Evidence Of Damage At Pentagon Hoax

Some of the truthers have been basing a " No Plane" Theory for the Pentagon on suspect photos of damage, that have been purposely picked to deceive and make the damage seem more minimal than it actually was, and even go as far to claim that the damage caused could not of been inflicted by a Boeing 747.... I beg to differ.. People must be careful with these wild theories, and not just believe it because it sounds like what they might want to hear. People must study all the facts themselves and come to a personal judgement.
At first the evidence for " No Plane" at the Pentagon looked good, but the more i looked into it, the more i cam to the conclusion that the Pentagon was in fact hit by a 747.
In this thread i intend to do what the " No - Planists" did not, and show plenty of Evidence that should prove beyond any doubt, that not only is the " No Plane " theories disinformation, but that there most certainly was Planes, and they most certainly did hit the WTC and the Pentagon..
Regards

This is a popular photo depicting the hole


And this


One More


Im not calling all truthers here, of course not.. I am blaming some people and certain Truther disinformationists for showing images that help them with their agenda and to skip more important images that could possibly refute what they are saying.

This image is more realistic and shows very well exactly how a Boeing 747 most probably did hit the Pentagon


Much more to follow, feel free to add evidence in favour or against..

It was supposed to be a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, not a Boeing 747.

My problem has always been this: where did the 154 ft 10 in wide wings go? Well, actually, like many others, I have dozens of problems with happened at the Pentagon. But let's start with this one because it literally does not get any bigger.

Im curious, the big round hole on the inside of the rings. Did they find an engine on the outside of that hole? What caused that according to the gov.?






[edit on 11-6-2007 by earth2]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Some of the truthers have been basing a " No Plane" Theory for the Pentagon on suspect photos of damage, that have been purposely picked to deceive and make the damage seem more minimal than it actually was, and even go as far to claim that the damage caused could not of been inflicted by a Boeing 747.... I beg to differ.. People must be careful with these wild theories, and not just believe it because it sounds like what they might want to hear. People must study all the facts themselves and come to a personal judgement.

Agreed! Of course. Now I'm not big on certainty, but in this case, after looking at all major claims and evidence from both sides, it looks like the official story is right on at least 2 points:
1) It was a Tuesday (I've never seen anyone try to counter this yet)
2) A 757 (not 747, note) seems to have hit the Pentagon
There are a few other things too that ring true, but this one is at issue.
IF it was faked, it was faked very well, and considering a mssing plane, reports of a similar-looking plane flying INTO the building, photos of parts from said plane on the lwan, and ALLEGED photos of parts inside... C'mon, they'd do all these things independently just to mess with us? It could all have been done by a single RC or terrorist-executed flight of a 757 into the building. That razor guy, Occam - what would he say about this?

At first the evidence for " No Plane" at the Pentagon looked good, but the more i looked into it, the more i cam to the conclusion that the Pentagon was in fact hit by a 747.
In this thread i intend to do what the " No - Planists" did not, and show plenty of Evidence that should prove beyond any doubt, that not only is the " No Plane " theories disinformation, but that there most certainly was Planes, and they most certainly did hit the WTC and the Pentagon..
Regards

Oh now your mind is nearly as "twisted" by the dread official story as is mine. You presentation could use some work, but I applaud your efforts here.

This is a popular photo depicting the hole

Oops, this is the "punch-out hole," about 300 feet away from entry diagonaly thru the building.

And this


One More

Often used for the "foam fraud," where the 90 foot-wide hole is almost totally covered by fire foam, and then they say the small second-floor portion of the hole still visible is THE hole, the only, and way too smal for a 757. Extremely dishonest and also ectremely obvious and debunkable.
Foam Fraud explained
I've asked people who cite a "single 16 foot hole" to identify that hole in this pic: I even added lettered bubbles so they could just say "A," "B," etc. Not one letter offered yet by anyone. By what I've seen I'm guessing they meant bubble "A," but no one wants to even try to place it IN THIS PHOTO. Gime one with foam! they shout...

Im not calling all truthers here, of course not.. I am blaming some people and certain Truther disinformationists for showing images that help them with their agenda and to skip more important images that could possibly refute what they are saying.

