The attack on the Pentagon

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

The Attack on the Pentagon

The evidence for a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon is overwhelming. Numerous eye-witnesses reported seeing a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon. This is what one might call grade-A evidence - the kind that will stand up in a court of law. In addition, the photographic evidence of the huge amount of destruction at the Pentagon consistent with the crash of a large aircraft is also overwhelming.
The absence of a recognisable fuselage in the wreckage is not at all surprising. According to accounts, the airliner crashed at high speed (maybe 400mph or more) into the reinforced concrete of which the Pentagon was built. Unlike air crashes on open ground, where the crashing aircraft dissipates a lot of energy by bouncing and sliding along the ground, leaving a trail of wreckage that, recognisably, once belonged to an aircraft, it would have disintegrated on impact with the concrete into small pieces - and then ignited and burned to aluminium oxide powder in the conflagration that followed. Aluminium ignites and burns fiercely in air at temperatures of 800 Celsius and above. Temperatures of 800 degrees would have been easily reached by the combustion of the aviation fuel – coupled with the heat generated when metal struck concrete at high speed: that alone could have been enough to ignite the aluminium. In the Lockerbie crash, a wing, laden with fuel, fell on some houses. After the huge fire had died down, there was no sign of the wing. It had been consumed by the flames.

The nose of the aircraft would have struck the wall of the Pentagon first. Then the wings. The turning forces on the wings must have been enormous, enough to wrench them from their sockets and fold them back along the fuselage as it penetrated and entered the outer ring of the building. Much has been made of the entry hole being only about 18 feet wide, but a hole of that diameter would have been enough to accommodate the fuselage and folded-back wings. As the wings folded and crumpled, the fuel tanks stored in the wings would have been crushed, and this would have caused blazing fuel to have been sprayed at high speed all over the façade of the building.

There is plenty of evidence in the photographs of a huge conflagration. One hundred yards or more of the facade is blackened from ground to roof! Such a conflagration could not have been made by a small airplane, - nor from a missile, because missiles carry explosives, not large amounts of aviation fuel.

I have seen many pictures of the damage done to the Pentagon on 9/11 and there is no doubt in my mind that the damage was caused by the crash of a large airliner. I have been very unimpressed by the special pleading I have read purporting to show that the damage was not caused by an airliner but by some other means such as a small airplane or a missile, or that the pictures were somehow faked. The absence of CCTV records of the moment of impact is irrelevant. Just look at the pictures of the devastation and make up your own mind. Ask yourself: could such devastation have been caused by a small plane; or a missile; - or a large airliner with fuel tanks laden with fuel?

When are believers in a 9/11 Bush or CIA conspiracy going to accept the simplest and, therefore, the most likely, explanation that 9/11 was carried out by 19 Arab suicide terrorists, acting in obedience to some fundamentalist Islamic creed?

ConspiracyTheorySceptic
[/b]

[Eckyboy]

You seem to forget to mention the planes engines. Did they somehow defy the laws of Physics along with the wings and fold up into the pentagon as well? The engines were made of titanium and steel and it is impossible for them too vaporize into nothing. I do not know what hit the pentagon but for me that is not the question we should be asking instead we should ask why the plane hit that part of the pentagon that was reinforced and supposed to be empty? We are told the plane flew over the pentagon and turned around and then came back moving into position to hit the west wing. So this was not chance or luck, the plane, missile etc went out of its way to hit this part of the pentagon. It hit this part of the pentagon on purpose even though it had to clip lamp poles and a power generator on the way in. This for me is an important question."

[andyb]

CTS, you clearly have far too much time on your hands. Why don't you go and set up a forum for others who share your view. The pentagon is not the focus of our campaign but can you explain the numerous airline and airforce pilots who have said only an extremely well trained pilot could have pulled off that move at high speed, descending rapidly, whilst clipping streetlights to hit the target perfectly. This plane was allegedly flown by a pilot who was refused a Cesna to hire due to his lack of adequate piloting skills.
There are other unexplained issues reagrding the pentagon but I suggest you do some more research, not simply based on looking at a few photo's and a couple of people saying they saw a plane. We have never alleged for there not to have been a plane in the area.

