Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Snopes.com's Hilarious Pentagon Debunk Attempt

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 10:14 PM
Original message
Snopes.com's Hilarious Pentagon Debunk Attempt
Snopes' Pentagon debunk attempt still gets posted by some people to try to squash theories that Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon.

Let's revisit Snopes' article real quick:


"As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building."




So where did Flight 77 "hit the ground first" which "dissipated much of the energy" from the 757 before it supposedly crashed into the Pentagon as Snopes claims???



(Photo source: Our good ol' Military)



For those interested, see my page that refutes Snopes.com's hilarious Pentagon debunk attempt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Snopes may or may not have gotten the lawn impact correct
but, Snopes' possible misstatment is child's play compared to the sophistry of the 9/11 "theorist."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-04-05 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. May or may not gotten it right???
I think the photo showing NO SKID MARKS on the lawn PROVE Snopes got this one wrong!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. One photo cannot establish if it happened or not but
lets assume Snopes got it wrong on this particular detail, So what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. So What?!
It's clear from this that Snopes is in bed with the Bush Cabal, and is a traitor to the cause of justice!


Or something... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Nope (though they may be)-- mostly it points to the inaccuracy of
their analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
23. Snopes............
Where do you think they got their analyzes from?

The government!

I emailed and asked them the question well over a year ago!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. Snopes getting this point wrong means
they could have made other points wrong (which they did) which then means the debunk attempt fails. You saying "so what?" makes you sound like a Snopes apologist btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. Apparently Snopes got this one right
Edited on Mon Dec-19-05 07:46 AM by LARED
We now have strong evidence that flight 77 hit the dirt and curb in front of the air ventilation system.



Look at the broken curbing (bottom left corner) with the dirt disturbed in front of it.

Killtown, thank you for your diligent work in this area.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. LoL
See here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Also
Snopes: "thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building"


Do you think this happened by only the 757's left engine clipping that small wall if that's what happened? It's left engine barely hitting that small low wall "dissipated much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. No, I don't think that is accurate
There was far too much energy available to have dissipated much of anything by hitting the ground. Some energy was dissipated but to use the term "much" is well too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-20-05 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. I'm glad we agree on that point
and you can see how punching enough holes in Snopes claim will eventually make their claim have little to no merit. Snopes needs to change their theory since it is contradicted by the same govt's version Snopes is trying to support. Snopes is ruining their own credibility be not correcting their obvious mistake. Wouldn't you agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry_s Donating Member (101 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #24
41. Those Incredible Cable Spools...
Yes... look at those >> indestructible pentanium cable spools <<.

All the building is burning but those spools haven't got any marks of fire, btw, they are exactly on the way of the boeing, so they should be blown away by the explosion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. It hit the ground
but this didn't dissipate any/much of the energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. What is the basis for your conclusion?
Edited on Mon Dec-05-05 10:11 PM by philb
Not many witnesses think so?
Were there signs on the lawn? Gouge? etc.?

The most cogent witness statements that I saw didn't seem to include hitting the ground. Maybe hitting objects though.

Witness statements have been posted before. We could go through them again. Or do you know of other more credible evidence?

The witness statements and evidence are so diverse and lacking in clarity that I'm not sure what to make of them.

The main points I see that are important are "what was the cause of the high radiation levels at the Pentagon?" and
"why the clear major coverup of the West wall and private security videos and the plane parts?"

There also were fires and deaths in places far from the plane impact, strange actions by a helicopter, C130, and perhaps another plane at the site, and witness statements of an explosion at the Pentagon that no one has explained what caused. And seemingly virtually impossible flight path for a 757 flown by anyone other than an extreme expert. And big differences in time of occurance reported by different witnesses, media, 911 Comm., Danish foreign minister, etc.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. ASCE report
After hitting the generator, "The aircraft had rolled slightly to its left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft struck the west wall of the Pentagon."
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

I saw a programme on National Geographic channel that said the same thing, but I can't find a transcript now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. oh yeah, I believe that. The generator was able to deflect the plane's
roll angle, but smashing into the generator wasn't able to break off the engine?

