757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And the serialized plane parts, fuselage members, seats, cockpit instruments and BODIES of the men and women known to have been on board the airliner...and FOUND in the wreckage of the Pentagon happened HOW?

Please show me the FBI and NTSB reports that mathc the parts found at the Pentaogn to flight 77. Also of the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane it would have aslo destroyed the bodies and DNA evidence.

Sorry guys, I slept in. zzzz.... I am doing damage control on the exellent new thots on why I'm wrong and a 757 did not hit. A couple minutes...

Did Realtruth read my earlier posts by chance? The first one on page 2 lays out the points in IPS pretty well... IPS in particular is famous for being ridiculously wrong, probably a pardoy IMO.

WTC vs. Pentagon comparisons:

Originally posted by darkbluesky
They are two very different structures. No fire fighting activity was performed on WTC towers. Firefighters were on the Pentagon within 30 minutes.

Exactly. The fire did smolder for about two days I hear from eyewitnesses, but that's about it. Very, verydifferent situtation, also simpler to understand, simpler to prove (within a REASONABLE doubt anyway) a 757 without video, which is why SOMEONE keeps attention focused there and the certainty of NO 757 is harped on over and over…

Originally posted by kozmo
It was NOT a 757 that hit the Pentagon... period! Again, NO 757 hit the Pentagon!

I have sold very high end engineering software for 20 years...

20 year program owner? Well that certainly gives your missile theory weight. Esp. considering Rumsfeld has admitted to this himself! Ooops!

Originally posted by observe50
Well, I think logic and common sense can answer many questions but it is up to each weather they want to believe or deny.
[...]
This to me is just another example how our government gets away with everything. I believe they just keep the people busy, lie, and deny.

Quite observant, Observe.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

It seems it was missed entirely, so here is my coverage of IPS evidence again, sarcastic I must note, since I hear sarcasm doesn't come thru so well on the internet.
---
Yes, that's certainly shocking new proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. I can't say what did the damage, only that it was def. not a Boeing 757 as reported. How could you argue against that after seeing In plane Site? I wouldn’t even try.

I mean just look at the building damage. A 757 has a penetrating core of 50 feet (engine-fuselage-engine). hitting at 45 degrees, it's be 75 feet wide. Compare to bldg damage:

That’s only like maybe 20 feet of damage, tops. Okay maybe a little more. on each side. and the middle.

But still, not near enough room for a 757. and the talifin should've sliced a nice raxor line in halfway up the building.
(note: IPS does sort of admit this, at one point telling us a 757 can't fit in a 16-foot hole, another not in 65 foot hole or damage area. This is all in all about 100 feet.)

And the support columns! If an engine entered on the right, banked high as they say, it’d hit the top part of the big square column in the middle here. Yet the column is still there, bigger even than the others and at a weird angle. No way this is something else, lie a chunk of the second floor slab that fall after the column beneath it was wiped out by the right engine. That’d be silly…
(see graphic above: note: this graphic is slightly wrong; the right engine should be right on the upper half of this big column, and it clearly is clearly a column, just tilted by a bomb, or something.)

It pierced three rings with inner and outer walls people! How could an aluminum 757 built like a missile do that? The walls are each 18” of steel reinforced concrete! Considering the layout, in cross-section below, each dark gray line represents a heavy outer wall of this type. Just add them up. One, two… well, that’s 36” anyway, and only part of the landing gear made it through the second one. But still, it had to hit columns and take out chairs, drywall and some very heavy file cabinets.

And where did all that jet fuel go? With a wingspan of 125 feet, you’d expect like 150 feet-wide of fire AT LEAST. Instead what we get is this:


The fires would have burned for days and cooked the building like a pancake or whatever scientific phrase he used. But then how do we explain that unburnt stool on the first floo? The fires never touched the third floor, we’re told, but covered floors one and two. but that stool on floor one was untouched!

(note: first floor of the five-floor bldg is cropped off here)

And the planted parts that really do look like maybe a 757, or not: Here’s the movers and their mystery blue tarp box trying to sneak away:

And top secret stuff here, a photo of the box’s final location, stored with others, in true Raiders of the Lost Ark style, in a secret warehouse.


Are there any other points from this fine film you’d like me to address?
Some others covered here:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
And right here on ATS:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Caustic Logic,

I didn't read your posts but I will for sure.

About burning for days...what I meant is more than a week. I have seen buildings here in Detroit build in the same time frame and the Pentagon with multi-layered tar roofs burn for more than two weeks and that was with the fire department there for 2 days straight.

If you have an old flat tar roof that has been redone once every 15 to 20 years then many layers of tar and tar paper build up, in fact a normal person couldn't even lift a 3 foot by 3 foot section because it would weigh over 150 pounds.

When those layers are ignited I have seen the a tar fire spread quickly, but what happens is the layers burn slowly as they fall down and get mixed with other debris. Demolition clean up crews have been burned badly due to stirring up hidden smoldering pockets of roof sections that ignite quickly because of the tar and tar paper.

You see if a plane struck the Pentagon the fuel would have ignited the roofing material with the fuel whether it atomized or not. I just don't see how the roof on the entire Pentagon didn't do up with all the fuel dispersed on top of it, doesn't make any sense.

I have seen a professional roofing contractor apply 3-55 gallon drums of silver rooftop coating in the fall when a roof was cold. Silver coating is to deflect the sun and help to prolong the roof. The ingredients are mainly aluminum powder in Kerosene tar mixture. This coating somehow ignited and the 20,000 ft rooftop went up in seconds and the workers barely got off the roof. Needless to say the building burned to the ground and burned for about 4 days straight.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Caustic Logic,

I didn't read your posts but I will for sure.

Thank you, I think it's pivotal for your case to carefully consider as many of the points I made as possible.

About burning for days...what I meant is more than a week. I have seen buildings here in Detroit build in the same time frame and the Pentagon with multi-layered tar roofs burn for more than two weeks and that was with the fire department there for 2 days straight.

If you have an old flat tar roof that has been redone once every 15 to 20 years then many layers of tar and tar paper build up, in fact a normal person couldn't even lift a 3 foot by 3 foot section because it would weigh over 150 pounds.

When those layers are ignited I have seen the a tar fire spread quickly, but what happens is the layers burn slowly as they fall down and get mixed with other debris. Demolition clean up crews have been burned badly due to stirring up hidden smoldering pockets of roof sections that ignite quickly because of the tar and tar paper.

You see if a plane struck the Pentagon the fuel would have ignited the roofing material with the fuel whether it atomized or not. I just don't see how the roof on the entire Pentagon didn't do up with all the fuel dispersed on top of it, doesn't make any sense.

I'm not as sure on the roofing - it's got that tan gravel look... I see what yer saying, but the fuel "dispersing" over the top, which can be seen in the CCTV video, would leave it "disperesed," already ignited (it was a fireball that rolled over the roof) and would be done in minutes I'd think. But not sure.

I have seen a professional roofing contractor apply 3-55 gallon drums of silver rooftop coating in the fall when a roof was cold. Silver coating is to deflect the sun and help to prolong the roof. The ingredients are mainly aluminum powder in Kerosene tar mixture. This coating somehow ignited and the 20,000 ft rooftop went up in seconds and the workers barely got off the roof. Needless to say the building burned to the ground and burned for about 4 days straight.

That didn't SOUND like a good roofing substabce... yikes
Looking forward to your thots - is a 757 looking at least a bit plausible, despite IPS' firm claims? (as well as those of Painful Deceptions, Pentagon Strike, Loose Change, Pandora's Black Box, The PentaCon, etc..)?

Caustic Logic that gravel is even more of an indication that the roof has many layers of roof tar material. Most contractors don't even offer that type of roofing any more because it is very heavy to put down and remove.

We are talking ton and tons of stone, in fact most US government specs call for a membrane type roofing on any of their commercial buildings now. Some contractors may patch or repair those roofs, but they have some many better options these days.


Tar roofs are know to do what is called "flash" when the tar and or material is liquefied by enough heat it will reach a flash point and look out when the roof goes up because nothing will stop it. The entire area will ignite and set the rest of the building on fire. Again I don't understand why with all the supposed heat at the pentagon that the entire roof didn't burn from the top down. It only take a small area to flash, then you get a domino effect on the flat tar roof.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Realtruth]

there are extensive burn marks on all above photos, smoldering a bit. I don't think much of it really caught fire at all. But this is a bigger story, and You're going to have to look below the roof eventually...

I go to work now. I am hoping you are a for real sincere and reasonable person who will not cling to this argument forever without doing some serious debunking. It's okay to be convinced by IPS at first and then admit you were wrong. It seems convincing enough, and appeals to genuine questions raised by the Pentagon's (inexplicable?) secrecy, re: video record, etc. I was like halfway "hmmmm" on a lot of points myself, until I looked into them.