[Andrew Johnson]

When are believers in a 9/11 Bush or CIA conspiracy going to accept the simplest and, therefore, the most likely, explanation that 9/11 was carried out by 19 Arab suicide terrorists, acting in obedience to some fundamentalist Islamic creed?

I don't think all of us accept it was a Bush CIA conspiracy - they were involved, for sure. It seems that Bush saw the first impact on the towers - probably in his Limo or something.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... plane1.ram

But Silverstein is heavily implicated too.

[orestes]

The Attack on the Pentagon

The evidence for a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon is overwhelming. Numerous eye-witnesses reported seeing a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon. This is what one might call grade-A evidence - the kind that will stand up in a court of law.[/b]

No. This is the first evidence to be rejected in a court of law. Physical evidence takes precedence because people make mistakes under stress and sometimes lie.

In addition, the photographic evidence of the huge amount of destruction at the Pentagon consistent with the crash of a large aircraft is also overwhelming.
[/b]

'Conspiracy theory sceptic is a unicorn'. This, like the above, is an asertion.

The absence of a recognisable fuselage in the wreckage is not at all surprising. According to accounts, the airliner crashed at high speed (maybe 400mph or more) into the reinforced concrete of which the Pentagon was built. Unlike air crashes on open ground, where the crashing aircraft dissipates a lot of energy by bouncing and sliding along the ground, leaving a trail of wreckage that, recognisably, once belonged to an aircraft, it would have disintegrated on impact with the concrete into small pieces - and then ignited and burned to aluminium oxide powder in the conflagration that followed. Aluminium ignites and burns fiercely in air at temperatures of 800 Celsius and above. Temperatures of 800 degrees would have been easily reached by the combustion of the aviation fuel – coupled with the heat generated when metal struck concrete at high speed: that alone could have been enough to ignite the aluminium. In the Lockerbie crash, a wing, laden with fuel, fell on some houses. After the huge fire had died down, there was no sign of the wing. It had been consumed by the flames.
[/b]

And the fuselage? And the engines? Why did the pictures released at the Moussaui trial show charred bodies that were not on aircraft seats? Not one. Why not show this? How did the engines not plough up the earth? Why didn't the plane dive into the earth because it was so low? How did it miss the cable spools?

This is all assertion. Do you think the debate takes place at this level? I read that people who do worse on tests overestimate their performance most. There is a direct relationship. Gloss: stupid people are too stupid to realise that they're stupid.

The nose of the aircraft would have struck the wall of the Pentagon first. Then the wings. The turning forces on the wings must have been enormous, enough to wrench them from their sockets and fold them back along the fuselage as it penetrated and entered the outer ring of the building. Much has been made of the entry hole being only about 18 feet wide, but a hole of that diameter would have been enough to accommodate the fuselage and folded-back wings. As the wings folded and crumpled, the fuel tanks stored in the wings would have been crushed, and this would have caused blazing fuel to have been sprayed at high speed all over the façade of the building.[/b]

Jesus christ you remember the official version!! No one here needs to be told that you *.

There is plenty of evidence in the photographs of a huge conflagration. One hundred yards or more of the facade is blackened from ground to roof! Such a conflagration could not have been made by a small airplane, - nor from a missile, because missiles carry explosives, not large amounts of aviation fuel.[/b]

There was a fire at the pentagon! You have me convinced!

