757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

reply to post by OrionStars

First, nothing personal - I don't mean to sound harsh, but I've just been thru this drill too many times so...
It wasn't 'swallowed by' the building. It forced itself down the building's throat. Second - at the facade impact point, eight outer columns (perhaps 9, I'm not sure if that's AA or A on CL9) were totally obliterated, a width of over 100 feet, as the collage above shows. Not enough room for an antire 757 - but plenty for its main fuselage and engines and at least half of the wings. Wingtips and tailfin would scrape off. Is that surprising?

Interior damage is more sporadic, but near-total up front, diminishing as it angles further in. There were NO 'steel supports." All columns up front and throughout were of spiral reinforced concrete (six rebars vertical, wrapped with a welded-on spiraling 7th), filled and cased with concrete formed 21" square. Many were removed, others stripped of their corners and bowed along the plane's path.

Surely an alledged 757 had to take out vertical supports to be "swallowed whole. How else could it reaspmably gain entire entry?

I totally agree with you here. It seems it did enter in the expected way, taking out dozens of columns and intervening wall panels/windows to make room for itself.

If you want to argue all these columns were intact, you'll need to get past words and show me. Because I've looked and looked and all I see there is black space and smoke. Use the graphic above where I labeled column lines. Find me a photo of outer column 10, intact. Or 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17... Just one photo will do far more good than fifty repetitions of that they were there and intact.

Sry, visual learner.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

These two were not untouched.

With all due respect, none of those cable spools looked touched by any alleged plane.

Close-up of the left one - top seems flattened down, cable/tubing seems unravelled as well, which indicates to me this one rolled or spun a bit.

How could the cable be unraveled with the spool sides protecting it? None of those spools are flattened. They must have been metal spools. Metal spools of cable line get bent all the time, when the workers drop them off the beds of the trucks and out of trailers. To assume an alleged plane slightly bent one of the spools, seems to be a major leap simply to rationalize an alleged plane did it.

Graphic done by Murru, I hope using it is okay. Compiled from combined photos, an excellent job except where noted by me in red.

I am sorry. I will not accept anyone's graphic imagination. I only settle for actual physical evidence unhindered. Until I have the opportunity to see before hindered, not after hindered.

True, this point. As most airplanes do, this one was flying in the air, not the dirt. It was flying until it hit the wall. Therefore... no gouges. Except where the engines hung down and hit thing right above ground level. The lowest anything got was the left engine. It did this:

In reality, not virtual reality, the "official" report states the alleged 757 was at belly ground level above the campus lawn. The Pentagon's own video states the alleged plane came in horizontally, as evidenced by the direction of outward explosion, in their own video.

It was not to the side. There is no evidence, on the Pentagon wall, any alleged plane came in diagonally, from the air on a nose dive or belly ground across the campus lawn.

Carbon what? I'd think a 757 impact would be the main problem for windows. The ones in the renovated section stood up remarkably. They're kick-ass windows, I'm guessing, since everything else indicates a Boeing impact, then they survived that intact.
Another FX oversight? They can blow up the generator, rip the fence down, make everything cartoony and forget to break enough windows?

All that black soot on the Pentagon wall is from carbon fire residue. That "carbon what?"

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

These two were not untouched.

With all due respect, none of those cable spools looked touched by any alleged plane.

With all due respect and no harm meant with the sarcasm, no, I think they were tipped over and crushed by a REAL plane, not an alleged one.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

First, nothing personal - I don't mean to sound harsh, but I've just been thru this drill too many times so...
It wasn't 'swallowed by' the building. It forced itself down the building's throat.

Aside from metaphorical semantics, I still have not seen any evidence any alleged 757 actually impacted any Pentagon wall. That is how the discussion got to this point once again. It has now gone full circle - again.

Has anybody here ever heard about the dozens of people who saw a 757 fly in very low - throught the air RIGHT ABOVE THE GROUND, and impact into the Pentagon, exploding, and thereafter disappearing?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by OrionStars

With all due respect, none of those cable spools looked touched by any alleged plane.

With all due respect and no harm meant with the sarcasm, no, I think they were tipped over and crushed by a REAL plane, not an alleged one.

I saw none crushed. I have looked at that photo at various websites, and have it in book as well. No crushed spools. No parts of any alleged planes lying around from hitting any spools. The campus lawn at explosion time was pristine via the Pentagon's own video. No debris and no trenching. as should have transpired, based on the WH "official" reports. Whoever personally approved those "official" reports, did not logically think them through, before presenting them to the general public.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Has anybody here ever heard about the dozens of people who saw a 757 fly in very low - throught the air RIGHT ABOVE THE GROUND, and impact into the Pentagon, exploding, and thereafter disappearing?

Yes, we have. However, if the belly was that far off the ground, in order to accomodate engines and/or wings, the alleged trajectory would have been higher on the Pentagon wall. That is a given, considering how deeply below the wings those huge engines hang, particularly going in horizontally. To prevent any trenching.

