Srrh; Gettig the picture yet

[pabs]

I see your point Henrik but let's face it: most of us are talking about something that we don't know much about. Everyone discussion here so far can only go by what they have read or seen and even picture interpretations have been highly subjective. Whether or not an airplane hit the Pentagon, I assume most of the solid information is highly classified so we probably will never know all the details....

Are the pictures not as clear and detailed as many would like them? Perhaps...but I don't think they tell the whole story. That's why you have to look at all the evidence and that's what tells me that an airplane in fact did hit the pentagon.

The claims against the moon landings also looked very convincing without any further explanation. Once that explanation is provided then you see they were just empty claims. I think the same is happening here.

[justan here]

BTW Justan, Paranoia is often a version of the truth, told before its time---3D Glasses


Yes in some cases that could be true, but mostly paranoia is just that paranoia, or at the very least an over active imagination with a lot of free time


Anything da Silva tells you about Ferrari must be true belive it

[raptor22]

what I find curious is;

1) No aircraft wreckage is visible.
somethingthe size of a 757-200 does'nt disappear into thin air. unless the fire burned so hot that it smelted the entire aircraft.

2) They claim it hit the ground before the it impacted the building.
There was no damage to the lawn around the building.
No deep furrow dug by the wing tip as the plane tipped over as discribed by the US gov official.

3)How the heck did guys who could barely fly a cessna manage to fly a 25t aircraft with such pecision that they could impact the building at the ground floor. The aircraft would have to come in low to achieve that level of accuracy.

4) They claim the damage extended to C ring. Yikes that thing must have ahd a hardened nose cone to penetrate that far.

Now granted that some of their statements may have been worded badly or even taken out of context there is stillc ertain physical evidence that I find lacking.

This is no moon landing conspiracy- i've seen those and some of the theories don't really hold water

But it is important to be opened minded about this event because it is one of the driving factors behind the USA's desire to go to war.

[who won]

just a question

why?

I mean conspiracy bullshit aside, lets just accept insanity here, the US government lets just say attacked itself for the end game that Danny Boy suggests, ...whatever...

okay now we're all as paranoid and delusioned as him. okay, i've hypnotised you and brainwashed you

lets continue

a plane crashed into the WTC, how do we know, we saw it on TV. what did the hole look like?

did it look like a 747, or other passenger plane? really, do you know what that should look like?

and did it look like a missile? really what does that look like in your expert opinion

I saw a hole until I saw the footage of a plane going through, I too had no clue that it was a passenger plane, it was just a huge hole

So anyway, they got a plane to smash into the WTC, now why the necessary theory that it was a missile?

why does it help the case anymore? I mean you already believe that it was a jewish conpiracy that sent the passeneger plane into the WTC, so why complicate matters and suggest it was a missile and not an airplane?

Of course that does increase the entire conpiracist dream, where is the wreckage? well we cant see it (we are experts of course) therefore it must be a missile, therefore it si a conspiracy)

OH MY GOD

There are a thousand if not more witnesses, come on, people, were there, they saw it, surely someone of the thousdand or more would by now have said, no, NO NO I SAW A MISSILE


wouldnt they?

WOULDNT they Danny Boy? or did they uswe the Men in Black Mind rubber on them all, seriously, I'm laughing and I'm asking, did they all hacve their memories erased by the government, ever congressman every worker in the area?

I say give the conspiracy a rest

Believe it was a government plot if you insist, but it was an AIRPLANE

[Danny Boy]

Pabs; you work in the aircraft field; In this photo, as in Henrik's, why are the Firemen using water when it is standard practice to use foam on any fire involving aviation fuel.

PS, Still can't see any wreckage?

[Danny Boy]

da_silva.
Me thinks your scaling of the Boeing is a little on the small side.

Check out the window sizes in both of this and the above picture and I think you will see my scale is probably nearer to the real thing.

[daSilva]

Actually those scales are very similar.

Notice the overlay on your own picture and the damage to the bottom of the building lines up nicely with those wings.

Once again the ground of your first picture is blocked by two rescue vehicles, that picture is completely inconclusive.

How many crash sites have you been to where a 757 crashed into the side of a building at 350mph, and how much wreckage did you see?

[Danny Boy]

This plane crashed into the sea about 3 miles from where I live. All right, it is not a Boeing but an Airbus 320, however, because the pilot was a cunt, he crashed the plane into the sea at about the same speed. There was wreckage everywhere, including luggage remnants, and this is what I find hard to believe. In every accident there is always a large amount of luggage and personal items that have been blown into the air and are deposited around the area. Where are the remnant that should be scattered over the area.
Of course, if it was a Lear type jet packed with explosives, or a missile, then there would not be this type of debris would there?

