What a great rebuttal of the facts that were presented.
Originally posted by DJAghetto its probably a drone...
Comment: Some years ago a friend of mine was in Waikiki at the "Food Pantry," supermarket, and he met Arthur C. Clarke. Off the cuff he asked him "why do you debunk UFOs?" My friend knew for a fact there was something to Flying Saucers, because he had his own close encounter a few years before. Arthur C. Clark replied: "because I have to for professional reasons." He was paid as a debunker by the USG. The current story about September 11, 2004 is a lock down story, similar to that about Flying Saucers. There is one explanation from the government, which actually does not deny their existence, but affirms they are no national security threat. By the same token but in a different way, 911 has one story reiterated consistently on all FCC controlled sources, Fox, CNN, etc. On the other hand on the internet, convincing evidence makes the official story look absurd in hundreds of points including direct video, as well as witnesses. If it is so that the official story is correct on the Pentagon impact, then why is the nearby service station camera record of it still confiscated by the FBI? The blurry video tracing of the aircraft in the title article is not entirely convincing, but it might be so if the FBI confiscated video were clearly defined. The cascade of political mendacity surrounding this entire issue is circumstantial evidence enough that something is simply not right about it. You get a gut feeling, and it is not fear, but a powerful motivator that shuts down the senses. You have to write a better de facto debunking paper than this one, although it is absent the subject matter of a high volume of internet documented evidentiary anamole. It is a better explanation than the government and the media gives, but the questions are still open. There are fiduciary matters and inconsistencies that remain, despite the window dressing of unconvincing attempts at science that occur with selective reasoning on many other issues about 911. [edit on 12-9-2004 by SkipShipman]
Originally posted by johnlear The originator of this post of the 757 crashing into the pentagon deserves an honorary position on the Warren Commission. Like the Warren Commission report there will be a majority who will believe it hook, line and sinker until gradually the truth will begin to emerge...maybe 30 or 40 years from now.
IMHO catherder...you proved it quite well...
I did not set out to prove anything other than one fact: a Boeing 757 was crashed into the Pentagon. The reasons behind that 757 crashing into the Pentagon do nothing to prove or disprove that one simple truth.
You certainly have presented a lot of evidence for your theory, CatHerder, but so did the Warren Commission and that didn't make it true. Just tell me, on either side of the hole that the fuselage supposedly went through, where is the imprint or damage or any indication that the wings (both left and right) and tail (both horizontal and vertical) made? The video shows an excellent damage sequence with fuel exploding and everything on the inside of the Pentagon. But how did the wings get inside the Pentagon. In others words where did they penetrate the bricks. They were attached to the fuselage just prior to impact. Had to be for the airplane to fly. So how did the wings get through that brick wall which looks amazingly intact, almost pristine in fact. I would like to join in the accolades for your amazing tour de force but I just need to know about the wings. Also the RB-211's are fair sized engines (within spitting distance of the cockpit on either side), they would have had to go through the bricks too, and they are on the wings. So it seems to me that the engines going approximately the same speed as the airplane would have made quite a dent in the bricks. But as you can see....there is no damage to the left or right of the entry hole. But nice try anyway, CatHerder. Hey, I have friends , good friends that still believe the Warren Commission.
Originally posted by CatHerder - I suggest one needs to re-evaluate their ability to discern fact from a desired or predisposed version of reality. .
More to the point SO, the plane according to the parking lot cam hit first and the wings would not have stayed attached to the wingbox with that type of impact. but momentum would have carried them into the building with the fueselage. The wings head on could have sliced into the building ala the WTC to a point but as you pointed out this is not a cartoon. The best example I have is the 1996 Ethiopian Air crash off of Comoro Island where the plane drags a wing tip in the water before it cartwheels into the sea. The wing breaks off and the momentum carrier it in the direction of the plane. www.cnn.com...
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord [This is not the Saturday Morning cartoons, objects do not create holes that represent their exact profile. .
OK. Please know this. I have been a pilot for almost 50 years. No airman has more FAA certificates than I do. I had over 19,000 hours when I retired in 2001, 16,000 in large jets. I have participated in many crash investigations. I have built airplanes, I have flown them, I have instructed in them, I have raced them and I have crashed them. The hypothesis that the wings and tail and fuel from a Boeing 757 disintegrated from the high kinectic energy of impact is pure, unadulterated, unmitigated B.S.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlordThis is not the Saturday Morning cartoons, objects do not create holes that represent their exact profile. As compared to the rigid fuselage hitting head-on, the relatively soft wings and stabilizer struck side-on, and as a result likely disintegrated from the high kinetic energy of impact. If you were to dive into the water with arms out straight, they would immediately fall to your side.
