Most Compelling Evidence for Me

I believe that the OFFICIAL STORY is a lie, but with the Pentagon I am not sure what to think.

*IF* it wasn't a 757 plane, don't you think that the Gov took an awful chance? I mean how would they know someone with a camera or a video wouldn't be filming or taking pictures that day?
They would be made to look like liars.

On the other hand, I agree that the hole in the Pentagon coupled with the Engines gone is sort of weird.

Also why would Hijackers even think this would be successful? Did they know the Pentagon would be vulnerable?

So I really don't know what to think on this issue.

Originally posted by Paul3
Caustic Logic> What is your job here on this web site. In one post you say that you knew 9/11 was an inside job the same day it happened, but most of your posts are telling people they don't know what they are talking about when they post anything about 9/11 being an inside job?

Sorry I missed you there Paul3. My job is disingo and throwing people off track! Nah, I see my job as being the opposite, dissing the disinfo, clarifying evidence (and lack thereof) to help people make their cases more solid. I admit I get a bit arrogant about it, but there are so many wrong things passing for truth. And I'm self-appointed, BTW.

My felow traveler Jim Hoffman put it well: "If rotten fish is wrapped in the same package as delicious truffles, few people with good judgment or good taste will attempt to retrieve and salvage the truffles." I smelled fish-scented truffles here. Maybe it was just fish.

Originally posted by talisman
I believe that the OFFICIAL STORY is a lie, but with the Pentagon I am not sure what to think.

*IF* it wasn't a 757 plane, don't you think that the Gov took an awful chance? I mean how would they know someone with a camera or a video wouldn't be filming or taking pictures that day?
They would be made to look like liars.

There are other areas where I suspect doubt and caution are called for, but this one is my beat and I'm glad you're at least unsure and open.

On the other hand, I agree that the hole in the Pentagon coupled with the Engines gone is sort of weird.

This is a hugely wide misinterpreatation of the data - even the venerable Cat Herder got it way wrong (which I'm still scratching my head over).
This is the damage to the West wall and how a 757 would fit.


Full explanation here: frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
And for the three "columns" on the right where the engine would enter, read this: onefrustratingfraud.blogspot.com... lumns-taking-stand-against.html

Also why would Hijackers even think this would be successful? Did they know the Pentagon would be vulnerable?

Good Q. It makes one wonder who or what was piloting the 757. A lot of false dichotomies created too. 757 at the Pentagon = official story bought hook line and sinker is one of 'em. Ultimately I don't know what happened. I can buy the hijacker story maybe, but even that doesn't explain how, even with the best piloting in the world, he could've got that far without any defenses showing. The official story's gotta be wrong somewhere along that twisted line of logic.

Keep searching man.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
(paraphrase) blahblahblah

I believe we've been over your questions repeatedly elsewhere. I'm sorry you didn't understand or like the answers I gave before.

Originally posted by Vinadetta
So the plane is basically gone., we can all basically agree that if a plane did hit the pentagon, that it totally evaporated for hit smashing the wall. I know it has been talked about on other threads, but how would they recover DNA from passengers and the highjackers, if there is basically nothing left of the plane and all the steel? I guess it is just another hole in the offical story.

No we cannot agree that the plane evporated. Did you read the other threads where it's discussed? Or this one? Are the photos of wreckage inside all faked or what? Here they are again - www.rense.com.... These are solid metal and so survived the fire and the collapse. Human bodies are about 60% water, which makes it seem reasonable to me they'd all, or most, survive too and yield DNA. I'm not saying it's true cause I don't know, but it's not beyond reasonability IMO.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Vinadetta
So the plane is basically gone., we can all basically agree that if a plane did hit the pentagon, that it totally evaporated for hit smashing the wall. I know it has been talked about on other threads, but how would they recover DNA from passengers and the highjackers, if there is basically nothing left of the plane and all the steel? I guess it is just another hole in the offical story.

Where are you getting this from? Nobody says the plane totally evaporated. I think disintegrated and liquified would be better words (which is not unexpected behavior in such a high-speed collision of the materials involved - ask any physicist), but either way it wasn't the whole thing - there was a considerable amount of visually identifiable debris. In fact the entire plane was still there, albeit in very small pieces or liquid form.

Think about it - how small is DNA? Why would it matter even if the whole plane and everyone and everything on it was completely disintegrated? The DNA itself would not "disintegrate". And only one molecule per passenger would be needed for identification. To be honest, I would be suspicious if they did NOT find any DNA evidence after months of searching. I'll bet you would be too. That's the problem with conspiracy theorists - there will ALWAYS be a conspiracy. One one hand if they say they found evidence, they must be lying about it. On the other hand, if they don't find anything, that would prove there were no passengers, wouldn't it? *sigh*

Originally posted by Stiney

Originally posted by tyranny22

Originally posted by Stiney
Regardless of whether a material breaks apart when it hits something, the mass is still there, and so is the momentum. It will not stop until the momentum is completely spent... seems pretty simple to me. Anyone qualified to say otherwise?