I'll check bak later. Did a 757 hit? It's not a yes or no answer, it's a matter of probability based on the evidence.

In fact, no, the question is not even a 757 strike. the Question is this:
Do 911 In Plane Site's arguments for no 757 hold up?
Does their "photo proof" hold up?
look again at the stool story for one... a good stool sample.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Arguing that the fire was out too soon is pretty much ridiculous, especially when its US military property. We dont begin to screw around when it comes to putting out aircraft fires....ESPECIALLY crashed aircraft and when we let loose with AFF, that fire is done. I dont care how many gallons of jet fuel there were, blanketing it all in foam would knock that fire out in a short period of time.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Arguing that the fire was out too soon is pretty much ridiculous, especially when its US military property. We dont begin to screw around when it comes to putting out aircraft fires....ESPECIALLY crashed aircraft and when we let loose with AFF, that fire is done. I dont care how many gallons of jet fuel there were, blanketing it all in foam would knock that fire out in a short period of time.

Damn straight! Maybe you guys should look up what AFFF(aqueous film forming foam for those of you that don't know) does to fire. Remember people this isn't the 18th century where we have people running with water buckets for cryin out loud.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Arguing that the fire was out too soon is pretty much ridiculous, especially when its US military property. We dont begin to screw around when it comes to putting out aircraft fires....ESPECIALLY crashed aircraft and when we let loose with AFF, that fire is done. I dont care how many gallons of jet fuel there were, blanketing it all in foam would knock that fire out in a short period of time.

Don't forget Purple K or Halon.

In an enclosed space, Halon is great. PKP ehhh....but nothing beats AFFF for a fuel fire

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
In an enclosed space, Halon is great. PKP ehhh....but nothing beats AFFF for a fuel fire

Oh yes Halon is great in an enclosed space if you want to die,, I have had to pull a guy out of a room where Halon went off, he ran in without a airpack. But outdoors, Halon is good.

This is for me the Proof that evidence was PLANTED, and therefore NO 757 was even there...


see the alleged part:
No burned, no soot, rivet holes and broken in the body of the metal not the rivets, can someone explain?
then the HOOK......
The part is painted GREY



LINE...... look how american airlines 757 have bare metal on top not painted grey...



SINKER...check this other 2 photos how american airlines have bare metal and NO GREY PAINT on the letters....



simply put the rivets do not adhere to the ones the 757 has, the broken part does not belong to an American airlines 757 and to top it off if this NON BURNED AND CHARRED PART was on the lawn unscated, were are the other parts (for example the slats made of composite? the engines that have titanium blades....

I am amazed that some zombies still believe the "official" version

This is pathetic, kix. Zombie power!

If that's all you got kix then you can label me as a zombie. The lighting conditions aren't similar in the comparison photos, they're also not of the same quality. As for the AA paint scheme look at this

OMG! Gray paint! Who'd have thunk it? and on an AA Jet at that.
Swallow that hook, line, and sinker.

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
If that's all you got kix then you can label me as a zombie. The lighting conditions aren't similar in the comparison photos, they're also not of the same quality. As for the AA paint scheme look at this

OMG! Gray paint! Who'd have thunk it? and on an AA Jet at that.
Swallow that hook, line, and sinker.

Huh! And I think that scrap I and Kix showed isn't even gray. It's just a certain face of it and a slight photoshop effect I didn't think would alter it informationally, since everyone's seen the silver scraps.
oops. It's gray now...

Originally posted by kix
SINKER...check this other 2 photos how american airlines have bare metal and NO GREY PAINT on the letters....

That was what I was referring to. it's stated in a way that suggests AA doesn't use gray paint. I was merely proving that statement wrong.

[edit on 3/17/2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]

oops

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Quoting myself: Sure sign of arrogance or mixing up edit and quote buttons...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Admit it guys, I killed the thread. Sound of cricets and the raspy sound of grasping at straws... Me and the Shawnman are the only intelligent life left here. Hopefully Realtruth can come back on and move on from the roofing evidence.

I direct my intense sarcasm one direction here - if you don't like it don't stand in that direction...

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I don't think it's quite dead yet. I'd give it 24 hours before issuing the death certificate

[edit on 3/17/2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]