Originally posted by johnlear Just tell me, on either side of the hole that the fuselage supposedly went through, where is the imprint or damage or any indication that the wings (both left and right) and tail (both horizontal and vertical) made?
This has what, exactly, to do with the 757 crashing into the Pentagon? I didn't post a theory - I posted the facts. It's up to any conspiracy believer (such as yourself) to step up, post your theory, and back it with some hard evidence and not just conjecture and beliefs.
Originally posted by johnlear You certainly have presented a lot of evidence for your theory, CatHerder, but so did the Warren Commission and that didn't make it true.
Actually, as I can see (dont know why you can't see) there's plenty of damage - I even showed you an engine impact on the first post: This shows the main impact hole, and the impact hole for a good portion of the starboard (right) wing. If you go back to page 1, you will also see that the engine and wing came into contact with the diesel generator in front of the Pentagon. Based on the damage on the generator, and the flight trajectory, the starboard engine would have gone in between pillars 16 and 17. Clear evidence of a massive impact from the starboard wing is visible along the entire wall from column 15 through column 18. Remember - the 757 hit this reinforced concrete / steel / kevlar wall at a 58 degree angle, not straight on. I see a significant pile of debris from the wing laying on the ground in front of the wall as well.
But as you can see....there is no damage to the left or right of the entry hole.
You have my word, no Kennedys died in the crash at the Pentagon on 9-11. [edit on 12-9-2004 by CatHerder]
But nice try anyway, CatHerder. Hey, I have friends , good friends that still believe the Warren Commission.
Well, the wings were not built with retractable shoulder joints, but I get your point. If you hit the water at an angle, though, what about your feet? If you shattered upon impact with the water, wouldn't your foot pieces want to continue toward the water at that same angle, rather than change direction and enter the water back where your head had? Also, isn't the majority of the weight of the airplane actually the engines, or at least the densest heaviest part? If the plane struck at an angle, wouldn't there have been some of the tail that continued past the entrance hole - wouldn't there have been a some "cartwheel" effect? Look at that water crash video posted above - it looks like the drag on the engine hitting the water definitely pulls the nose of the plane down, rather than the wing folding back and following the nose. Plus, we've already suggested that the nose "liquified" on impact. I've heard about the explosion/vacuum explanations, and yeah, maybe I don't fully understand the physics of high temperature expanding fuel explosions or whatever, but for all the excellent information presented, my brain still has a lot of trouble accepting the fact that the left engine hit the building after the nose and the right engine, smashed into a billion tiny pieces, which were then sucked back into the hole made by the nose and burned beyond recognition - or else it "bounced" off the wall, folded back into the fuselage, then exploded and burned? Weren't the engines a lot of the mass of the plane? I can't believe the engine could change it's direction or that it would have stayed attached to the wing. I can't understand how the NOSE of the plane penetrated the c ring, while the engines only dented and blackened the exterior. That hole in the C ring looks punched out HARD. It seems hard for me to believe a pile of, at this point liquified, debris from the nose of the plane made that hole. What the heck is the nose of the plane made out of - that hole looks like some THING smashed through there, something a lot more solid than that pile of stringy debris sitting in the picture. The black boxes and the gas station videos - c'mon. Talk about insult to injury. By NOT releasing that material, the justice dept. is torturing the victims' loved ones by allowing this debate to continue. How much fun do you think it is for the victims' families to "Hunt The Boeing"? Eyewitnesses - useless to me, unless I know them and talk to them. Useless on either side of the argument, so let's forget em all together. It might take a few trips to the ATM, but I'm sure I could find a fireman to swear he saw Oswald flying the plane. There is compelling evidence on either side of the argument, and unfortunately we find ourselves in a situation that seems to be the culmination of many a modern conspiracy theory. The only existing incontrovertible evidence is controlled by the FBI, and the citizens are denied access to this material due to issues of national security. C'mon. Let us have a look. We're not scientists. We like movies. We believe what we see in movies. Show us the movie. Make me feel stupid and ashamed for having doubted, rather than simply accepted.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord As compared to the rigid fuselage hitting head-on, the relatively soft wings and stabilizer struck side-on, and as a result likely disintegrated from the high kinetic energy of impact. If you were to dive into the water with arms out straight, they would immediately fall to your side.
A wheel assembly could have knocked that hole in the wall. Regardless of the dynamics of the collision, the collapse and the fire. The remains of the individuals manifested to AA77 were found in the Pentagon. If AA77 didn't hit the building, how did they get there?
Originally posted by bunkbuster That hole in the C ring looks punched out HARD. It seems hard for me to believe a pile of, at this point liquified, debris from the nose of the plane made that hole. What the heck is the nose of the plane made out of - that hole looks like some THING smashed through there, something a lot more solid than that pile of stringy debris sitting in the picture.