So you're saying that a snowball will go just as far if it hits a tree branch than it would have if it hadn't? the mass is still traveling through the air and it still has momentum.

I was saying that if something breaks in a collision, momentum doesn't suddenly disappear completely. Why should it? I thought this was common knowledge... you can punch a hole through anything if you hit it hard enough, and the faster you're going the harder you hit. I don't see what is so unexpected about something moving that fast breaking through the walls - and there is no magical force that would keep it intact. Of course the plane shattered. What would you expect aluminum to do?

When a snowball hits the branch, it shatters... but the snow keeps moving past the branch. Momentum is only reduced, not eliminated. There's also a force exerted on the branch from the snowball, which, if strong enough, would break the branch.

lol. I'm quite familiar with Newton's Law of Motion.

What I don't understand is how something that get hits by a bird and ends up looking like this:

can punch through 3 concrete walls. someone stated on here that the nose cone did not punch a hole through the outer ring, but that it was the landing gear? that's some big ass landing gear.

And you guys keep arguing that there was plenty of debris left from the plane. Some landing gear, a turbo-fan (that's been debated whether it was from a plane as large as a 767) and some sheets of metal. Have you seen the landing gear recovered and compared it with landing gear from a 767?

landing gear in the lower right corner.

landing gear from a 767.

I'm sure you'll have all the answers for me and I greatly appreciate it. One more question: why don't they release more video from the pentagon and surrounding buildings? There have been 3 movies release since 2001 depicting the events of 9/11, so I seriously doubt that it's because of the family and friends of victims. If anything, with all the controvesy, they would probably want to see the video to put their mind to rest. If that's not the reason why, surely it's not because it's being saved for evidence for a case. If so, against who? Osama? Other terrorist that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Yes, the punch-out hole in the second, INNER wall is large, I'd be willing to look at alternate theories on its origin. It's SUPPOSEDLY caused by the gear. And could you kindly locate in the building's structure the third wall penetrated?
Russell Pickeringdid indeed compare the strut with a 757's in the shop:
Here I combine in one shot:




And the wheel compared to a ten-slot 757 wheel.

They're made with eight ot ten, Pickering says, tho this one always looked to me like it had nine? I guessed I'm just reading it wrong, so it would be either 8 or 10. I dunno. Note radius/rim width parity.

Originally posted by tyranny22
One more question: why don't they release more video from the pentagon and surrounding buildings? There have been 3 movies release since 2001 depicting the events of 9/11, so I seriously doubt that it's because of the family and friends of victims. If anything, with all the controvesy, they would probably want to see the video to put their mind to rest. If that's not the reason why, surely it's not because it's being saved for evidence for a case. If so, against who? Osama? Other terrorist that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Sorry I missed this one. I really can't say why the videos are not coming out. IMO the CCTV videos, while far from proving a 757, do not disqualify it. Given the other evidence, eyewitness accounts, and common sense, I feel any video that captured the event as it happened and was not doctored will show... a 757. Yet they hide, we squirm, Rummy "admits" it's a missile, we all think "aha! It's a missile, or anything but a 757," give ourselves a pat on the back and a foot in the mouth, they drop in the final missing link - the video verification the teletubbies generation needs to complete their certainty - and the revisionist accounts revolving around no-757 at the Pentagon dissolve away.

That's one guess, anyway.

Also notes on the above post: The punch-out hole was probably not caused by just the gear, but also the fuselage pieces that came out there plus building debris - probably a few bodies - and the rolling fireball, or something. And there may be more to it that that, I dunno.

And the strut in the shop - I photo-negatived that for fun, it was white, but seems to match the burnt one in color so I left it that way. Main thing is the structure. I'm no stryt expert, but it's a pretty close match anyway, huh?

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by tyranny22
What I don't understand is how something that get hits by a bird and ends up looking like this:

can punch through 3 concrete walls. someone stated on here that the nose cone did not punch a hole through the outer ring, but that it was the landing gear? that's some big ass landing gear.

