the Hole... Size does Matter ...End of story

[homelandpunk]

Regardless of any willingness to believe the lie, we have a picture. We have a picture of a hole. We have pictures of a small hole and a roof pre-collapse with windows unshattered and pristine grass a foot away from the edge of the building. Yet the magical shrinking passenger jet still gets less play than a 40 year old bullet that made a hole in a man's head. Sure, the man was the president...sure it was a conspiracy. But why is this other hole ignored? Yes, it was not in JFK's head, but it was in the Pentagon. Doesn't that, and the fact that over a hundred people got killed there mean anything?
And the fact that it is RECENT, and is currently being covered up by the people who were in charge that day? Doesn't that mean anything?
The FACT that what flew into the pentagon was smaller, MUCH smaller than a goddamn passenger jet is a matter of record, of physics, of scale and measurement.
Measurement is scientific. Psychological and social fears are not.
But when this heinous act which surpasses the Kennedy asassination by 100-fold is brought up, measurement is ignored for un-scientific reasons as to why THEY (in spite of what we know about them) must be telling the truth in this case, i.e. "Ok, then where did the actual plane full of passengers go?"
The question, with it's attendant underlying fear of how twisted reality actually is, flippantly bybasses the hole, as though the bedrock foudation for logic can be usurped, just this once, to protect our delicate minds from truth that threatens to question reality. Because in spite of the defensive question, we know damn good and well that the hole did not accomodate a passensger jet with passensgers. Once that FACT is accepted, it is all downhill from there. Or uphill, depending on ones attitude.
People still would rather talk about the bullet(s) that slammed into Kennedy 40 years ago than deal with the MOST APPARENT sleight of hand by the National Security State perhaps, because if this is true, which it IS, then the twin towers story as well, is quite obviously a charade.
And, well, too many people WANT to believe THAT. Not to do so makes everything so.......well you know. Do progressives need the soothing bedtime tales of evil "others" and good "us" to keep this world in a mirage-focus in order to sleep at night? I hope we are not that immature.
Grassy knoll is out in 2004. Magical Shrinking Jet is in.
And of course, looneys will accuse me of saying the jet did shrink. Haha! Yeah, whatever. You know I do not believe that, nor have I said it. I use the term for it's truly outrageous implications, for it's rebuke to the many mamby-pamby gullibles who believe the BFEE over their own eyes.
I resolve, for 2004 that every time I see a Kennedy assassination thread on DU, I am going to post a Pentagon thread. Nothing against Kennedy threads either, btw. It is all part of the twisted evil that would send half of us to the looney bin if we knew it all in precise, pornographic detail.

[Dookus]

1. good luck with that...

I'll take the word of the eyewitnesses, some of them regulars here at DU, who SAW the plane hit the Pentagon.

The world is fucked up enough that we don't need to stretch to make it worse. Happy New Year.

[homelandpunk]

15. well you don't think the worms who pulled this off were dumb do you?

What the eyewitnesses saw looked like the passenger jet...you get a small replica in the sky, and you can get get witneses to believe it was normal size when seen against the backdrop of an unscalable sky. And there are no more than two eyewitnesses on record. WOW.
Happy new year.

[RH]

28. And there are no more than two eyewitnesses on record?

?

[homelandpunk]

31. how many have you come up that are on record

from your research?...I am coming up with two.
They saw a scaled down mock-up casing around a missile, if they saw "a plane" fly into he pentagon. You don't think the worms were just gonna throw in a missile and hope that no eyewitnesses would be around? They were not that dumb. They also were smart enough to know that a replica against the backdrop of a un-scalable sky would be totally believed as the real thing.

[RH]

88. Where on Earth

does this idea of two witnesses come from?

As early as March last year I'd already assembled a compendium of around 3 dozen wintesses:

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html

Since then others have taken up the task and the total has expanded considerably.

Not so long ago I presented (to this very site) a collection of nearly two hundred names of people reputed one way or another to have seen the plane somewhere nearby.

The usually presented news reports identify altogether between 100 and 150 eye witnesses who saw the plane, depending upon whatever terms of reference you prefer. Some of the reports refer to groups, people at a funeral, on a bus or kids at Hoffman Boston Elementary school for instance.

It is also clear that many more witnesses exist. I'd guess that altogether 400 or more must have seen the aircraft and a couple of dozen or more of them had a perfectly clear, direct view of the building as the plane hit. At any rate there was most definitely a surfeit, not a shortage. Steve Riskus, famous for publishing his photos, later remarked that he'd never even been interviewed by the FBI.

[Jacobin]

2. Why do people not want to believe a jet hit the Pentagon?

What's up with that?

A regular poster on this board's friend piloted that plane. He's dead.

Do you have like a Phd in physics? How do you know what a plane looks like when it hits a reinforced concrete wall?

[homelandpunk]

16. of course they are dead.

