove to us that it was a plane?

Sound good?
Now off you go.

Probably because the "sheep" aren't the ones making the insane accusations.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the accusation not the other way around.

Thank you.