I have seen many pictures of the damage done to the Pentagon on 9/11 and there is no doubt in my mind that the damage was caused by the crash of a large airliner. I have been very unimpressed by the special pleading I have read purporting to show that the damage was not caused by an airliner but by some other means such as a small airplane or a missile, or that the pictures were somehow faked. The absence of CCTV records of the moment of impact is irrelevant. Just look at the pictures of the devastation and make up your own mind. Ask yourself: could such devastation have been caused by a small plane; or a missile; - or a large airliner with fuel tanks laden with fuel?
[/b]

There IS FOOTAGE OF THE HIT YOU fool. AND THERE IS NO AIRLINER IN THE PICTURE. Ask yourself this: could such devastation have been caused by a missile. Well what the * do you think missiles do? Knock on the door and present roses.

When are believers in a 9/11 Bush or CIA conspiracy going to accept the simplest and, therefore, the most likely, explanation that 9/11 was carried out by 19 Arab suicide terrorists, acting in obedience to some fundamentalist Islamic creed?

ConspiracyTheorySceptic
[/b]

When someone displays evidence that it was so. You have not presented any evidence you have told us what you feel about what you have seen. Maybe you should go on Oprah? They talk about their feelings there.

I am sick of confronting people like this on 9/11 forums. Please, moderators, bar this person. There is no value to such people's presence here. I do not come here to see what people who have done no research think. It is of no use to anyone and flatters the little morons into thinking they are taking part in a debate they have not made the first atempt to get to grips with. Nothing in this post has any value. Why is this person here?

[Justin]

Rare German Photos Expose
911 Pentagon Hoax
By Jon Carlson
carlson.jon@att.net
5-2-6

Right from the Pentagon Horse's mouth, actually more like from Francis the Talking Mule, the Flight 77 Boeing 757 demolished 3 rings of the Pentagon structure on 9/11:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001 ... 0C-004.jpg





Since the Pentagon refuses to release any of the 85 videos the FBI claims don't show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon, any other supporting photos, OR not one Flight 77 part with its identifying part number, we have found rare photos from a German website (Made in USA as was 9/11) that make it crystal clear that a A3 Skywarrior substituted for Flight 77 hit the front Pentagon masonry wall like a bug on a windshield. What did the Pentagon do with the passengers of Flight 77?

Eyewitness Vin Narayanan, USATODAY.com:

The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball. The people who built that wall should be proud.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... person.htm
Jack White has authenticated the photo this closeup originated from:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies16.htm







During an appearance on The Power Hour radio program today, USAF Col. George Nelson (ret.), a 30 year veteran, aircraft accident investigator and expert in aircraft maintenance and aircraft identification, stunned listeners by stating that in regard to the 911 attack at the Pentagon, "I didn't see any damage on the sides of that hole, anything that would say that an airplane that size could have gone through a 16 or 18 ft. hole." He was referring to the hole seen at the Pentagon before the collapse of the e-ring. He went on to say, "There would be large parts of that wing lying on the ground on the outside. It wouldn't all go through that holeIt is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable to the specific aircraft, it is impossible for them to be totally destroyed where these serial numbers could not be read." www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

When asked to express his opinion in regard to the controversial photographs and video showing an anomaly attached to the belly of the plane that struck the South tower and the mysterious "flash" that occurred as the plane made contact, Col. Nelson said, "There appeared to be something attached to the belly and there definitely appeared to be a flash. What caused that flash? Who knows? I can't explain it and it's just a number of these anomalies like that, that just makes the entire picture more suspect." The video and photographic evidence can be seen in the video "911 - In Plane Site." www.911inplanesite.com

http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press12.htm

This photo shows an engine and the fuselage section of a A3 Skywarrior. Most of the aircraft was blown to bits that rained down for blocks around by onboard explosives:





The Rense article, Pentagon 911 Blue Tarp Photo Uncovered, showed the engine and wing ends in front of the Pentagon wall:

http://www.rense.com/general70/tarp.htm

These German website photos shows the final cleanup of the wall section. NO BOEING 757 WENT THROUGH HERE:







This roof view shows the first floor still standing:




Compare this final German website photo SHOWING NO HOLE ANYWHERE with the first photo as corroboration that NO Boeing 757 penetrated 3 rings of the Pentagon:




FROM:

http://www.arbeiterfotografie.com/galerie/kein-kr
ieg/hintergrund/index-rezension-3.html

[Justin]

Sorry, photos in above didn't come out - go to this website to have a look:

http://rense.com/general70/3o.htm

[Andrew Johnson]

Well what the [Expletive Deleted] do you think missiles do? Knock on the door and present roses.