Is there a fingernail of him or any of the passengers pulled from there?
The hole does not give up it's tale to people with Phd's in physics.
It tells everyone what did NOT pierce that wall.
What are you saying? That the tip of the nose of the plane hit at a level inches away from the ground (one fucking wizard of a pilot) without scarring the ground, and then when it made a small hole in the wall, then the plane suctioned itself into a little tube, and everything went thru the small hole? Come on.

[RH]

29. Is there a fingernail ..?

Yes.

An autopsy of remains found at the Pentagon positively identified 58 of those aboard Flight 77. A third of these were identifoed from detal reords alone, the rest from DNA samples supplied by relatives.

The nacelle of one engine did scar the ground in front of the Pentagon; the wall of a steam vault was visibly damaged. The other engine demolished a 30 ton electricity generator within the contractor's compound, pushing it towards the building. It also completely destroyed a tree beside the building.

Are you seriously not aware of this or is it some kind of joke?

[homelandpunk]

32. hoo-boy....ok...off to rense.com with ya, lad

So you are joking when you say the hole was created by a 757?
Post your gov't documents on bodily remains of passengers listed on the official flight. There was no scarring in front of the building. Sorry.

[RH]

51. Documents were previously posted.

Where were you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=169#221

[Abe Linkman]

61. Not evidence of WHERE they died.

Few people dispute that FL 77's passengers/crew perished on 9-11;
but you have never provided any proof of WHERE they died. That's because they didn't die at the Pentagon. As DD has so delicately put it many times: where is the mush?

When you or anyone else posts a Gov't document or a statement from some kind of official, you try to infer that the document or statement is some kind of proof of where FL 77 passengers perished...but none of the documents or statements you've provided are evidence of where those people actually expired.

It's unprofessional and inconsiderate to try and infer something that isn't addressed in a particular document and I'm surprised you would continue doing that. One supposes you've lost your appetite for ever finding any proof of something that isn't true, and that's a healthy sign.

[RH]

82. Whjat about Sgt. Major Tony Rose?

“I picked up a child's hand. That was it. Just a child's hand and that's when I got angry. To wonder why someone could do this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/11/earlyshow/main521568.shtml

Of course there is evidence of where they expired. A diagram has even been published to show where in the building bodies were found. FBI investigations do not procede ad hoc; administrative protocols would always apply.

Furthermore the gathering of remains and the autopsy was a process that involved the cooperation of people from separate departmnents. Contested in a Court of Law you'd be up against hundreds of people, literally, all with sworn affidavits all to the same effect.

Get yourself a sworn affidavit to any different effect and you will then surely enough gain some undivided attention. In the mean time the "No Boeing" fantasy is not only foolish, it is possibly deliberately intended to appear so.

[wtmusic]

3. S'okay, people laugh when I tell them I saw Elvis in the WTC that day...

and they laughed at Galileo, too!!

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

[Nederland]

4. Unbelievable

A passenger jet strikes a building that sits right next to a four lane highway filled with eye witnesses and some people still don't believe it.

:tinfoilhat:

[Dookus]

5. and I guess...

all the passengers on the "missing" plane are now living on a secret island.

[Bertha Venation]

6. Yep. Unbelievable.

:tinfoilhat:ers abound.

[Hillsey]

7. A word of advice

Paragraphs. Whitespace.

Oh, and other than that. Bull feathers. There were eye witnesses and rescuers that pulled the damn plane out of there. The plane doesn't stay the same size once it hits a building. It fucking collapses under the impact.

End of story

[homelandpunk]

17. There was no plane pulled from there.

look it up.

[RH]

23. Were you born yesterday?

This "other hole" has been anything but ignored. Search the archives. Some people spent many months on this last year with the moot arguments dealt with at some length on previous threads on this site.

Further time wasting repetitions are not therefore welcome but just in case the ingorance is innocent please be especially advised that

1. Some of the windows were indeed destroyed upon impact, e.g. above the entrance to Corridor 5; two inch thick glass was installed within strengthened columns especially because it does not shatter.

2. Photos from some angles show that the grass did burn. There was no grass a foot away from the edge of the building, a roadway passed between the building and the grass.

[homelandpunk]

33. haha..."the other hole" ??? YOU were born yesterday

You don't like the thread and feel it is wasting your time? Don't reply, then.

[RH]

48. You are wasting your own time.

If you think that your attitude will impress.

It has all been seen before.

[jonoboy]

8. the more I look at all the events..it's fishy

most of the responses posted here do not in anyway diminish the original post..they all rely on more 'evidence' produced by the 'authorities'

Now I have no idea what happened..but the longer away from this event the more I realise how absurd it is to think that a man in a cave somewere could have engineered the most sophisticated diabolical act in recent years IN TOTAL SECRECY.
It defies belief that Osamo (BY HIMSELF) without the help of a huge secret organisation could possibly have organised 9/11 successfully.

Again I DON'T KNOW except that it cannot possibly be how it is presented to us.
Therefore EVERY aspect of 9/11 must be questioned.

example 1: people on here are basically asking 'were did the passengers go'..well if they don't think that if this was a plot by whoever..they wouldn't conveniently dispose of the passengers another way..why not?

example 2: someone says a relative of a poster was the pilot on the Penatgon plane..but how does that possibly explain anything. The relative of the pilot could not have any more or any less knowledge about the truth of the events than anyone else.