[Henrik]

As much as I find the total lack of airplane debris disturbing, as well as the fact that the damage to the building does not seem to correspond to something caused by a 757 (and Justan, no I'm no expert on these things and have never seen a crash site up close, but every image I have ever seen from a crash site showed some evidence of airplane debris, and yes I have seen the result of missile damage to buildings), there is another thing that also bothers me. If it was not in fact flight 77 that crashed in to the Pentagon, then where the hell did the 757 go? I mean how do you get rid of an airplane that size without anybody noticing? You can't just land it unnoticed at any old airport.

[Passenger 57]

Guest-who said:

just a question

why?

An 'Executive Decission' regarding the plane, maybe?
Instead of a military office block the plane could have aimed to nuclear installations, or indeed to the silos containing America's own weapons of mass destruction.

However, Washington, and the Pentagon, of all places, must have been in red alert at that time -I remember Bush was safely buried in a cupboard somewhere while America was declared a no-fly zone.

I can see no plane at all in the cnn sequence of the explossion, and even in the second picture where I would be supposed to see at least the non-volatile part of the plane splitting on the ground all I notice is an explossion at ground floor level just outside the pentagon perimeter... Afterwards it's obvious that something nasty exploded inside...

I remember, however, news items telling that the original target was Capitol Hill and that the plane had suddenly veered towards the Pentagon... That would possibly explain why the wingspan didn't cover a wider horizontal area... it's still weird, though, that the upper floors structure remained complete (in the pictures it's even possible to notice how the structure is progressively subsiding before if finally collapsed -but still in one piece...

[justan 1]

Speaking of conspiracy the most ingenious one perpetrated so far that I can think of is the one that would have the world believe that a land-locked country yep let me repeat that a country with no access to the big ponds has won the America's Cup!! lol yea right



Have a nice weekend

[CFF]

I can't believe that any of you could (would) fall for the suggestion that something other than a Boeing 757 loaded with fuel (and passangers ) crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of Sept 11/01. Shame on you.

In an attempt to bring you back to your senses, I've looked at the photo(s) that were released from the Pentagon camera ... and alone, they don't give the same perspective as when played as a sequence. Try this link ... and watch the frames in motion replay, then frame by frame. Tell me again you don't believe a 757 hit the building ... (BTW ... The images cover a span of four one-hundredths of a second.) www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/crashpentagon/frame.htm

Henrik ... I think you wondered about wings / wing debris: I'm obliged to have to remind you that the aircraft is a flying bomb, with the fuel (av gas) loaded in the very wings you asked about.

from "Hunt the Boeing" Answers

by Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo

To be clear: We believe that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 because we know far too many friends and colleagues in Washington who saw the plane come in over the freeway - some right over their heads - and felt the earth shake as it disappeared into the Pentagon. And we think people who believe they can uncover the truth about anything by surfing the Web are deceiving themselves in a dangerous way.

But we couldn't help taking up the challenge anyway.

As lifelong propellerheads who firmly believe in asking questions, we found Hunt the Boeing an engaging puzzle, despite its tragic subject matter, but one full of obvious errors and misleading questions. Since many of our friends continue to ask us if we've seen the site, we decided to document our answers to it, which we wrote separately. As might be expected, Patrick focused on the math and science (you may remember his widely circulated napkin math on the WTC attack), while Paul picked apart the wording of the questions.

See www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm for photos that accompany the questions.

Question No 1
The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image below, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

Paul: The question and photos are misleading: Parts of the plane penetrated the ground floors of the second and third rings of the building. These photos show only their intact roofs. Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.

More importantly, the question focuses on the plane’s size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon – America’s largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.

By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. It’s not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal.

Patrick: Watch the videotapes of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. They were traveling at approximately 400 mph, and they hit an aluminum and glass building. An entire plane went in, and hardly anything came out the other side, 208 feet away.

Here we have a plane traveling at nearly 250 mph (just over 1/2 the velocity of the WTC planes, meaning just over 1/4 of their kinetic energy), hitting the ground (which would absorb much of that energy), and only then sliding at a much slower speed into a steel-and-kevlar-reinforced concrete and brick building. Obviously, it's not going to go very far. Still, parts of the plane penetrated into the C ring.

[CFF]

....cont)

Question No 2
The two photographs in question 2 show the building just after the attack. We may observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed towards 10.10 am. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Paul: Again the question contains incorrect facts in its setup: As reported in the New York Times, the plane struck between the first and second floors of the building. The high-res version of the photo shows a two story high hole in side of the building. Don't look where the fire truck is directing its water, but towards the center of the photo – two floors out of four are knocked out of the outside wall.

Patrick: The plane hit the ground first, then slid into the building. If the landing wheels were not down and locked, the full height of the plane would extend upwards into the second floor of the building, which is what happened.

Question No 3
The photograph above shows the lawn in front of the damaged building. You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

Paul: : Yet another leading question ("you'll remember..."), but one looking in the wrong place anyway. At 250 mph, the plane did not stop at the outside of the building. Security camera photos and eyewitness accounts from many credible people, including AP reporter Dave Winslow, agree that the plane completely disappeared into the building. If you’ve seen photos of airline crashes after the fire is out, they often look more like landfill sites than anything recognizable as having been an airplane.

But since the question more literally asks for a photo showing airliner debris on the lawn, here's one: www.whatreallyhappened.com/Pentdebris.jpg. Here's another: www.dtic.mil/armylink/photos/Sep2001/roll4112.jpg.

Patrick: The Pentagon burned (or at least smoldered) for several days. Was this photograph taken on September 11? Or was it taken after the wreckage was moved away?

Question No 4
The photograph in question 4 shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?

Patrick: My father was a construction engineer. He would only put a crane onto a grass lawn in an extreme emergency, and only after getting indemnified against damages. No, the first thing he would do is to lay down a pathway of steel plates, then cover them with gravel, to prevent his equipment from getting bogged down in the soft earth. When you see in that picture is a roadway being built to bring the heavy equipment across the lawn.

Paul: You don’t have to be a construction worker to recognize a road being built over the lawn, to support the vehicles dismantling the damaged building and hauling away debris. I can’t find any news reports (or people who remember any) about Donald Rumsfeld personally ordering this work done. I suspect the statement is false, and was added to make the activity seem more suspicious.

Question No 5
The photographs in Question 5 show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit. Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?

Patrick: I'm not certain the models are to scale, and they're certainly not in the correct orientation. Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

Paul: If you’re going to doctor evidence, do it right: Eyewitness accounts say the plane hit from 45 degrees to the side. Adjust the silhouettes properly, and fix the parallax effect in the second photo. The plane fits the impact area pretty well: Don't look at the collapsed upper floors, but at the wider swatch knocked out of the ground floor. I would expect the wings, being weaker than the building, to collapse on the way in. But with no previous crashes of the sort to guide us, we can't possibly predict what should have happened. If there's anything we learned that day, it's that we are poor judges of what is and isn't possible.

Question No 6
The quotations in Question 6 correspond to statements made by Arlington County Fire Chief, Ed Plaugher, at a press conference held by Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clarke, on 12 September 2001, at the Pentagon.

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

"You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?"

"We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the -- what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft. So -"

Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?

Paul: Quoting people verbatim to make them sound like they are dissembling is an old journalists’ trick, as any Doonesbury reader knows. I think Chief Plaugher answered the question pretty well: There’s a puddle (of melted metal, not jet fuel – he’s not directly answering the reporter’s idiotic question) that was the nose, and a few small pieces visible, but no large sections.

Patrick: Are any government officials telling any journalists anything these days?

Question No 7
The two photographs in question 7 were taken just after the attack. They show the precise spot on the outer ring where the Boeing struck. Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?

Paul: The answer is front and center in the photo, maybe to make us think it can’t be that obvious: The two-story high impact hole (also seen in the photo for Question No 2) is immediately to the right of the fireman, partly hidden by the spray of water from the fire truck. Look at the second high-res photo and you can't miss it. Are we supposed to think it’s a two-story archway of some sort? See pre-crash photos or the surviving sides for comparison.

Patrick: In enlargement #1, the impact hole fits in the rectangle formed from pixel(1232,1088) to pixel(1492, 1545).

After that, I didn’t bother to look at enlargement #2

All comments about photos refer to this site:

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

CFF

[Citizen Nerd]

Both the pictures of the structural damage inflicted to the Pentagon and the frames from the secutity camera outsider the Pentagon are examined at
www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon/, where also a number of links relating 9-11 are provided.

Furthemore,
www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly provides a highly graphical reconstruction of the pentagon crash...

[who won]

conspiracists

check out this web site, contains quite a few pictures of debris charred and destroyed within the building inclusing a landing gear and other parts

www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Of course the answer to any evidence now will obviously be that it was planted there by the military.