I'm going to assume you aren't talking to me, because I've tried very hard to be civil, and keep things calm and polite during all of my posts. Unlike some of the people I've debated here, *I* try to keep some respect for other peoples opinions, and beliefs. I believe that it was a 757, and when they finally release the videos you'll see a 757 impact the pentagon. There are too many eyewitnesses that saw a 757, and other evidence, in my opinion, leads me to conclude that it WAS an AA 757.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I'm going to assume you aren't talking to me, because I've tried very hard to be civil, and keep things calm and polite during all of my posts. Unlike some of the people I've debated here, *I* try to keep some respect for other peoples opinions, and beliefs.

No, I wasn't referring to you, man. You have kept it civil, and hats off to you for that. I can be an ass, but hopefully I haven't given you much trouble. I think I mostly just reciprocate it anyway, unless I'm already irritated or something, and I apologize for those occasions.

I believe that it was a 757, and when they finally release the videos you'll see a 757 impact the pentagon. There are too many eyewitnesses that saw a 757, and other evidence, in my opinion, leads me to conclude that it WAS an AA 757.

Fair enough. I can't wait for the releases either. It's going to be like a Christmas morning of sorts for me, cause I have no idea what I'll see, but it should be interesting, and definitely a key piece of evidence for all sides. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if they're never released, either.

This was simply not the case at the Pentagon. The WTC burned for months, and the Pentagon fires were out in days. Where did all the jet fuel go?

The trade center did not burn for months because of the jet fuel, it burned for months because there was an enormous amount of flammable material (carprt, furniture, paper etc) that they could not get to to extinguish.

Originally posted by Light Being I'm going to add to this as it is one of the few intelligent posts I've read in this thread. Cathearder has made an extensive effort, but it is forensically in vain. A MISSLE HIT THE PENTAGON Anyone doubting this, ask yourself why when there was no damage done to the lawn was it covered with a gravel? Perhaps you believe it was that emergency crew vechiles needed more traction than the grass could offer, but that's a weak unfounded lie as photographs provide the evidence of emergency vehicles on the scene before that. There should have been some sort of crater if the wings didn't crash into the pentagon, but all we got is a green lawn that is good enough for a golf game.

Ridiculous comments. Forensically in vain?? How could a missile hit the generator pushing it towards the building, and damage the facade of the Pentagon for over 140 feet? How could a missile impact multiple objects (light poles) on the way in? How could a missile appear to be a commercial airliner to hundreds of eyewitnesses? How could a missile appear to be a large airliner on ATC radar screens? How could a missile create a large fuel fire and not create a large explosion (the damage preceding the collapse was limited to the bottom 2 floors and to the support columns). Answer that Mr. forensics... Why is bringing in tons of gravel and aggregate to cover a soft turf some sort of conspiracy? BIG heavy trucks had to drive on the lawn, BIG cranes to clean up the fallen building, BIG loaders, and thousands of rescue and clean up personnel had to walk on the surface for weeks. The reason they made a new surface on the lawn was so these 10-20 ton vehicles didn't get stuck in the soft (and wet) surface, and so the hundreds of people walking on the lawn didn't have to work in a quagmire. The photos you view of the Pentagon fire, the efforts to fight the fire (which lasted more than 2 days) and the gravel on the lawn are taken over a 2-7 day period. (And most of the photos after the main collapse had been removed are from weeks after the initial crash.) If you think they brought in gravel 24 hours after the fact to "cover up" something (besides the soft wet lawn) then you must be also believe that the government assumed nobody would take photos of the lawn in the 24 to 48 hours preceding the cleanup efforts... it's just a silly assertion. I think your "forensics" needs to first establish a timeline of events and then a timeline for the photos, without it your ideas amount to nothing more than an exited and unfounded work of fiction.

You ARE aware of the fact that until sometime in the 1980s Boeing and other plane builders used DU as ballast in their planes right? The 747 used quite a large amount of DU, and there was a lot of concern after an El Al cargo flight came down in a neighborhood. And for the record the 757 first entered service in 1984. [edit on 21-8-2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by bsbray11 So, wait, some off-topic entertainment, but no condescending, arrogant response to this?:

No response because your tripe is ALL wrong, and it's been answered multiple times in this thread already. I cannot be your babysitter. It's not my fault that you are either too lazy to read the thread, or are simply unable to mentally fathom the contents therein. If that is condecending, it is because the only way to talk to somebody like you is to talk down to your level. You're a troll, in every thread you post in. You offer nothing of substance: ever. You babble on about other people's posts, and you never supply anything other than your ignorant comments and opinions in response. You also never do any reading or even bother to see if your questions are already answered on this forum. You are a waste of everyones time bsbray11. And until you show that you are mature enough, and man enough to read the materials already supplied, you will never be worth responding to. Period. Hope that clears it up for you.

The piece of skin was the wrong color? In what way? It matched Americans paintjob quite nicely. So unless someone had grabbed a camera in the three or four seconds they had until it was past them, and somehow snapped a picture, they're all unreliable? What obstacles? The side of the Pentagon that was hit was almost wide open. There was a generator and a construction trailer near the wall, that was it, other than light poles and parked cars. A thin light pole is NOT going to stop a 757 at 500 mph. Um, they DO have color cameras now.

...and the alleged wing damage is not consistent with the impact of a 757, as I've posted 2 or 3 times in a row by now. Just making sure this point doesn't fade into the thread so quickly, so CatHerder can come back and pretend he never read it, despite how many times I've posted it by now.

Originally posted by bsbray11 ...and the alleged wing damage is not consistent with the impact of a 757, as I've posted 2 or 3 times in a row by now. Just making sure this point doesn't fade into the thread so quickly, so CatHerder can come back and pretend he never read it, despite how many times I've posted it by now.

Post your evidence as to why it is not consistent with the impact of a 757. Otherwise your post is just empty words. I could state over and over that satellites can not orbit higher than 300 miles (like somebody else on this forum) but that sure as hell doesn't make it true... Post some evidence, get to work and prove to us that your words are facts and not just opinion.