What I am saying by this is that people seem to be repeating things that really do not answer the original question at all!!
It could be that the truth of the events differ only slightly, or vastly from what we are being told to believe..but as 9/11 has radically changed the world dramatically in 2 years ( way out of proportion to the numbers of innocents who died) I think there is much more to it that we can see.

The publication of Perle's latest book and the insane events he is demanding should happen, must tell us that there are demonic forces controlling the world at present.

[seixon]

9. Without a huge secret org?

What do you think al-Qaida is exactly?
bin Laden didn't do it all by himself, obviously, and no one has said that he did. He is the chief of al-Qaida, and he along with his inner circle planned 9-11, he even said so himself.
bin Laden, a civil engineering major, and the bin Laden family business being construction... it wasn't odd for bin Laden to be talking about the engineering aspects of planning out the attacks on the video in December 2001...

bin Laden has/had lots of money.
He recruits 19 people to carry out a secret plan.
Some of them are instructed to learn how to fly a plane.
They are given money to sustain a life for some time in the US.
Fake passports are acquired for them.
They scout US airport security measures and routines to find possible holes in the routines at certain airports or airlines. They do this by

Does that sound so hard, really?

[impe]

110. Or Maybe

He was secretly planning the attack during his stay earlier that year at a US hospital.

[OneBlueSky]

10. I've seen the picture of the Pentagon wall . . .

after it was hit and before it collapsed . . . the hole is about the size of a large bay window . . . there is no way it was made by a jetliner . . . eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and I prefer to believe what I can see with my own eyes . . . the photo in question is a Department of Defense photo . . . again, there is no way that a jetliner made that hole . . . something hit the Pentagon, but it sure as hell wasn't a 747, or a 737, or a 727, or even a 707 . . .

ya know, given all we know about the Bush administration and their lies, it amazes me that people refuse to believe that they're capable of deception about the events of 9/11 . . . from everything I've seen and read (which is a hell of a lot), the entire story that they've promulgated about what happened that day is chock full of inconsistencies, deceptions, physical impossibilities, and outright lies . . . why else would they be trying so hard to keep a thorough investigation from happening? . . .

you can yell and scream and call me a tinfoil-hatter or any other name you want, but there are three things that I am absolutely dead sure about regarding 9/11:

1. the jetliners that hit the WTC were not the cause of the collapse of those buildings, or of WTC #7;

2. whatever hit the Pentagon was not a jetliner; and

3. Flight 93 exploded before it hit the ground in Pennsylvania.

[Frodo]

14. Good news! You got ONE thing right!

something hit the Pentagon, but it sure as hell wasn't a 747, or a 737, or a 727, or even a 707 . . .


You are right! It was a 757

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

21. Strangely enough

the eyewitnesses would also seem to prefer to believe what they saw with their own eyes. With all due respect to the eye witnesses and anybody else involved with the investigation and the clear up I have yet to hear of any doubt to have been expressed as to what hit the building, not from any one of them on any oaccasion since the event.

So who then should we believe? Those who saw photos or those who may also seen the photos but also saw the actual scene for themselves? Now there's a tough choice if ever there was one!

Just to be completely sure though, please be welcome to explain what apart from a plane with a wingspan of at least 90 feet would have brought down five lamp poles on the way to the Pentagon:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

I have invited answers to this conundrum on many previous occasions but rarely then does any intelligent reply then come forth. I wonder why not.

:shrug:

The "no Boeing" seekers of the truth persistently appear to prefer to completely ignore the link.

[Frodo]

50. Don't be ridiculous RH

You think that something the size of the federal government couldn't remember to knock down a couple light posts if it was planning to deceive millions of people?

How hard is it to knock down a light poll by remote? Not very hard, I'm telling you.

They were able to hit the towers in precisecly the spot they laid a bunch of explosives and then take down two of the largest buildings in the world in a controlled explosion that didn't LOOK like an explosion in front of millions of observers and YOU are going to put it past them to place a few ounces of explosive on a poll?

Baffling.

[RH]

53. You kid only yourself.

Wake up and own up. You have nothing to tell me if you were not not there to see, nor would you appear have anybody else's testimony to invoke nor any forensic evididence of any sort to refer to, not even an intelligent observation to substatiate your stupid fantasy.

Poles were not just knocked down; they were sheared in two and bent and moved some distance when the plane hit and the fact was witnessed.

The remains of one of the poles was propelled through the windscreen of a taxi.

Upper parts of the poles also appear to have been missing from the immediate area, presumably carried away when hit.

A Jeep Cherokee's aerial was also clipped off and a traffic observation camera was damaged.

[Frodo]

54. Hey RH! Get a grip!

I was KIDDING!

You've spent so much time around here you don't recognize a joke?