The evidence for the port engine hitting the ground is weak, as well. It consists of a large chip taken out of a short concrete wall. Which if you look at it carefully, the damage isn't even circular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. You seem to be referring to a photo,
but I don't know which photo. Could you give me a link please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
we can do it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. So Where Did the Parts of the Plane Go?
and don't tell me the wings "folded up" or the metal vaporized or some other nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Where most things go traveling a few hundred miles per hour
when they hit sometihng. Inside the Pentagon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
we can do it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Bullshit - the wing would have been sheared off.
Wings don't fold back. Oh yeah and I suppose you believe that the wings folded back and made a perfectly round hole in the wall, and the soft nose pierced through 3 rings of reinforced concrete. Oh yeah and the hijackers ID was found blocks from the WTC - unscathed from the inferno capable of melting steel.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. 3 rings of reinforced concrete?
"3 rings of reinforced concrete"
To what building are you referring?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
we can do it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. The Pentagon is Constructed of Reinforced Concrete In Concentric Rings
Pentagon constructed of reinforced concrete
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-05 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Gereat buildings says the Pentagon has
"reinforced concrete outer walls"
But even that's not strictly true.

This is more accurate:
"As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/...
The floors were concrete and there were some concrete pillars, but most of the outer wall was limestone backed with bricks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Even if the wings did shear off, they are
traveling at a few hundred miles per hour. Do you expect them to bounce off the wall at that speed?

Also it is worth noting that there are no images taken close up to the damage, a fact conveniently overlooked by the CT'ers. Zoomed images distort space making actual distances quite difficult to determine. The images that do have some level of detail show lots of debris near the impact area, but still to far away to determine what sort of debris is in the picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-13-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a pic
of where the left wing supposedly hit the ground first!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. The tips did shear off
The fuel laden 1/3rd of the wing had a substantial amount of (mass combined with velocity =) momentum, and punched through the facade...nothing folded back.

Oh and "reinforced concrete" ususally refers to concrete with embedded rebar. That is not what the facade of the Pentagon consited of.

The Hijacker's ID would have been in the cockpit...in front of all of the fuel, and is relatively light, open it could act like a wing. A large fuel fireball causes a wall of hot air to expand in front of it, which could have, along with the fact that the passport was already moing at high speed with the aircraft's velocity could mean it was ejected from the WTC along with other aircraft parts and hence did not immolate in the inferno.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-27-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. "The Hijacker's ID would have been in the cockpit"
"...in front of all of the fuel"


NIST report said hijackers were found relatively close to the point of impact. How do you explain your theory now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
we can do it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Did it also shrink - or vaporize when it went "in the Pentagon"?
The wreckage should be visible, given the size of the plane.

Like This?

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte....


and This?

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. Oh gee a new website! Never seen that one before!
Edited on Wed Jan-25-06 04:50 PM by vincent_vega_lives
/sarcasm off :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiggles85 Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
30. A good deal was inside the pentagon
Including parts of the engines, and blue seats (as used by AA)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-26-06 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. How can you have a jet inside.......
if you don't have the physics of a jet crash outside?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Where did the left engine "strike the ground"?
I have not seen ONE PIC to verify ASCE's claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. So Snopes was wrong when they said the 757's
energy was dissipated when it struck the ground? I wonder what else they got wrong!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-25-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. You're making the accusation
You tell us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-27-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Oh they got a lot wrong...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-24-06 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
29. Come on Sabbat Hunter, I'm calling you out!
Step up to the plate and defend your precious Snopes.com debunk attempt!!!

LARED couldn't even defend it!

:bounce:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-27-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. Come on Sabbat, why ya ducking this???
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
38. because
because killtown is being a pain in the ass here we go

snopes is right

killtown is wrong


that good enough for you KT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Wow, that was pathetic
you have even LESS credibility than the little you previously had.