Not all, but my, how many...
My compilation of prominent Pentagon no-Planers - goes far beyond the inaccurate picture angle... Over a hundred who've said in so many words a 757 probably did not hit the Pentagon. I haven't individually debunked them all, just I fail to see how so many people can be so wrong by accident.

This image is more realistic and shows very well exactly how a Boeing 747 most probably did hit the Pentagon

Good graphic choice. This one works well. Engines, fuselage, much of the wings and even tailfin could easily fit in here. The remainder, on the lawn. Ooh, but wait for the critics to tell you how "deceptive" that graphic is, and how you'e brainwashed by the official story...

Just keep your wits, Fowl Play. Don't take my word for it or anyone else's. This has to be YOUR thing, so make double and triple sure.




[edit on 11-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by earth2
Im curious, the big round hole on the inside of the rings. Did they find an engine on the outside of that hole? What caused that according to the gov.?






[edit on 11-6-2007 by earth2]

Still mysterious. Some say shaped charges, some a concussion wave, officially it seems a landing gear, but that was inside. with only a wheel and tire and this apparent nosecone segment on the outside. The Performance Report by the ASCE doesn't explain it, but the lead author (Paull Mlakar) elsewhere says landing gear. I'd wonder if it isn't actually punch-in hole," but dunno. It's right at the end of the plane traj., like a cheery on top of a sundae. For people to use an odd cherry to toss out the whole sundae beneath it is not right. It's just odd...

The most convincing explanation of this neat round hole (at least for me) is that it was blown by a Rapid Wall Breaching Kit. There is a detailed discussion of this at
pentagonresearch.com...

Why? To fool everyone that it really was a Boeing 757 that had managed to get as far as the third inner ring.

what happened to the tail section?

Where did it go?

No tail = no plane

Originally posted by micpsi
It was supposed to be a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, not a Boeing 747.

My problem has always been this: where did the 154 ft 10 in wide wings go? Well, actually, like many others, I have dozens of problems with happened at the Pentagon. But let's start with this one because it literally does not get any bigger.

The wingspan is 124' 10" not 154. IIRC 154 is the length of the fuselage.


ETA: The fuselage is 155 and some change on the 757-200.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Zaphod58]

Forgive me of course it was a 757, anyhow, here is further photographic images that has been used to discredit the official story.

Image 1 shows wreckage from the Pentagon, quite a famous shot of a wheel, that has been previously insinuated is not part of a 757.



Again, i beg to differ.. here is a picture of the wheels in action



Thankyou guys for your input, this is roughly presented evidence, to encourage worthwhile debate. not the finished article of an immaculate presentation.
Regards..

The outer walls of the Pentagon are made of solid granite and reinforced concrete. The portion of the building where the attack occurred was reinforced further a few months prior to the attack, including the installation of windows designed to withstand a powerful blast (similar to the Oklahoma City bombing), since that side of the building faces a major highway, so was thought to be the most likely target of a possible attack.

A Boeing 757, like other similar airplanes, is a hollow structure of aluminum, which is considerably weaker than the granite and reinforced concrete that the building is made of. There has been considerable testing of flying planes into structures made of reinforced concrete, and the end result is essentially the same (provided the concrete structure is well made) - the plane is obliterated. I don't mean that it is just crushed, I mean that it is obliterated. The largest piece you would find would likely be small enough to fit in your pocket. Further, the aluminum the planes are constructed of melt at high temperatures. There is a HUGE difference between an airplane crashing into land (which usually also occurs at a angle considerably off of 90 degrees) and an airplane crashing orthogonally into a solid structure made of reinforced concrete and granite.

Therefore, the way the Pentagon was designed and reinforced caused the disintigration of the Plane, evidence shown of other crashes are irrelevant. This Plane flew so fast into an unforgiving impact. The design of the structure of the Pentagon did its job and saved lives within and totally obliterated the Plane.
We should be grateful our engineers are so skilled that they did their jobs properly and stopped what could of been total carnage...

Originally posted by Fowl Play
The outer walls of the Pentagon are made of solid granite and reinforced concrete. The portion of the building where the attack occurred was reinforced further a few months prior to the attack, including the installation of windows designed to withstand a powerful blast (similar to the Oklahoma City bombing), since that side of the building faces a major highway, so was thought to be the most likely target of a possible attack.