:-)

[RH]

57. In a better mood I may have smiled

but I doubt that everybody else will and the sheer boredom of it all tends to trigger the auto pilot. You don't have to look to far around here to see that the subtleties tend all too often to fall on fallow ground.

:cry:

Ergo it should not hurt to to state the case again and yes, maybe I should pay more attention to the who rather than the what of the various posts.

:pals:

[Abe Linkman]

62. Trajectory of the flying object is that of a single engine "plane"...or

Missile.

[Frodo]

64. Um. No

That missle has a hell of a wingspan! Or it's got the most flexible/manueverable/precise "waypoint" system of any missle I've dealt with (by several orders of magnitude).

No missle in our inventory can hit polls that far apart and no missle in our inventory could strike multiple polls and still continue on to the target. If a TLAM struck a light post it would most likely end it's flight right there.

[impe]

111. Air Florida Crash

I find it hard to believe that these Cessna trained pilots were able to fly over all these cars (observers) without taking them out and yet the seasoned pilots that flew over Key Bridge before crashing into the potomac, left a trail of debris and destruction which included decapitated heads and cars, and these pilots merely hit light poles on their way in?

[Terwilliger]

11. links

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

Griffin also examines unexplained issues about the other two planes. Eye witnesses and on-site evidence suggests that a missile or guided fighter aircraft, not a large commercial plane, crashed into the Pentagon.

http://911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=34

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/77comment5.html

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/77comment4.html

[Robb]

12. Hey, maybe it wasn't really the Pentagon...!

How do you know those photos you've seen aren't fakes? Did you go to the Pentagon on 9/12? Maybe those people in various states of dishevel running around were actors!

Those photos all did come from "official" sources, after all. Why do you give them such credence? Hell, I haven't been to NYC yet, maybe the towers are still there.

[homelandpunk]

20. scoffing works better when

foolishness is not used. Scoff at the Hole. I dare ya.

[Robb]

22. Okaaay...

...But tell me why you hold these "official" photos in such high regard? How do you know they weren't faked? Where do you draw the line at credibility?

[RH]

26. That's a very disingeuous question!

The method is perfectly obvious: Whether or not anything derives from an official source if it suits the prejudice it must be gospel but if it fails to fit it must be disinformation, and thus without a doubt.

If you can't get a satisfactory investigation at the prices charged by the FBI et al, because of what then should anything better be expected pro bono?

[Terwilliger]

40. so have you looked at any evidence?

or are you simply being stupid?

[Robb]

43. I don't think I'm "simply being stupid"

I've looked at a lot of evidence. I may have a different perspective than some people because I was very much "into" aircraft crashes well before 9/11. At any rate, I remain unconvinced that there's anything to suggest it wasn't a B57 that hit the Pentagon -- in no small part that the people who (sweeping generalization) tend to go on about it at length leave enormous factual errors in their analyses. I don't have a lot of patience for people who don't do their homework.

But I think I've raised a good question: how can any rational person putting forth an argument "cherry pick" which official sources they are going to believe? That's absurd. It's choosing what evidence they're going to examine by whether it fits the theory. It's bad science.

[LARED]

13. And I resolve in 2004

that every time I see a Pentagon story about flt 77 not hitting the Pentagon to post a story about the earth being flat. The people that believe the earth is round are all part of a demonic evil that wants us to believe the earth is not the center of the universe.

Prove me wrong.

[homelandpunk]

19. Look at the hole. There. I proved you wrong.

Why are you desperate to believe Cheney's government on this?

[demodewd]

24. a plane bomb?

It was a plane but it was also a missile. Missiles are flying bombs. Whether the flying engine is behind the bomb or around the bomb, what's the difference ?

Here we try to support that the plane that crash in the Pentagon was a plane bomb, thus it was not flight AA77. Flight AA77 had its transponder turned off. For 30 minutes it was not clear where it was (see UnansweredQuestions.org). We do not discuss the fate of AA77, instead we focus on the Pentagon evidences. The plane bomb was probably an airliner tarted up as an American Airlines airliner. It was modified as a missile, it was remotely and/or automatically controlled. There were bombs on board, mostly bombs with a directed explosion (shaped charges) These bombs pierced the wall, they were detonated one after another before the contact with the Pentagon and possibly after, inside the building. Here are others observers thinking about the same : Cheryl Seal : "The plane exploded and was essentially vaporized the split second before actual impact with the wall", Leonard Spencer about flight 11 : "It was a custom-built military plane carrying three missiles".More... http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html

[LARED]

25. I have proof the earth is flat.

And why are you so desperate to believe the earth is round.

LOOK at the proof!!!!!

[RH]

27. Don't you know

that the moon shot was faked?

The black sky and the suspiciously dark oceans give the game away. Did you ever see a sea that looks like that? Anybody can see for themselves that the sky is blue when the sun shines.

[LARED]

38. Of course it was faked

The BFEE was responsible. Come'on try and keep up. My eggs were runny this morning and my toast was burned. Chenny must of been screwing around with my kitchen appliances.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. BushCo wants us to believe the earth is round

Anybody who agrees with them is obviously not interested in objective truth, and finding out what really happened. These Magellenites must be opposed vigorously.