I don't suppose anybody bothered to post a pic of the goose? Now what might you surmise that goose looks like after the collision?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by tyranny22
One more question: why don't they release more video from the pentagon and surrounding buildings? There have been 3 movies release since 2001 depicting the events of 9/11, so I seriously doubt that it's because of the family and friends of victims. If anything, with all the controvesy, they would probably want to see the video to put their mind to rest. If that's not the reason why, surely it's not because it's being saved for evidence for a case. If so, against who? Osama? Other terrorist that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Sorry I missed this one. I really can't say why the videos are not coming out. IMO the CCTV videos, while far from proving a 757, do not disqualify it. Given the other evidence, eyewitness accounts, and common sense, I feel any video that captured the event as it happened and was not doctored will show... a 757. Yet they hide, we squirm, Rummy "admits" it's a missile, we all think "aha! It's a missile, or anything but a 757," give ourselves a pat on the back and a foot in the mouth, they drop in the final missing link - the video verification the teletubbies generation needs to complete their certainty - and the revisionist accounts revolving around no-757 at the Pentagon dissolve away.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I guess it's just a generation that's been spoon fed television all there lives. I won't be happy until I see a 757 hit the Pentagon with my own eyes and one of the witnesses to say, "Yep, that's what I saw ... for sure." We know they've got the video or else they would've returned what was confiscated to the gas station/surrounding building already.

The struts you posted were a great add. I kept seeing pics posted other places saying that it was shown "in this picture", but I could never make them out. Thanks for clarifying. I think one of the "wheel struts" shown on another site that I displayed was something totally different. Maybe it was some machinery used for the clean-up because it looks nothing like what you've posted. I can see a wheel strut of this size bust through a concrete wall.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
This is the damage to the West wall and how a 757 would fit.

So... assuming that fireman is 6'... you claim this plane was able to fly over the lawn at this altitude? 4.5'?

Remember, it came in on an almost level flight path asit knocked over 20' light poles.

4.5' altitude... never scraped the ground or damaged the lawn.



[edit on 11-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
This is the damage to the West wall and how a 757 would fit.

So... assuming that fireman is 6'... you claim this plane was able to fly over the lawn at this altitude? 4.5'?

Remember, it came in on an almost level flight path asit knocked over 20' light poles.

4.5' altitude... never scraped the ground or damaged the lawn.



[edit on 11-5-2007 by Pootie]

Let's think about this logically...

Either a) something flew into the Pentagon or b) an explosive device caused all the damage.

If something flew into the Pentagon, then it seems apparent that it flew in close to the ground since it hit the 1st floor, and also that it didn't scrape the ground.

Further, lack of any scraping of the ground does not by itself rule out a flying object hitting the Pentagon.

Finally, there were reports by dozens of witnesses who claim to have seen some sort of plane approaching the Pentagon. These witnesses included air traffic controllers who's description of the radar approach corroborates the eye-witnesses on the ground.

IMO, it's not reasonable to believe that all of these unrelated witnesses are government operatives telling corroborating lies just to create a false illusion that some sort of flying object hit the Pentagon.

Therefore, it's safe to conclude that the damage was caused by some projectile hitting the Pentagon. That also leads to the conclusion that no matter how improbable, this projectile did not hit the spools or the lawn on the way in.

Now it's a matter of splitting hairs. I don't think one can conclude that only certain types of flying objects (e.g., cruise missiles, global hawks, etc.) could miss the lawn and the spools but a 757 would have hit the lawn and the spools.

Bottom line is SOMETHING damaged the Pentagon but didn't damage the lawn.

This is from the Rense page you posted, CL.

7) Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."
www.pilotonline.com...

So some of the nosecone did survive. Good work though Caustic Logic, you certainly are thorough.

I just hope that the whole JFK thing isn't too much of a parrallel with this case; 40 years of conspiracy theory and then by the time the truth does come out its too late to do anything about it.

I think the issue of what crashed into the Pentagon is actually less important than why it was allowed to happen at all. Bugger. Now I'm going to have to track down the F-16 timeline article.

Originally posted by Karilla
This is from the Rense page you posted, CL.

7) Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."
www.pilotonline.com...

So some of the nosecone did survive. Good work though Caustic Logic, you certainly are thorough.

I just hope that the whole JFK thing isn't too much of a parrallel with this case; 40 years of conspiracy theory and then by the time the truth does come out its too late to do anything about it.

I think the issue of what crashed into the Pentagon is actually less important than why it was allowed to happen at all. Bugger. Now I'm going to have to track down the F-16 timeline article.

interesting. the nosecone did survive and punch through the concrete wall. surely a pentagon employee that was there wouldn't make this up.

I'm sure the reason the F-16's were told to stand down was to preserve the lives of the people on board the 757. Cause that's how Dick Cheney works. Always looking out for the average Joe.

What I'd like to know is why in the hell did Cheney have command of the F-16's or Norad or whoever is charged with air defense anyway. Afterall weren't they preforming drills? Is Dick Cheney in charge of these drills as well or did he just assume control when the warnings were initiated? I think that Strategic Air Defense was transfers a few months before 9/11 from the generals who'd controled it for 50 years to the Administration.