Thanks for the lovely image orestes!

[catfish]

Isn't that picture of one of those completely remote-controlled planes that the military has?

[paul wright]

Cheers Justin
This site explains why some people thought they saw a big 757 slam into the Pentagon, and others a smaller chartered jet, while they actually saw nothing of either sort

[Banish]

As you can see, a Boeing 767 did n0t hit the Pentagon.

[insidejob]

I’m sorry, ConspiracyTheorySceptic, I’ve missed something. Have you got a problem with your eyes or are we not really meant to take you seriously?

Most people in the US and UK don’t know a lot about 911. They don’t think they have the time to look into it. Their lack of knowledge means they accept what their political leaders and the media says and the same lack of knowledge means they ignore any uncomfortable feelings they might have. This means they are likely to accept gobbledygook. And even though the collapsed WTC buildings looked like controlled demolitions, they don’t think that because they’re not experts.

Then there are the experts, like architects and structural engineers. They also may feel that something’s wrong but they don’t want to come out and say that because they fear they may suffer as a result, they’ve got invested interests. So, despite the fact that the New York authorities made sure that there wasn’t a thorough scientific investigation of the WTC debris to find out what happened, they don’t complain.

You, on the other hand, don’t have any invested interests and have supposedly done some research. You are knowledgeable. So, why do you unquestioningly accept gobbledygook? Because when you look at the explanation for the lack of 747 debris at the Pentagon, it is gobbledygook.

So, you say “…Unlike air crashes on open ground, where the crashing aircraft dissipates a lot of energy by bouncing and sliding along the ground, leaving a trail of wreckage that, recognisably, once belonged to an aircraft, it would have disintegrated on impact with the concrete into small pieces - and then ignited and burned to aluminium oxide powder in the conflagration that followed…”

So, a plane smashes into the ground and doesn’t disintegrate and a plane smashed into concrete and does. I’ve missed something, here. The concrete was so tough, the plane disintegrated. And at the same time, the concrete wasn’t that tough because the plane punched a number of holes through it and part of the building collapsed. I’m confused.

“…Then the wings. The turning forces on the wings must have been enormous, enough to wrench them from their sockets and fold them back along the fuselage as it penetrated and entered the outer ring of the building…”

Fold them back, - not snap them off - but fold them back??? And, apparently, they folded back without ever making any contact with the Pentagon façade, which is why there is never any sign of the wings hitting any part of the Pentagon.

And, as has been pointed out, what happened to the engines? Afterall, the engines provided the thrust of the aircraft: the nose had no thrust that the engines didn’t give it. So, why would the aircraft nose smash through the tough concrete and not the engines? Did all of the energy of the engines suddenly leap to the nose?

“…There is plenty of evidence in the photographs of a huge conflagration. One hundred yards or more of the facade is blackened from ground to roof!… this would have caused blazing fuel to have been sprayed at high speed all over the façade of the building…”

Wait a minute, I thought the fuel was busy consuming all of the aircraft. Now the fuel is all over the place. So, you didn’t need much fuel to consume the aircraft. Sorry, did the fuel consume the aircraft or was it something else? And what’s this ‘huge conflagration’? Was that the fireball seen on Pentagon CCTV that lasted a second or two? Did this two-second conflagration consume the plane? And how come you can see in the impact area and in available footage and photographs ‘, a book sitting on a wooden stool in the impact area. Did the Pentagon have fireproofed books?

“…Numerous eye-witnesses reported seeing a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon. This is what one might call grade-A evidence - the kind that will stand up in a court of law.…”

And numerous eye-witnesses did not see a large airliner. Some eyewitness saw a missile. So, I presume, that is the kind of grade-A evidence that wouldn’t stand up in a court of law.

Once you start examining the official conspiracy theory, large holes – wider than 18ft – start appearing in it. That’s why, a majority in New York state don’t believe the official story. And why, on May 26 2005, the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act. And I bet, not all of them have looked extensively at the evidence. They see holes in the story that you don’t. So, how’s that? Is that because you have a vested interest? Or is it because you can’t see straight?

insidejob

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Dear respondents to my article "The attack on the Pentagon"

I have read the various replies to the article and I can see that the respondents have closed their minds. They have convinced themselves that 9/11 was an inside job and will not accept any evidence to the contrary. For them, any explanation put out by the Bush Govenment must be false. So if it is claimed that the Pentagon was hit by a large airliner, Flight 77, then some other explanation, such as a missile or small plane, has to be found, despite the photographic evidence being entirely consistent with the crash of a large plane as described in my article.

When I wrote the article, I assumed the readers would have some knowledge and understanding of physics and chemistry and would understand what I wrote. As a result of reading the replies, I can see that my assumption was misplaced. I haven't got the inclination to spend a long time explaining the physics of what happens when a plane crashes on open ground as compared to when it crashes into reinforced concrete with the entire energy of the plane's momentum, initially, being concentrated at the nose of the aircraft - thus explaining why it penetrated the outer ring of the Pentagon.
For those requiring a detailed expalanation, I suggest they show my short article to a scientifically qualified friend and ask them to explain what I wrote.

For those who asked: where are the engines? Well, the engines, and the undercarriage, being originally attached to the wings, which would have folded back on to the fuselage, have been found somewhere behind the 18 feet hole. I have seen photographs showing the recognisable wreckage of engines, and the wheels from the undercarriage in the debris.
The main body of the aircraft, being made of aluminium, would probably have been burned to aluminium oxide and distributed over the surrounding countryside. There would also, alas, be little if anything left of the passengers as their bodies would also have been consumed by the flames.

Eyewitness reports do stand up in a court of law. Most evidence in courts of law is not forensic evidence but evidence provided by witnesses. In this case, there were numerous witnesses from all walks of life, and therefore not in the pay of the Pentagon or the CIA. who were all in agreement that they saw a large airliner crash into the Pentagon.

I am not a supporter of the Bush administration. I actually believe that George Bush is a decent man but not particularly competent. But if you wish to criticise his administration then I believe it should be done on the basis of fact and not on the wild speculations offered by the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Such as conduct of the "peace" following the end of hostilities in Iraq. And the appalling treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo Bay. And the adminstration's complacent attitude to the likely devastation of New Orleans by Katrina. And the administration’s complacent attitude to global warming. Etc.

However, I see no evidence to convince me that the Bush administration had anything to do with the carrying out of 9/11 or having foreknowledge of it and allowing it to happen.

CTS

[Pikey]

CTS you dont appear to have done much research into the events of 911!

We have crossed swords on a previous similar thread and I referred you to the 911 truthseekers bible "The New Pearl harbour" written by David Ray Griffin.

You have obviously ignored my advice as you appear to continue in your modus operandi of supporting the official version of 911, which presents absolutely no evidence to substantiate it.

I cannot understand why you would wish to visit a truthseeking website like this unless its just for entertainment or other motives!

When you use your pseudonym Conspiracy Theory Sceptic which conspiracy theory are you sceptical about?, the official version, which presents no compelling evidence or the alternative which is detailed on this website which does present compelling evidence which challenges the official version.

Of course the evidence of what actually happened at the Pentagon was all recorded by the authorities themselves (there are CCTV cameras all around the perimeter of the Pentagon) and also by the CCTV cameras of a filling station and hotel opposite, which had their videos immediately confiscated by the authorities.

So tell me CTS why the authorities will not put this evidence in the public domain. What have they got to hide? could be the truth?

The truth as they say CTS, conquers all!

Peace & truth

[Justin]

Goodbye CTS - you are...quite definitely....the weakest link. No doubt you will re-emerge in some other name and guise to distract us. I think you will be disappointed.

[Newspeak International]

Hell no , I like what CTS says obviously in "denial" , so I retract what I previously said about him he's a useful Tool against the obvious
factual evidence,or lack of.

[ian neal]

Would you care to answer my previous question from your other thread?

What books, websites or DVDs (both pro and anti the official account) have you read/watched? I will then know the extent to which you have actually researched into the evidence and how much you are just sharing your opinion based on only superficial knowledge.

I will happily acknowledge that not all evidence presented by the 9/11 truth community stands up to thorough scrutiny, but most does and when taken in totality I find it beyond belief that you have few if any doubts over the official account. When I know what sources of information you are basing your supposedly learned opinion on, I will then know where to start in engaging on the actual evidence.

For example you might like this post that sets out to prove that a Boeing 767 hit the pentagon and the resulting debate. Atleast this researcher puts some effort into gathering and presenting evidence rather than merely presenting their personal opinion as if that means anything.

Couple of points made by posters in this ATS thread bear repeating. 1) Even if it was a boeing 767, that does not answer how Hani Hanjour succeeded in his amazing piloting or 2) Why the authorities do not release the video evidence that exists but was confiscated (beyond the 4 dodgy frames we have) to prove this one way or another.

I asked you CTS to focus on the evidence and to your credit you have chosen a specific subject. You have far from proven the official account in this regard since it is all opinion and no evidence, but it is worth noting that let's suppose you had shown the official account regarding what hit the pentagon is true, this does not prove the whole of the official account as presented by the 9/11 commission is true.

There are literally hundreds of smoking guns. If one of them proves US officials were complicit, this reopens the whole case. Disprove one smoking gun and you have not got rid of the hundreds of others. The only way to come even close to this is a further independent investigation where the evidence and witnesses are examined and cross examined under oath and in public. This is what we are calling for.

Now back to the evidence. I thought I would at least present the case for CTS

[Newspeak International]

I hope you've just pasted most of that Ian?

[ian neal]

Hi Newspeak

I hope it is clear my post was addfressed to CTS.

I'm not sure I'm clear what you mean by 'I hope you've pasted most of that?'

BW

Ian

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Dear respondents to my article "The attack on the Pentagon"

I have read the various replies to the article and I can see that the respondents have closed their minds. They have convinced themselves that 9/11 was an inside job and will not accept any evidence to the contrary. For them, any explanation put out by the Bush Govenment must be false. So if it is claimed that the Pentagon was hit by a large airliner, Flight 77, then some other explanation, such as a missile or small plane, has to be found, despite the photographic evidence being entirely consistent with the crash of a large plane as described in my article.

When I wrote the article, I assumed the readers would have some knowledge and understanding of physics and chemistry and would understand what I wrote. As a result of reading the replies, I can see that my assumption was misplaced. I haven't got the inclination to spend a long time explaining the physics of what happens when a plane crashes on open ground as compared to when it crashes into reinforced concrete with the entire energy of the plane's momentum, initially, being concentrated at the nose of the aircraft - thus explaining why it penetrated the outer ring of the Pentagon.
For those requiring a detailed expalanation, I suggest they show my short article to a scientifically qualified friend and ask them to explain what I wrote.

For those who asked: where are the engines? Well, the engines, and the undercarriage, being originally attached to the wings, which would have folded back on to the fuselage, have been found somewhere behind the 18 feet hole. I have seen photographs showing the recognisable wreckage of engines, and the wheels from the undercarriage in the debris.
The main body of the aircraft, being made of aluminium, would probably have been burned to aluminium oxide and distributed over the surrounding countryside. There would also, alas, be little if anything left of the passengers as their bodies would also have been consumed by the flames.

Eyewitness reports do stand up in a court of law. Most evidence in courts of law is not forensic evidence but evidence provided by witnesses. In this case, there were numerous witnesses from all walks of life, and therefore not in the pay of the Pentagon or the CIA. who were all in agreement that they saw a large airliner crash into the Pentagon.

I am not a supporter of the Bush administration. I actually believe that George Bush is a decent man but not particularly competent. But if you wish to criticise his administration then I believe it should be done on the basis of fact and not on the wild speculations offered by the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Such as conduct of the "peace" following the end of hostilities in Iraq. And the appalling treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo Bay. And the adminstration's complacent attitude to the likely devastation of New Orleans by Katrina. And the administration’s complacent attitude to global warming. Etc.

However, I see no evidence to convince me that the Bush administration had anything to do with the carrying out of 9/11 or having foreknowledge of it and allowing it to happen.

CTS

[xmasdale]

The Attack on the Pentagon

There is plenty of evidence in the photographs of a huge conflagration. One hundred yards or more of the facade is blackened from ground to roof! Such a conflagration could not have been made by a small airplane, - nor from a missile, because missiles carry explosives, not large amounts of aviation fuel.[/b]

There was a fire at the pentagon! You have me convinced!

I have seen many pictures of the damage done to the Pentagon on 9/11 and there is no doubt in my mind that the damage was caused by the crash of a large airliner. I have been very unimpressed by the special pleading I have read purporting to show that the damage was not caused by an airliner but by some other means such as a small airplane or a missile, or that the pictures were somehow faked. The absence of CCTV records of the moment of impact is irrelevant. Just look at the pictures of the devastation and make up your own mind. Ask yourself: could such devastation have been caused by a small plane; or a missile; - or a large airliner with fuel tanks laden with fuel?
[/b]

There IS FOOTAGE OF THE HIT YOU fool. AND THERE IS NO AIRLINER IN THE PICTURE. Ask yourself this: could such devastation have been caused by a missile. Well what the * do you think missiles do? Knock on the door and present roses. [/b]

Orestes, I really think you will do better if you attack the substance of CTS's argument rather than indulging in insults.

Those who want to use the 5 frames of the Pentagon released need to explain why one of them clearly shows something small approaching the Pentagon and leaving a white exhaust trail. Trails from jet engines create a transparent trail at low level. Only rocket engines leave a white trail.

I am sick of confronting people like this on 9/11 forums. Please, moderators, bar this person. There is no value to such people's presence here. I do not come here to see what people who have done no research think. It is of no use to anyone and flatters the little morons into thinking they are taking part in a debate they have not made the first atempt to get to grips with. Nothing in this post has any value. Why is this person here?

No no no! CTS's posts are on topic and not damaging to our reputation. We need people like him/her here to debate with. I have been criticised for saying that off-topic threads which promote hatred should be removed, but CTSs posts are not of this kind. Debating with her/him allows campaigners to sharpen up their arguments and learn how best to deal with the kind of arguments CTS presents. My thanks go to CTS for providing us with this opportunity.

If you want to advocate this kind of heavy censorship, Orestes, perhaps you should remember that some may advocate banning the use of "bad language". It doesn't bother me, but it does bother some.

[flamesong]

Why does this copied and pasted response from your own thread warrant a thread of its own, ConspiracyTheorySceptic?

Anybody would think that you are deliberately attempting to defuse the discussion by diffusing its focus.

[xmasdale]

Dear respondents to my article "The attack on the Pentagon"



When I wrote the article, I assumed the readers would have some knowledge and understanding of physics and chemistry and would understand what I wrote. As a result of reading the replies, I can see that my assumption was misplaced. I haven't got the inclination to spend a long time explaining the physics of what happens when a plane crashes on open ground as compared to when it crashes into reinforced concrete with the entire energy of the plane's momentum, initially, being concentrated at the nose of the aircraft - thus explaining why it penetrated the outer ring of the Pentagon.
For those requiring a detailed expalanation, I suggest they show my short article to a scientifically qualified friend and ask them to explain what I wrote.

I think you should try debating the issue with physics professor Stephen Jones of Brigham Young University.

Do I take it that this is a farewell message from CTS, preparing to leave by saving face by asserting that he/she is much better qualified to understand these issues than anyone who disagrees with him/her?

[Newspeak International]

There are links to articles already written reguarding all the relevent issues,so copy and paste seems a more efficient way of answering.

N

[andyb]

CTS, I'm no scientist but I can't quite grasp howthe wings and engine would have folded back on impact. Surely the momentum would have initially forced them forwards into the wall. The impact with the wall would then have forced them inwards or outwards. There don't appear to be any marks on the walls to suggest this was the case.

Also, can you please explain how a pilot with very little expeience, who was refused a Cesna due to his lack of skill, could have performed a manouver that many US army and commercial airline pilots have said would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible.

You say that we all believe there to be a conspiracy because this is what we want to believe, yet you never seem to be able to justify any of your arguments or refute any of our theories with any kind of fact. I, for one, would be only to pleased if you did find the odd fact that blew a particular theory out of the water so we can concentrate on the more solid evidence that we have. The sheer number of theories out there means that people will see one that isn't based on too much fact and then dismiss the rest of the evidence on this alone.

[ian neal]

Why does this copied and pasted response from your own thread warrant a thread of its own, ConspiracyTheorySceptic?

Anybody would think that you are deliberately attempting to defuse the discussion by diffusing its focus.

Agreed. Can you answer this CTS?

[Garrett Cooke]

CTS,

As you suggested on another thread, and I agreed, the simplest explanation consistent with the facts is the most likely one. If there is no evidence that a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon then why assume that one did? If you do have evidence that one did then please show it to me.

Garrett

[kbo234]

When I wrote the article, I assumed the readers would have some knowledge and understanding of physics and chemistry and would understand what I wrote. As a result of reading the replies, I can see that my assumption was misplaced. I haven't got the inclination to spend a long time explaining the physics of what happens when a plane crashes on open ground as compared to when it crashes into reinforced concrete with the entire energy of the plane's momentum, initially, being concentrated at the nose of the aircraft - thus explaining why it penetrated the outer ring of the Pentagon.

As it happens I do have a degree in Physics. The statement, " ...the entire energy of the plane's momentum, initially, being concentrated at the nose of the aircraft.." is confused to the point of being meaningless or, if you prefer, just plain wrong.
CTS should should stop spouting s**t about issues he does not understand. He should go away and study the laws of Physics before posing with false authority in an attempt to undermine the common-sense conclusions that ANYONE who looks at the evidence with an open mind is almost certain to reach.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

kbo234 writes:
"As it happens I do have a degree in Physics. The statement, " ...the entire energy of the plane's momentum, initially, being concentrated at the nose of the aircraft.." is confused to the point of being meaningless or, if you prefer, just plain wrong."

I was not using precise language. By "concentrated at the nose of the aircraft". I meant, that it was the nose of the aircraft that made contact with the wall of the Pentagon first, and that at the moment of first contact, the whole of its kinetic energy was focused at the point of contact. When one hammers a nail into some wood, the energy imparted by the hammer is focused at the tip of the nail. That is why it is easy to hammer nails into wood. That is why it was easy for the airliner to penetrate reinforced concrete.

kbo234, you have picked me up on some sloppy use of language, but, as a physicist, you should acknowledge the correctness of the point I made.

CTS

[catfish]

I know I said I wouldn't but here goes, can anyone find anywhere in CTS's posts a link to some research or a book or anything with which I can verify his claims. I'm talking specific URL's here, or publications I can get from the library. Thanks.

Oh sorry this message was posted by CATFISH