[LARED]

34. Pure evil

those Magellenites. :)

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

37. so you are not denying you are desperate to believe Cheney's government?

What? That about the same as me saying; so you are not denying you are a child molester? Or do you still beat your spouse?

Cut the crap. Just because I can understand that flt 77 hit the Pentagon does not mean I trust the government.

[demodewd]

39. Hey.

Hey lighten up Lared...its the New Year. Have a stiff one.

[homelandpunk]

45. When you say you "can understand

that flight 77 hit the Pentagon" how do you come to uderstand that?

[RH]

49. Search the archive.

It has all been explained before.

[LARED]

52. How?

By looking at the evidence. Photos, eyewitness testimony, official and unofficial reports.

This topic has been hashed over and rehashed to death in this forum. Go back through the archives, there are at least 2 dozen threads about the Pentagon. Read them. Look at the evidence. When you are finished, if you are not convinced, frankly, you're refusing to believe reality.

[Terwilliger]

41. look at the evidence

if you still say that there's no possibility that flight wasn't what hit the Pentagon, then, apparently, you have explanations for the disconnect in logic that is the official story

[RH]

56. Trawl the archives.

:eyes:

With all this dealt with before, many times over, you'll get no thanks for obliging people to repeat themselves.

[Abe Linkman]

63. Eight minutes before you posted that message, you said:......

"Ergo it should not hurt to to state the case again"

Are you trying to have it both ways? Oh. Right. Sure, RH; whatever you say (this time, next time, and the time after that).

[RH]

71. I was not trying to have.

I was trying to give.

If you were to think about it carefully enough to appreciate the difference (and the effort) one may then perhaps be encouraged to do more. It is not at all pleasant to see people fooled by their own misapprehensions but in the mean time, as usual, your vindictive heckling serves only to put people off.

[Terwilliger]

42. the earth is not flat and everybody knows it

or, are satellites simply making linear movements?

There is PLENTY of EVIDENCE that the official version of events is not credible. Not only at the Pentagon, but in Pennsylvania and at the WTC. Why are you so horrified to think that the problems of credibility are more rooted in the conspiratorial theories than in the official "theories"?

[plaguepuppy]

46. ...flat out of hole jokes

As a pro-demolitionist with my own tinfoil cross to bear, or is it a crown of tinfoil thorns, I've looked very very hard at that damn hole in the Pentagon, and listened to all the arguments of the OTC (official CT) theory folks (happy New Year to Y'all!), and really tried to believe, but I just don't see any way in hell somebody put a jet plane through there.

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Pentagon-Hole.shtml

And what's up with the whole section collapsing with such a small initial hole and not much of a fire? Is anyone starting to see a pattern here?

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/pentagon.turn.to.dust.avi

[demodewd]

47. interesink

I find this site interesting.. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html

[LARED]

55. PLENTY of EVIDENCE ?

Sure, there is some evidence that the offical story is not ironclad.

But;

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that something other than flt 77 hit the Pentagon.

The IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE that flt 77 did hit the Pentagon.

There is NO EVIDENCE that flt 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

So what do you have. Nothing, but pure speculation.

[RH]

58. That's too kind.

:kick: "Speculation" may usefully fill a gap but when it willfully replaces an established reality the practice deserves a stronger epithet.

[plaguepuppy]

59. Rabid dogma alert !

Sure you're not being just a tad dogmatic there old buddy?

I think this is called "PROOF BY ASSERTION IN ALL CAPS":

"There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that something other than flt 77 hit the Pentagon.

The IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE that flt 77 did hit the Pentagon.

There is NO EVIDENCE that flt 77 did not hit the Pentagon.

So what do you have. Nothing, but pure speculation. "

Yes there you have it - all the evidence that doesn't fit just disappears with a wave of the caps lock key. None of this messy refutation of specifics, just claim none of it exists. And heck, if there's no evidence, then all that's left is speculation. QED!

Sorry, but my keyboard doesn't have that function...


And despite your alarmist response, all I really said was that I cannot in good conscience look at those pictures of the initial damage and say that I believe a passenger jet hit that building. I still don't. You're welcome to try to convince me otherwise, but don't pretend the damn picture doesn't exist,
or that an intelligent and well-intentioned individual (yup, that's me!) could look at it and have a hard time believing that claim.

[RH]

66. The pictures fit

with the eye witness reports.

"There is NO EVIDENCE that flt 77 did not hit the Pentagon." may be dubious just as ever would be any invitation to prove a negative but LARED's other key points stand good as unrefuted statements of fact.

While there is not yet the slightest trace of any forensic evidence to show that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and the eye witness reports overwhelmingly confirm the fact there is indeed plenty of evidence that flt 77 did hit the Pentagon. Even if you prefer to deny the entire FBI investigation and the autopsy there was nevertheless an abundance of other people around to encounter plane parts, body parts, and a smell of aviation fuel that persisted for many days afterwards.