I guess if I was Vice President I'd carpet bomb Chile. Why, you ask? Well because apparently I could.

Originally posted by tyranny22
I guess it's just a generation that's been spoon fed television all there lives. I won't be happy until I see a 757 hit the Pentagon with my own eyes and one of the witnesses to say, "Yep, that's what I saw ... for sure." We know they've got the video or else they would've returned what was confiscated to the gas station/surrounding building already.

The struts you posted were a great add. I kept seeing pics posted other places saying that it was shown "in this picture", but I could never make them out. Thanks for clarifying. I think one of the "wheel struts" shown on another site that I displayed was something totally different. Maybe it was some machinery used for the clean-up because it looks nothing like what you've posted. I can see a wheel strut of this size bust through a concrete wall.

Right on! I've seen a lot of fraudster sites explain how this is that (ie, the orange tarp looking thing they say is a plane engine?). I just keep looking until I see something that makes sene and bookmark. Then I go back and double check the others and then make fun of them.
The landing gear is the best plane part evidence for a 757 IMO, it was fun putting that up again. Odd thing is, I can see it punching the hole too, but it was found just inside the hole, with the wheel outside. So there's still some weird things I can't explain.

Thanks, I can appreciate the occaisonal rational human who can respond to new evidence. This is the problem with both sheeple ad fraudsters, who clog this board till it's more like a bad game than reality. Peace.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Karilla
This is from the Rense page you posted, CL.

7) Lt. Kevin Schaeffer from the Navy Command Center recalled that "on a service road that circled the Pentagon between the B and C rings, a chunk of the 757's nose cone and front landing gear lay on the pavement a few feet away, resting against the B Ring wall."
www.pilotonline.com...

So some of the nosecone did survive. Good work though Caustic Logic, you certainly are thorough.

I thinks it make be landing gear door, part of the nosecone assembly, very resilient, and photographed. (see punch-out hole photos), so not quite a nosecone...

I just hope that the whole JFK thing isn't too much of a parrallel with this case; 40 years of conspiracy theory and then by the time the truth does come out its too late to do anything about it.

I think the issue of what crashed into the Pentagon is actually less important than why it was allowed to happen at all. Bugger. Now I'm going to have to track down the F-16 timeline article.

Agreed, I just can't stand seeing people trying to uncover the truth embrace things that are not true. The bigger picture is more important and I look at that too. Here's a grph I did of the air defense:

Originally posted by tyranny22
I'm sure the reason the F-16's were told to stand down was to preserve the lives of the people on board the 757. Cause that's how Dick Cheney works. Always looking out for the average Joe.

Now that makes me feel all fuzzy.

What I'd like to know is why in the hell did Cheney have command of the F-16's or Norad or whoever is charged with air defense anyway. Afterall weren't they preforming drills? Is Dick Cheney in charge of these drills as well or did he just assume control when the warnings were initiated? I think that Strategic Air Defense was transfers a few months before 9/11 from the generals who'd controled it for 50 years to the Administration.

I'm no expert there, but I think this is wrong. Got any links besides the Prison Planet one I saw that had no support? Cheney was put in charge of one thing on May 8 2001, and that was what would become DHS. I've seen no evidence he was in charge of wargames or air defense. This seems to be built on one distortion after another. Not that he's not evil...

So, 35 minutes approx. after flight 77 went off course the F-16's were scrambled. Is there an official explanation for the delay. I can't believe it took them that long to work out the plane was hijacked and calculate the target. Whatever version of ARPA is apllicable would have told them as long as the plane was on radar, surely?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I'm no expert there, but I think this is wrong. Got any links besides the Prison Planet one I saw that had no support? Cheney was put in charge of one thing on May 8 2001, and that was what would become DHS. I've seen no evidence he was in charge of wargames or air defense. This seems to be built on one distortion after another. Not that he's not evil...

I don't think the man's evil.

Anyhow, I've found multiple accounts of Cheney being "put in control" or NORAD, but none of them were from a verifiable source such as CNN or MSNBC - all were PrisonPlanetesque. The only thing that went on record was that Bush relinquished control of shoot down orders to Cheney during the attacks. No record of Cheney having control of air defense or NORAD.

Guess he was just another innocent victim at the Pentagon. Poor guy. Almost makes me want to ask him out for a hunt.

Originally posted by tyranny22
The only thing that went on record was that Bush relinquished control of shoot down orders to Cheney during the attacks.

It's not really on the record but more or less, that's what seems to have happened. Funny thing is, they don't admit to issuing it till 10:10 (really 10:18), and even then fighter pilots never got it!