I'm not sure about the walls still. Some say they were 18" thick, some 24". Some say steel reinforced concrete, but the best source I can find is the ASCE's Building Performance Report, which says the impacted exterior wall is "mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame." While "in some areas the backing is a cast-in-place concrete wall," in general, “the exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the frame." [ASCE, PBPR p. 5, 11] Photos show reinforcements - rebar mesh - at impact point of
right wing:

So in short, how thick and strong exactly the walls were at the impact spot I'm not sure. Renovation upgrades were not terribly extensive, mostly new super-tough windows. If you have better sources you run across, lemme know.

A Boeing 757, like other similar airplanes, is a hollow structure of aluminum, which is considerably weaker than the granite and reinforced concrete that the building is made of. There has been considerable testing of flying planes into structures made of reinforced concrete, and the end result is essentially the same (provided the concrete structure is well made) - the plane is obliterated. I don't mean that it is just crushed, I mean that it is obliterated. The largest piece you would find would likely be small enough to fit in your pocket. Further, the aluminum the planes are constructed of melt at high temperatures. There is a HUGE difference between an airplane crashing into land (which usually also occurs at a angle considerably off of 90 degrees) and an airplane crashing orthogonally into a solid structure made of reinforced concrete and granite.

Well, it looks like you're trying to explain the charges that the plane disappeared. Fact is it didn't. Nor did the wall remian intact. At first in fact this sturdy wall of either 13" of brick reinforced limestone or same with concrete backing of unsure thickness, was obliterated by the plane, as well as eight exterior columns on the ground floor, which were cast-in-place steel reinforced concrete. Hence the 90-foot hole. Eventually the plane was "disintegrated," meaning broken into smallish pieces. A few lighter bits outside, prob blown there by the blast cloud, the rest having plowed inside the gaping hole, where another 40 or so columns were destroyed. We haven't seen photos of every scrap, but that doesn't mean they weren't all in there.

Therefore, the way the Pentagon was designed and reinforced caused the disintigration of the Plane, evidence shown of other crashes are irrelevant.

Agreed - plane-into-field crashed shown to compare with this plane-into-bunker crash just don't cut it.

This Plane flew so fast into an unforgiving impact. The design of the structure of the Pentagon did its job and saved lives within and totally obliterated the Plane.
We should be grateful our engineers are so skilled that they did their jobs properly and stopped what could of been total carnage...

Now I'm sensing sarcasm? The relative emptiness is mostly what saved lives. Otherwise, there was plenty of carnage in there.

No Sir, no sarcasm.. My point being that it could of been even worse than what transpired.
ps, thanks for the photo with the inprint of the wing, great evidence to refute the ridiculous no plane theory, which day by day looks even more crazy.

What I don't understand is why is there no footage of the plane approaching and hitting the pentagon? The pentagon must be one of the most recorded buildings in the world, but no vid. Therefore I can't help but suspect there is a cover up of some sort.

Originally posted by rizla
What I don't understand is why is there no footage of the plane approaching and hitting the pentagon? The pentagon must be one of the most recorded buildings in the world, but no vid. Therefore I can't help but suspect there is a cover up of some sort.

Well, not no footage literally...
CCTV camera 1
CCTV camera 2
One frame/second. Taken from security check just north of impact. Location of white blur as it enters screen at right, about 600 feet from the cameras, which have fisheye lenses. Its appearing in twwo spots in each is due to a slight time lag between them. The appearance in one frame and one only is expected given the speed, proximity, and frame rate.
What does it show??? I can't say for certain that's a silver AA 757 catching the Tuesday sun nor can I see a good reason to say that it ain't one. Opinions on the issue vary greatly, as we all know... I'm of the "white plane/gray smoke" school of thought here, but hey, to each their own.

CITGO security video
Shows no plane, but a key silver flash at 4:45 - upper right, that's Lagasse from the PentaCon. The flash is under the canopy, reflected from somewhere else. Note that all the action starts then and after Lagasse pulls out the video ends. That flash is clearly from something shiny somewhere related to the crash that day.
Any sleuthers wanna figure that one out?