The lack of respect for the personal experience of those directly affected is upsetting above all else. I have not yet heard of or from one single person directly involved at the scene and known to have since harboured the slightest doubt as to what hit the building. Not one anywhere. Is that simple fact not worth some considered respect?

In the face of it how then can anybody else possibly pretend to know that any other reality is a FACT?

[LARED]

67. Well now lets see,

being dogmatic would imply that I was stating something without proof. There is plenty of proof that flt 77 hit the Pentagon. On the other hand the only guys making dogmatic claims are the guys without evidence or proof or anything for that matter.

So, once again you (as the standard bearer for the CT crowd) get the ironic post of the day award.

Congratulations.

BTW, intelligent and well-intentioned individuals would normally look at more than one picture before they make up their mind.

[plaguepuppy]

75. What's dogmatic is the assertion that there is "no evidence whatsoever"

And again, I am not trying to re-argue the whole issue, not trying to disrespect the various eyewitnesses, etc. I'm just stating a fact, apart from what other lines of evidence might or might not show, and apart from the emotional attachment to the events.

The fact is that I don't see anything in that picture that makes me believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, based on the merits of the picture itself. Not based on someone's post-hoc explanation of why it doesn't show what it seems to show, or someone's emotional reaction to what it might imply. Unless we judge each individual piece of evidence by those standards the composite picture we arrive at has no chance of being correct.

Misplaced irony alert:

"On the other hand the only guys making dogmatic claims are the guys without evidence or proof or anything for that matter."

This is just a slight restatement of your usual dogmatic claim that there exists no evidence for any views not in agreement with yours. If that were really true I don't think these threads would have gone on for as long as they have, unless we believe your implicit claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a liar and/or fool.

[RH]

80. So what then is the argument?

Is the alternative thesis supposed to be to the effect that there was intention to "make you believe" but the ways and means to make you believe were somehow unavailable, bungled or inadequate?

In terms of motivation and method the "No Boeing" hypothesis never made any sense to begin with. Why not simply crash a B757 into the Pentagon if that was the intended effect?

[LARED]

89. OK

The fact is that I don't see anything in that picture that makes me believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, based on the merits of the picture itself.

True, the Pentagon picture by itself is about as convincing a proof as my "flat earth" picture proves the earth is flat, (that was my point) if you're trying to determine that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

So let me ask you two questions.

Do you believe flt 77 hit the Pentagon?

Do you believe the earth is flat?

[LARED]

98. Calling PP

An answer would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

[demodewd]

65. What

What evidence do you have that Fl 77 hit the Pentagon?

[LARED]

68. See post 52 n/t

[demodewd]

70. Specifics

Tell me some specifics.

[LARED]

73. This issue

has been beaten to death. Flogged beyond recognition multiple times. I'm really not up to going through it for the twentieth time. If you really are interested go back to the archives and look for yourself.

To name a few.

Pictures, lots of them, showing plane parts. Hundreds of eyewitness reports. DNA investigation during the recovery of victims. Reports showing that damage is consistent with a jet impacting the building, etc, etc.

[demodewd]

76. Yes...a plane

I have no doubt that a plane slammed into the Pentagon.But plane parts haven't proved it was specifically Flight 77,eyewitness reports could not be that plane specific...and would be thrown out in a court of law.I agree that there is damage consistant with a rather large craft hitting the Pentagon. I reviewed Anablep's photographs extensively and they convinced me that it wasn't a small jet or a missile(only). Autopsies?...well we're asked to believe in good faith. I wonder how much DNA was recoverable from that inferno. And if there is truth to the DNA angle then it is very possible that the bodies were transferred to another plane strapped with shaped charges and carrying a bomb and/or missile. I just don't believe that the nose/fuselage of the "plane" bore out that huge eight foot hole into the A-E drive. Where's all the large identifiable plane debris one would expect to see in the A-E drive?

[RH]

87. I just don't believe that the nose/fuselage

of the "plane" bore out that bore out that huge eight foot hole into the A-E drive.

Neither do I and to the best of my knowledge no seriously considered review of the issue ever proposed that conclusion.

I have never understood why people see the need for an object to have made the hole. Walls give way under pressure.

There were two other holes BTW to account for in A-E drive.

[demodewd]

91. re:pressure

Pressure from what? A jet stream flow created by shaped charges?

[RH]

93. Fuel exploded.

Cars on the highway were moved by the blast.

Books fell off shelves a mile away.

The progress of the aircraft itself would also create an immediate shock wave and a subsequent pressure by suddenly displacing its own volume of air. The building was immediately fractured and partially collapsed from the shock. A section of the flooring slabs for the second floor also moved, upwards if I recall correctly.

:nuke:

[demodewd]

99. Whatever

Whatever created the hole into the A-E drive must have had tornado like force and speed and funneling. Is this characteristic of a jet fuel explosion?

[RH]

103. Tornados

have indeed registered speeds similar to that of the aircraft as it hit the building.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/ShamimRizvi.shtml

The wall that gave way was nothing special. I'd expect a comparable result if it were hit by a one ton truck at fifty miles per hour.

