9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

So much useless effort here by someone working for the government. That piece of airplane skin laying on an otherwise clean lawn was clearly planted there for the nice photograph. Those wheel and engine parts could have come from a small drone which uses exactly the same ones as was shown on the Internet somewhere. But most likely they were already planted inside before the missile hit. Behind the close up shot of that fireman is a small hole in the otherwise clean untouched wall visible. Not a scratch on the wall next to that small hole. I guess that huge "plane" had left it's wings behind somewhere so they didn't even touch that wall... The FBI is still withholding 84 tapes taken from so many surveillance camera's around the place. To prove that a jet flew into the Pentagon all the government would have to do is release those tapes of which many clearly could not have missed a large airplane. But they obviously are not going to release tapes which clearly show a missile... But I know, as long as enough people believe the official story, who cares about a few who are on to the "elite"... I'll pray for you guys, identifying with the One I Am Who's Identity we all share, including you in my prayer. You have forgotten your real glory, by entering this nightmare in the form of a predator (homo sapience). It cost you Your Self-awareness, and in that sense your Life. It's time for you to remember you Divine Identity; and thus resurrect from this dream of death. [edit on 27-12-2009 by Lodewijk]

Originally posted by Lodewijk ... as was shown on the Internet somewhere.

That one line encapsulates perfectly the Truther concept of "rigorous research". Wrap that line in a mantle of aerodynamic ignorance, aeronautical confusion and engineering befuddlement and you have an ideal Christmas present that explains why Truthers will never, ever amount to anything other than comic relief throughout the internet ether.

... as was shown on the Internet somewhere.

Can't wait for the next display of intellectual rigor tied to the Pentagon on 9/11. Frozen cadavers trucked in the night before? Howitzers firing on the building? Pre-planted explosives? Cherry picked quotes from "witnesses" who's other testimony discounts the aforementioned cherry-picked quotes, meaning they are lying - except when it is convenient they aren't? You guys crack me up. [edit on 28-12-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by trebor451 That one line encapsulates perfectly the Truther concept of "rigorous research".

Don't forget the elderly cab driver that was recruited to help carry out this "military deception." Oh, and the planted broken light poles.

I must ask that for all of you who believe that a missle / drone or something other than an airliner struck the Pentagon, where is YOUR proof of such? Spare me the typical personal attack effort because I'm not responding to those but the Mods will. I want to hear or see where is the proof beyond a doubt or at least on the same par with the airliner scenario that anything but an airline struck the Pentagon. I hear (and respect as well) the opinions of many who will swear that it wasn't an airliner that struck the Pentagon. The concern I have is where is the proof to back it up? Much of it has been proven as in the case of "loose change" and other conspiracy based videos to be half truths, manipulated photos & video and edited interviews just for the purpose of creating a scenario to back up the "anything but an airliner" plot. If this type of evidence collection effort as seen in LC (and other genre sources) was presented in court, it would be tossed out due to inconclusivness & hearsay reasonings. The fact remains that there is more proof to suggest an airliner DID strike the Pentagon than to suggest that one did not. The capture from Pentagon video posted in this thread clearly demonstrates the shape of an airliner...not a drone or missle. Yet with this and other pretty well layed out evidence that actually does suggest beyond a doubt that an airliner did impact the Pentagon, there are still those who claim otherwise but again, offer no proof other than personal attacks, shoddy videos made for one clear intention as "proof" of their claims. I'll be the first to say I do wish someone could produce the same degree of evidence of something other than an airliner but so far, after going on 10 years it simply isn't happening. Most of which is presented to suggest something other than an airliner consists of personal viewpoints and opinions wrapped with emotion which to some may seem very convincing but in reality, it really isn't. It remains emotional conjecture that circumvents the most prominet evidence in order to try and convince others to go along. That in and of itself is not evidence in the true sense of the word. All of us have been divided by spooks planted on both sides of this 911 saga. Afterall, what better way to fight your enemies than to divide them at the core? Both sides want the same thing and that is the truth in all of it's glory and evil form regardless of exactly what hit the Pentagon. A collective and productive effort on our part would demonstrate unity for the truth instead of the ignorant division many promote via their repetitive posts & threads that say the same thing over & over. It's got us going in circles if you would stop and take a look around. Going in circles only takes one back to where they started. And thats one of the reasons why the MSM does not report on our findings even if they prove anything. One time we are posting and siding with MSNBC, CNN, CBS, DWTV etc etc for asking the hard questions or running a story line we approve of, then in the next post we run them down claiming they are part of the evil master NWO plot. Its no wonder that the MSM does not want to participate in such back & forth mixed rhetoric. The MSM could be a goldmine of information, contacts, support and a wider audience to get the story out regarding our side of the 911 plot. But, there are too many who play judge, jury & executioner on the issue to maturely follow and work with. Perhpas a new plan is needed. In conclusion I propose that WE ALL make a concerted effort to stop the name calling, chiding one another, bickering about minor details that can/could never be proven without hard evidence and attempt to unite regardless of what you call one another (truther/debunker or whatever) so that we can lead our efforts with a degree of crediability that others cannot refute because we are indeed united in our collective efforts on this issue that is close to the hearts of many of our members. Again, whatever "side" you are on we are seeking the same thing and that is thruth regardless of what it turns out to be. I did break the paragraphs up but they won't display that way when posted. [ [edit on 28-12-2009 by mikelee]

great thread i feel that it slighlty biased towards a plane hitting but you do take alot of things into account. and ill admit i to didnt take the plane height as 13ft and dismised the hole as made by a plane until i read this. i would say that unless the wings had broken off before the plane hit then i would of expected to see more damage from them on the walls. i really dont know much about planes but the wtc videos show the wings exploding on impact, so could they have been blown off before impact? maybe as they hit the light poles. if that was the case then i would be more convinced that a plane did hit. well you have changed my position from no plane hit 100% to a plane did hit 70% thats a big shift good post

reply to post by CatHerder Hello, You've submitted some pretty compelling evidence as far as I can see at this point. Thanks. I've had some questions eating at me, still do. But I must look further into this before I can reach a final place to stand.