Doubletree video of moment of impact
Shows nothing of the plane, which is said to have come in low on the other side of the raised highway about a half-mile away. The white shape is almost certainly a semi truck sans trailer that just happened to pass as the impact occured. Finally, a video that shows nothing of the plane.

There's said to be about 80 others still held back, no word on how many show anything useful. The Pentagon itself had a few excellent views they haven't released yet, including one from a camera dangling almost directly over the impact point. What would it show? Opinions vary. Therefore speculation on the motives for the withholding vary.

In short, I too have fail to understand exactly why they don't release the videos. My peronal guess is they show just about what they've told us, but with maybe a shocking image like the plane exploding just before impact?

Either way, it feels like a cover-up.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
CITGO security video
Shows no plane, but a key silver flash at 4:45 - upper right, that's Lagasse from the PentaCon. The flash is under the canopy, reflected from somewhere else. Note that all the action starts then and after Lagasse pulls out the video ends. That flash is clearly from something shiny somewhere related to the crash that day.
Any sleuthers wanna figure that one out?

I'm trying to orient myself in the Citgo video. Take a look at the images below. Have I placed the car in about the right area? This car catches the flash on its port side, which might help at least narrow down its origin.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
ps, thanks for the photo with the inprint of the wing, great evidence to refute the ridiculous no plane theory, which day by day looks even more crazy.

Its just to bad we have no actual hard evidence like a video or photo of flight 77 hitting the Penatagon, or no offical reports of the parts found matching flight 77. Also no reports of where the parts found were taken.

It is you who is in the Minority, here we have a great imprint of the wing, we have eyewitness accounts, there are photos that substantiate the official story..
Important footage is being withheld for important reasons that the Government obviously has a good reason not to release at this time, we have wreckage that collaborates wreckage from a 757..
2 official reports say this flight hit the Pentagon.. Images and footage shown on truther vids have been images that can back up their claims , when there are other pics that can clearly debunk their theories..
If you are calling all eyewitnesses, All Government, All reporters and all the people that officiated in the reports on 9/11, traitorous and liars, you have a serious problem my friend.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
It is you who is in the Minority, here we have a great imprint of the wing, we have eyewitness accounts, there are photos that substantiate the official story..
Important footage is being withheld for important reasons that the Government obviously has a good reason not to release at this time, we have wreckage that collaborates wreckage from a 757..
2 official reports say this flight hit the Pentagon.. Images and footage shown on truther vids have been images that can back up their claims , when there are other pics that can clearly debunk their theories..
If you are calling all eyewitnesses, All Government, All reporters and all the people that officiated in the reports on 9/11, traitorous and liars, you have a serious problem my friend.

Well for 1 i work for the government so all this stuff you keep saying about evidence being witheld for important reasons is all BS. Please show me any official reports that match the parts found to Flight 77, if you can not you have to admit you are wrong.

2. Of all the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon they could not agreee on what type of plane it was. Also some eyewitnesses admited they did not know what hit the Penatagon they were told later it was a 757.

3. We have no FBI or NTSB crime scene reports. The FBI was the lead investigating agancy and only their reports are the ones that count, but after 6 years we still do not have them.

4. You can not show any actual video or photos that show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, if you see a 757 in the security video is only beacuse of wanting to see it (wishful thinking).





[edit on 13-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Fowl Play
It is you who is in the Minority, here we have a great imprint of the wing, we have eyewitness accounts, there are photos that substantiate the official story..
[...] If you are calling all eyewitnesses, All Government, All reporters and all the people that officiated in the reports on 9/11, traitorous and liars, you have a serious problem my friend.

Okay, relax... You might be surprised - Ultima's just in the minority in this thread. Well, and the world at large, but not among this board. And he's just offering a couple of relevant questions that we can't answer but like the video prove nothing.
ETA: (he's good at that)
edit to unscramble yodalike riddle form

[edit on 13-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

4. You can not show any actual video or photos that show Flight 77 hitting the Peantagon, if you see a 757 in the security video is only beacuse of wanting to see it (wishful thinking).

Yes, Ultima. The videos are not available for us to show you. Sorry this one didn't work for you, lemme check my discs.... nope, just these. And what does your wishful thinking see in the white blur?