[demodewd]

106. the wall

the wall...was hit by what??

[RH]

108. Hot aeroplane soup

i.e.

some parts of the plane, including aviation fuel (a considerable portion of the mass of the plane)

plus the air in the building and whatever parts of the building or objects in the building had been displaced that far.

[Abe Linkman]

95. In other words, you don't have any credible or clear evidence.

NONE of the pictures you keep referring to show ANY signs of FL 77 crashing into the Pentagon...at any time.

NONE of your other cited "evidence" holds up, either.

NONE of your theories hold up.

You have NO evidence; only assertions & insufficient "reports".

[RH]

69. To refresh the momory ...

There was an FBI investigation.

There was an autopsy.

There were photographs.

There was the testimony of anybody at the scene to see for themselves.

And yet more evidence is said to have been gathered. It would be interesting to know what the recovered "black boxes" had to say so go get them. Nobody here wants to stop you.

[demodewd]

72. ???

I never have seen any photographs that prove it was Flight77. Autopsy? Even if the bodies were identifiable...and I have doubts...it doesn't prove that they were from #77. They could have been removed and put into another plane. Testimony of what? That a plane that looked like it could have been a 757 slammed into the Pentagon? Hardly court admissable and unscientific.

[LARED]

74. Hardly court admissable and unscientific.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[demodewd]

78. No way

There's no way an observer could positively identify the plane they saw was Flight 77. It may have looked like Flight 77.

[RH]

86. Why not?

A flight attendant who would usually have flown on Flight 77 identified parts of the plane in situ at the scene and a bracelet she'd given to the attendant actually aboard on the plane.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with her. This is getting to be very tedious.

:eyes:

[demodewd]

100. re:tedious

As I have said in other posts,to me there is the distinct possibility that the passengers from #77 were transferred to another plane tarted up to look like the 757.Perhaps they were gassed prior to the transfer. I know that sounds outrageous but I place my doubts that the actual American Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon for two reasons. First; the alleged acrobatic maneuvering of the plane and the pinpoint accuracy in which it met its target(IMHO),and secondly; the physical characteristics of the crash and crash site. Refer to http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html :)

[RH]

102. And as I have said ...

the notion of pinpoint accuracy is irrational because nothing whatsoever has yet appeared to establish that the Pentagon yet alone any particular part of the Pentagon was an intended target.

The essential phsysical characteristic of the crash and crash site was that Flight 77 was found there, not exactly intact but nevertheless complete with the remains of passengers and the 'black box'.

If others prefer to fantasise to any other effect that's up to them but of no further interest to me except in terms of insidious psychosis.

[demodewd]

105. Insidious? ...

Nothing in what I speculate is irrational..you misuse the word. I may be wrong...I may be dead right...who's to tell. How can you have evidence that any of the targets were intended? Black boxes...we(the public) don't know their contents,if there are any..so they are immaterial to any discussion.

[RH]

107. How can you have evidence?

In the usual fashion.

The issue has been picked up in another thread:

AL QAEDA'S D.C. DEATH JET PLOT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php#5906

If you are not being irrational then you are being a cheat, by moving the goalpost after the ball was kicked. You can't have pinpoint accuracy without a pinpoint defined.

[demodewd]

109. Enough.

Is the word disinformation in your vocab? What evidence do you have that aluminum powder is the cause of the initial color of the Pentagon explosion? You have none and yet you postulate it incessantly like it is a fact well recognized. Enough. Really.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RH]

97. From what is any payment "apparent"?

:shrug:

[RH]

77. The photographs above all else

convince me that it was a B757.

Whatever passed over the cable spools in front of the building also clipped the corner of the wall of a steam vault structure on one side while it ploughed straight through the electricity generator on the other side, with a flap track fairing under the wing scraping a visible gouge right across the top of the generator.

Only an object with the cross section of a B757 could possibly have achieved that. The appropriate dimensions fit exactly while the engines of a B737 for instance would have been too close together.

Those who say the damage to the building fails to fit are ignorant. Destruction to the extent of removing two inch thick windows visibly extended to the full wingspan of a B757 and without the disintegration of the wings to explain it there would be an awful lot of metal confetti to account for. Ask anybody who saw the result for for themselves and then compare the published photos of the Sandia Phatom Jet Crash Experiment.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm

[demodewd]

79. 757?

I t was a plane the size or near the size of a 757...but that doesn't prove it was Flight 77.

[RH]

83. Were there any other missing B757s

to have to account for?

:shrug:

[plaguepuppy]

81. You can really tell?

"with a flap track fairing under the wing scraping a visible gouge right across the top of the generator. "

That groove could only have been made by flap track fairing? You can really tell just by looking?

That's what I mean by post-hoc arguments - I'm supposed to disregard my overall impression of the picture, the striking lack of damage to the facade and lack of debris anywhere near the facade and just pay attention to this one little gouge ,and your interpretation of it.
That's not being ignorant, it's just refusing to disbelieve my own eyes.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Your eyes tell you that the earth is flat!