This was excellent work by CatHerder and it is timely to bring it back with all the nonsense currently being posted about the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Alfie1 This was excellent work by CatHerder and it is timely to bring it back with all the nonsense currently being posted about the Pentagon.

Maybe you can answer the following. Where are the wings or wing debris? Where is the tail or tail debris?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Alfie1 This was excellent work by CatHerder and it is timely to bring it back with all the nonsense currently being posted about the Pentagon.

Maybe you can answer the following. Where are the wings or wing debris? Where is the tail or tail debris?

This was a high speed crash into a solid object. Unlike a normal crash where the pilot is deperately trying to minimise impact this pilot was endeavouring to maximise it. The 9/11 Commission puts the final speed of AA 77 at 530 mph. This is video of a fighter plane crashing into a solid object at 500 mph :- www.metacafe.com... I am not suggesting it is 100 % comparable but I think it does give an idea of the forces unleashed. I therefore think that, in high speed crashes like these, it is unreasonable to expect to recover wings and tail in large identifiable sections.

Originally posted by Alfie1 This was a high speed crash into a solid object. Unlike a normal crash where the pilot is deperately trying to minimise impact this pilot was endeavouring to maximise it.

Yes, and the plane would not have made it all the way into the building. In a crash wings will normally be sheared off. So where are the wings or debris?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Alfie1 This was a high speed crash into a solid object. Unlike a normal crash where the pilot is deperately trying to minimise impact this pilot was endeavouring to maximise it.

Yes, and the plane would not have made it all the way into the building. In a crash wings will normally be sheared off. So where are the wings or debris?

It is not just because of plane wreckage and physical damage that I believe AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Radar places AA 77 at the Pentagon. Air Traffic Control does. The aircraft's Flight Data Recorder does ( and includes multiple previous flights by that aircraft ) The crew of a C130 saw the impact. Many witnesses on the ground saw the crash. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single witness to a missile or a flyover. AA 77 disappeared that morning at the Pentagon and neither it nor its passengers have been seen again but dna of those passengers and crew was recovered and identified. All you are doing is speculating about what happened to the wings which I think is quite unrealistic in a high speed crash. What plane crash at 500 mph > into a re-inforced building are you using for comparison purposes ?

Originally posted by Alfie1 It is not just because of plane wreckage and physical damage that I believe AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

What wreckage, what damage?

All you are doing is speculating about what happened to the wings which I think is quite unrealistic in a high speed crash.

Well photos of other plane crashs show wings normally will shear of when hitting something. [edit on 8-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Alfie1 It is not just because of plane wreckage and physical damage that I believe AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

What wreckage, what damage?

All you are doing is speculating about what happened to the wings which I think is quite unrealistic in a high speed crash.

Well photos of other plane crashs show wings normally will shear of when hitting something. [edit on 8-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Well, if you don't think there was any physical damage or plane wreckage at the Pentagon we are clearly living on different planets and any further debate will be a waste of time.

Originally posted by Alfie1 Well, if you don't think there was any physical damage or plane wreckage at the Pentagon we are clearly living on different planets and any further debate will be a waste of time.

Please show me evidence the damage was done by AA77. Pease show wing or wing debris. Please show an official reports matching wreckage to the plane. [edit on 8-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by CatHerder ... a building constructed of reinforced concrete walls, upgraded with bomb-resistant kevlar, bolted steel beams and 2 inch thick bulletproof and bomb-resistent windows (Pentagon). [edit on 13-9-2004 by CatHerder]

And then leave it totally exposed to an air attack. No anti-aircraft missiles? Sure

Originally posted by Nichiren No anti-aircraft missiles? Sure

Why would it have AA missiles? You do not put AA missiles on a target you want to protect, by the time you fire them the plane/missile will probably hit you anyway. Also there is a domestic airport a few miles away, so do you shoot any plane that takes off from there?

bravo, my friend, - outstanding work. It's refreshing to see actual evidence & facts brought into play rather than hysterical speculation & theories without any evidence to back them up. If you think how awful it must have been to be on that plane, or in the other planes, or in the Towers, - my God, why not remember these people, and refrain, even temporarily, from cogitating on massively implausible conspiracy theories, none of which have any real evidence supporting them nor will there ever be any, because you can't have evidence of what doesn't exist. Anyone still clinging on to any missile/drone theory should read what you've written, and if they still have any doubts, then it's pretty much impossible...

reply to post by Nichiren

No anti-aircraft missiles? Sure

The historical record of what was and WAS NOT installed at the Pentagon on 11 September, 2001, is fully available. Only the most crass of 'truther' websites would suggest otherwise....merely to fool another flock of sheep.....

Originally posted by vicen - my God, why not remember these people, and refrain, even temporarily, from cogitating on massively implausible conspiracy theories, none of which have any real evidence supporting them nor will there ever be any, because you can't have evidence of what doesn't exist.

If you want to remeber the people that died on 9/11 the best thing you can do is want to find the truth of what actually happened that day, otherwise you are disrespecting all those people. Also i can post facts and evidence that shows reasonable doubt in the official story. [edit on 21-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE Also i can post facts and evidence that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.

You can? Then why dont you? So far, you have posted nothing at all that shows any doubt in the official story!