It is higher yet, if going in diagonally, considering the entire one side of wing span and the engines. That would have placed the nose closser to roof level not ground level. To prevent any trenching.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

First, nothing personal - I don't mean to sound harsh, but I've just been thru this drill too many times so...
It wasn't 'swallowed by' the building. It forced itself down the building's throat.

Aside from metaphorical semantics, I still have not seen any evidence any alleged 757 actually impacted any Pentagon wall. That is how the discussion got to this point once again. It has now gone full circle - again.

Then you're blind. I've been on this merry-go-round far too many times. Good night to you, and good luck in your search for the elusive truth.

In the photo below, it appears that someone did not know which shade of green primer belonged on a 1991 757, so to play it safe, appears to have simply used the correct color of dark green coupled with incorrect lime green.

Courtesy of Craig Ranke

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

As for the others, this isn't perfect for scale/angle etc..

but you get the picture, right? This thing wasn't a cube.

If it's "not to scale" then it is wrong and your point is completely moot.

If it is anywhere close to scale then it demonstrates perfectly how the fence/generator damage is irreconcilable with the reported wing tilt.

Here is the fence in relation to the vent structure damage:


Your image has the plane completely missing the fence all together!

But the damage goes all the way to the ground level and just so happens to be cookie cutter like curves to make it look like it was from an "engine". My how convenient:


This image IS to scale showing you how the fence damage makes no sense:



Plus the curve in the vent structure damage is not large enough to accommodate an RB-211 as even your "not to scale" graphic illustrates.




It would have demolished those spools.

Yes! Foundation Damage!

Did you post the wrong image or are you attempting your power of suggestion trick again?

Please point to the "foundation damage" you are doing a touchdown dance about here. I see nothing but a pile of rubble IN FRONT of the building.

There is zero visible damage to the foundation in that image or any. There is no damage from a 90 ton jet slamming into and sliding across that first floor slab as reported by the ASCE and Purdue.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


First, if your theory here is true, it can't hardly be a coincidence that the damage happens to match the alleged wing edge impact. This would have o have been fakery, not a backhoe mishap.

What coincidence? That is the POINT. The damage does NOT match a "wing". You, catherder, darkbluesky, and anyone else who has used that image from many days after the event are incorrectly or deceptively trying to attribute damage to the "plane" that did not exist immediately after the violent event.

A single broken column does not match a "wing" and does not have to have been fabricated on purpose to match a wing.

Plus if it did match that means the left engine would have burrowed in the foundation exactly as the ASCE illustrated:


No matter how you slice it contradictions in the physical damage are fatal to the official story.

You can't move the plane to have it fit with one part and then ignore how it contradicts other parts.

It ALL has to fit and it is quite clear that it does not.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Has anybody here ever heard about the dozens of people who saw a 757 fly in very low - throught the air RIGHT ABOVE THE GROUND, and impact into the Pentagon, exploding, and thereafter disappearing?

Dozens?

Really?

Why are you paraphrasing for "dozens" all at once?

Did you talk to any of them?

Did you ask any of them exactly where the plane really flew?

We did.

If you haven't heard yet.....it wasn't in the right place to line up with ANY of the physical damage.

I like how these massive pre-planted bombs caused zero damage to the foundations as well!!!

Pretty awesome stuff!

I personally think that a plane did crash into the Pentagon.

The conspiracy is why didnt the world most defended fortress "The pentagon" protect itself?


I also believe that the No plane at the Pentagon is ment to actually cause conspiracies and take the focus away from the Perps and the fact that FLIGHT 93 DIDNT CRASH IN SHANKSVILLE.


I have seem plenty of plane parts at the Pentagon Crash Site.

Back in 2001, I heard of the conspiracy that no plane crashed at the Pentagon and so I entertained the idea. First I thought, How would you get all those plane parts in the building without anyone noticing it. I instantly thought.... Bring in parts in wooden boxes during some contstruction.

In 2001 there was construction being complete at the exact wedge that was struck later in the summer by flight 77. The contruction was to reinforce that particular wedge with blast resitant walls and windows provided by MASONARY ARTS INC. Coincidentally the same company that provides glass and protection fro WTC7 and WTC +2.

I still am leaning towards a real plane struck the Pentagon but am suspicious of the BLAST RESISTANT WALLS being installed at the Pentagon in 2001.


Viracon to Receive Award for Blast Resistant Windows in Pentagon

Window manufacturer Viracon will receive an award today from the Protecting People First Foundation, following the tragic events of September 11. The foundation was set up after the Oklahoma bombing of 2000. It was established to raise awareness of flying glass hazards from terrorist attacks or natural disasters.

Viracon were the manufacturers of the blast resistant windows used in the Pentagon. These windows had only recently been installed in the region affected by the airplane impact and have been credited with saving potentially thousands of lives.

The windows were being installed as part of a renovation operation which had been partially completed by September 11. At the time of the impact approximately 385 of the blast resistant windows were installed in the Pentagon near the crash site.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 3-2-2008 by IvanZana]

IMHO, the collapse, of part of the roof, speaks volumes about how badly explosives, strapped around primary vertical steel load supports, can do some some heavy duty damage to reinforced concrete and steel buildings, particularly at ground level. Ground level was not foundation level inside the Pentagon.

If a few explosives are used, plus, packing large carbon based fuel storage tanks around those internal explosives rigged vertical supports, it can do that type of damage in the photos as well. Plus, explain all that carbon smoke and orange flame exploding outside, as seen on the Pentagon video.

Yet, so many of the perimeter vertical steel supports, covered by layers of reinforced concrete, speak volumes in confirming this. There was no plane impact to or penetration of any Pentagon wall.

No reporters were allowed anywhere near the Pentagon. Then the lower level was completely hidden from view. A very large blue tarp covered trailer was hauled in.

Under that tarp, only those there know for certain what was on that hidden from bystander-view, including reporters, trailer. That's how parts get planted. Obviously, those unknowns, appearing to have planted parts, plus, others, inside that hidden area, did not care if the parts matched to plane number N644AA built in 1991. The examined plane parts left there are evidence of that.

The Pentagon provided evidence of no plane debris on the pristine lawn, of the Pentagon, at explosion time. Yet, there is was later long after the fact. I cannot logically reconcile that severe discrepancy as viewed time and again, in the Pentagon's own video. No sign of plane debris or anything else being violently blown out on the pristine lawn, at explosion time or prior to explosion time.

Round and round...

Just to address a few objections/spins:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

If it's "not to scale" then it is wrong and your point is completely moot.

If it is anywhere close to scale then it demonstrates perfectly how the fence/generator damage is irreconcilable with the reported wing tilt.
[...] Your image has the plane completely missing the fence all together!

Didn't I just say it wasn't? As in don't read this whole thing literal. You got foreground, background, trajectory, foreshortening etc. I just meant to to show the left engine/wing/fuselage at app. scale relative to the vent structure and spools to show the large space that would pass over there. It's not precise but it's accurate. Roughly. that's not 'wrong.'

But the damage goes all the way to the ground level and just so happens to be cookie cutter like curves to make it look like it was from an "engine". My how convenient:

Yes. So you admit this looks like... an engine. Does that mean it was faked to look like an engine or it was... an engine?


This image IS to scale showing you how the fence damage makes no sense:


You do realize the curve in the fence is NOT how it was torn, right? That's the curve of chain link material at repose, when the middle is gone and the sides still attached it'll take a curve determined by the width of the damage and the height of the poles.

Plus the curve in the vent structure damage is not large enough to accommodate an RB-211 as even your "not to scale" graphic illustrates.

Oh okay, so they didn't do it right. I didn't think so. They also forgot to break the right number of windows, or to scratch the foundation anywhere with their column-bending-in bombs.

It would have demolished those spools.

Well thanks for explaining that so its undeniable.

Yes! Foundation Damage!

Did you post the wrong image or are you attempting your power of suggestion trick again?

Please point to the "foundation damage" you are doing a touchdown dance about here. I see nothing but a pile of rubble IN FRONT of the building.

I will demonstrate this one more time and maybe you can help me see what I'm missing here:

In front means outside, right? Past the threshold, the ledge of the first floor slab? So why, just to the right of the solid plywood bracing, at the onetime location of double columns 11AA, am I seeing a sloping pile of rubble inside the building, sloping UP TO floor level?
Here, two angles and some objects on that slope:



Now feel free to keep suggesting whatever you will for whatever power that might have. You know it could just be another backhoe 'mishap' during the gutting. And again, how convenient, right at the left engine imapact point. Too bad they didn't make it long enough though, huh?

Viracon to Receive Award for Blast Resistant Windows in Pentagon

Window manufacturer Viracon will receive an award today from the Protecting People First Foundation, following the tragic events of September 11. The foundation was set up after the Oklahoma bombing of 2000. It was established to raise awareness of flying glass hazards from terrorist attacks or natural disasters.

Viracon were the manufacturers of the blast resistant windows used in the Pentagon. These windows had only recently been installed in the region affected by the airplane impact and have been credited with saving potentially thousands of lives.

The windows were being installed as part of a renovation operation which had been partially completed by September 11. At the time of the impact approximately 385 of the blast resistant windows were installed in the Pentagon near the crash site.

In all those pictures provided of the pentagon wreackage. Can anyone point out any of this reinforcement mentioned in the above article?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


First, if your theory here is true, it can't hardly be a coincidence that the damage happens to match the alleged wing edge impact. This would have o have been fakery, not a backhoe mishap.

[...]
A single broken column does not match a "wing" and does not have to have been fabricated on purpose to match a wing.

Plus if it did match that means [...]

I love how you always have your bases covered. We're all not talking about a 'single broken column.'


It would be silly of course to look at something like this and presume a plane's right wing edge did it. ULESS a plane was supposed to have crashed there, with its right eing right about there.

And BTW has anyone ever ID'd the MISSING chunk of the generator, before the emptied-out corner there melted down? Was it cartoony?