Don't believe all that Cheney adminstration balderdash that the earth is a sphere. Go with your eyes!

[RH]

85. Detailed work was done.

To satisfy myself I constructed several plans and photos with B757 plan and cross section overlays. That was last year.

More recently I have argued with JP Demoulins who was thus persuaded to do some work of his own. I'd put the dimensional argument in response to his previous hypothesis to the effect that the attack plane had been a B737 rather than a B757.

His well presented work on the issue is to be found here:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-traj.html

[plaguepuppy]

90. Bad physics

Well presented perhaps, but not convincing from a momentum standpoint. He has the wings fold up, engines and all, in a fraction of the estimated 250ms of the impact, the wings hinging by the front of the wing root to allow this folding. Do you have any idea how much lateral acceleration it would take to move the engines to the midline that quickly? Those engines have a lot of momentum, all directed in a forward direction, but in say 1/8 sec. somehow get slammed violently at right angles to the direction of travel, all to somehow squeeze two engines through one small hole.

That must be some strong attachment point those wings are pivoting on, or else the engines would have just sheared off and gone straight into the building, leaving two big holes where there aren't any. Sorry, it may be nice draftsmanship but it's lousy physics.

[Robb]

92. I keep forgetting

about your mastery of physics. Like Stanton Friedman. :D

[plaguepuppy]

101. Hey, Stan's an old drinking buddy of mine!

We used to throw beer cans at UFOs in Mojave.
Don't be saying shit about him, OK?


Only

more bear jumps until impeachment!

[RH]

94. Yes, I tend to agree.

I would have expected the engines to immediately separate from the wings upon impact. Their attachment by bolts to the wings is, I gather, designed especially to allow the same under stress, rather than to prejudice the integrity of an entire wing. It is a relatively frequent occurance for an engine to fall off in flight but very rarely would or should an entire wing fall off.

On the other hand eye witnesses did speak of wings flying forwards, or words to that effect. One said "The wing touched there , then the plane cart wheeled into the building." My guess in that respect is that the wings were already seriously damaged by hitting lamp poles and then they fractured accordingly upon impact. If a wing tip was not actually attached to the plane when it hit the wall you should then need, may I humbly suggest, to review the notorious hole size accordingly.

What is the mass of the last fifteen feet of a wing tip per se? No more, I would guess, than the mass of one of the Pentagon's blast resistant windows let alone the reinforced wall that some would somehow expect the wing tips to have penetrated.

The physics that I would be interested to hear more about is that of shock waves within aluminum. Working backwards from the evidence (instead of forwards from whatever presumption) the end result was a largely a great deal of widely scattered small metal the size of a coin (not therefore visible in ordinary photos). The immediate understanding would therefore be of a shattering akin to that of windscreen glass designed thus to give way.

Chemical corollaries would also come into play. The essential active ingredient of solid rocket fuel is powdered aluminum. What therefore would happen given a sudden reduction of aircraft aluminum to something akin to a powder? An immediate oxidation of the newly exposed surfaces is presumably to be expected, hence a consequent production of some considerable heat, possibly to the extent of the stuff exploding spontaneously. They use aluminum for rocket fuel because when it does burn it burns very hot.

[plaguepuppy]

104. How aluminum might behave

As a junior mad scientist I had a lot of experience with powdered aluminum, or actually "aluminum dust" which is finer. It's the same stuff that's used in paint pigment, very small particles that blow away in a light breeze. That gives it a lot of surface area which makes it very reactive. Mixed with suitable oxidizes (perchlorates work nicely) it makes a pretty good low explosive, sort of like gunpowder. Mixed with potassium permanganate and sulfur it burns a little slower and makes a pretty good rocket fuel.

But in other forms it doesn't burn very well - it forms an oxide coat quickly which is non-reactive. Unlike magnesium, which can actually burn in air, aluminum will just heat up and melt.

As far as what would happen to the aluminum of the plane, it would certainly undergo some catastrophic decelleration, but I would still not expect it to shatter on impact. Things like fuel tanks would burst on impact and could throw some "shrapnel" around at fairly high speeds, but most of the metal would undergo a lot of crumpling/tearing/shredding, and wouldn't blow back far from the wall, as for example:

But most of the plane has been changed into small pieces :
"I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there" Terry Mitchell
"No large pieces apparently survived" Michael Tamillow
"All over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar" Mark Faram


These metal 'confetti' have been blown up high in the sky :
"looked like white confetti raining down everywhere. The 'confetti' was little bits of airplane, falling down after being flung high into the bright, blue sky" Clyde Ragland
"The sky was darker than normal, but still didn't think much of it. Then I saw little bits of silver falling from the sky" Will Jarvis
"There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down" Donald R. Bouchoux
"When the debris shower stopped, people began getting out of their cars" DelawareOnLine
"A column of 50 FBI officers walked shoulder-to-shoulder across the south grounds of the Pentagon, picking up debris" Washingtonpost

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html