Btw, LARED even admits Snopes got this main point wrong. What do you say about that? Is LARED wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. i agree
with LARED

well considering your credibility is zero with your constant links to your vanity site, you shouldnt be talking about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. So you admit that Snopes' theory is FLAWED!
Their MAIN point as to why Flight 77 didn't do as much damage as expected was because "it actually hit the ground first" before hitting the building "thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building."


See, iF Snopes point on this is wrong, then their ENTIRE theory is flawed.


Call my site as many names as you wish, it still won't change the fact that Snopes' debunk attempt is FLAWED.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. the word
much is wrong, the rest of the premise is correct. they should have used some.

now go away
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killtown Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-03-06 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. I bet you would like people who expose Snopes' bad work
to "go away."

Their premise is TOTALLY FLAWED!!! How are they going to explain the reason the plane didn't enter the building very far now after their reason why it didn't is totally flawed???



And another serious flaw in their theory:

"Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH)"



350 mph? Flt 77 was said to have flown in at 530 mph.


Now I know why you wish I would just "go away"!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenman2 Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. i have a response to snopes as well
Edited on Sat Feb-11-06 03:26 PM by greenman2

http://911review.org/Wiki/snopespentagonrumor.html

as far as the plane hitting the ground first,
thats PURE B.S.
The cable reels below are 7 ft. tall (for the tallest) which was directly in the path of the Boeing.
For the bottom of the craft to clear these reels it would have had to be over 7 ft. off the ground, which puts the wings at 7 1/2 ft. MORE =14 1/2 ft. (minimum). The right wing would also have had to clear the generator which was over 10 ft. tall
Which puts the right wing at 17 ft. minimum. The plane was said to be traveling at 500 mph+ and witnesses say it "reved up" just before impact.
How did the damage to the bottom of the pentagon, right of the impact point occur?
http://757.batcave.net /

and so the engine hit this wall, but DIDNT knock down these cable reels ???


now, imagine this in 3D in your head...

see the height of the generator ?
see the height of the cable reels ?

now, imagine the right wing striking the generator...





the bottom of the "belly" of the plane, is almost as low as the bottom of the engine.
if the right wing was so low as to hit the generator,
and the left engine hit the ground,
then the belly of the craft would have hit the cable reels.

imagine again if you will, a more than 13ft tall tube, over 155ft long (no tail included)
bouncing off light poles, generators, and concrete retaining walls,
with the wings tilted,
hitting that wall, and going in at such an angle,
so that the tube doesnt tilt left/right. or up/down.

what i mean by that, is the fuselage should have had a vertical, and horizontal change.
and the wings hitting those objects should have forced the nose into the ground,
forcing the rest of the fuselage upward.
these impacts should also have caused the fuselage to change its direction sideways.
not leaving a clean holes as it did, and also leaving a crumpled fuselage behind.

closeups of the pentagon lawn...
http://close.batcave.net /
http://911review.org/brad.com/Pentagon_Closeup_Photos.h...
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagonpictures.html

also , what was in the exit "punch out" hole ?




this wasnt part of a 757
http://pentagon.batcave.net/hole.html

soeaking of debris, yes there WAS SOME...

(large photo here...)
http://911review.org/brad.com/noplane.html
but what is it from ?
this is the remains of a contractors trailer...


http://investigate911.bravehost.com/trailer.html

if the plane hit a trailer BEFORE it hit the pentagon,
then HOW THE F** did it leave that round hole?
and can we trust ANY witness that says they saw the plane hit the pentagon ?
wouldnt they say, they saw the plane hit a TRAILER in FRONT of the pentagon ???


why were the columns bent the wrong way ?
http://damage.1accesshost.com /

also see...
http://no757.batcave.net
http://911review.org /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Numbers
"How are they going to explain the reason the plane didn't enter the building very far?"

How far do you think the plane went into the building?
How far do you think it "should" have gone into the building?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 17th 2017, 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC