Time to settle the Pentagon debate

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:33 am

I have mostly held the opinion that it was something other than flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. I no longer believe this. The evidence now seems all but conclusive

First i encourage people to watch this absolutely superb 3D animation;

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... ishes.html

And then i would encourage people watch the Zembla documentary. Particularly for the information concerning flight 77 and Hani Hanjour;

http://omroep.vara.nl/tvradiointernet_d ... topic=4177
(Scroll down to '11 september: English version')

I am convinced of the information presented here. If others are not, fair enough, but i would doubt your ability to apply critical reasoning to this issue. That, or i would say your pride is getting in the way of your judgement.
And before you ask, Yes i do still have questions about the Pentagon incident, but for now, based on this evidence i am forced to come to the conclusion that flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.

mason-free party · Post by **mason-free party** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:54 am

Defector...thats funny!

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:24 am

mason-free party wrote:Defector...thats funny!

Why's that?

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:33 am

First i encourage people to watch this absolutely superb 3D animation;

I watched the animation (although I couldn't get any sound to accompany the visuals), the second one with the Swedish chef I found too similar to every other one I had seen before.

The animation though was well put together although I would just like to ask you your opinion;

The aircraft is supposedly at such a low altitude that it struck a lamp post that then damaged a taxi. The plane is going somewhere between 350 - 500mph - how do you explain the fact that the taxi wasn't simply torn off the road and spiralled away by the vortex created by the plane's engines?

mason-free party · Post by **mason-free party** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:56 am

DeFecToR wrote:
mason-free party wrote:Defector...thats funny!
Why's that?

oh was it supposed to be a serious post then?

Snowygrouch · Post by **Snowygrouch** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:57 pm

All,
That animation is very professionally produced, however according to the blackbox data recorder the plane was no-where-near those poles.

Not only that but the flightpath is at a totally different angle.

A large plane probably did hit thebuilding but it was almost certainly NOT the ACTUAL flight 77.

If it was that actual flight the blackbox data recorder would provide corroborative evidence not contradictory.

I dont knowwhat hit it but I`m putting my rep on the line saying it WASNT F77.

C.

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:19 pm

....however according to the blackbox data recorder the plane was no-where-near those poles.

I note you claim that the information released from the blackbox data recorder is clear as to the plane's position in relation to the poles.

Please supply evidence of this.

John White · Post by **John White** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:44 pm

Well the flight path is certainly troublesome...and its tricky: for example, how do we know the blackbox data is correct?

But I can give that enough benefit of the doubt to say its possible...

Its the whole punched into the "C" wing I cant get past. I recall popular mechanics claiming it was the landing gear on their debate with Loose change, and that didnt wash with me... then, when the PM guy tried to claim the impact hole was 90 ft...

just doesnnt make sense

Ive no idea what hit it, but its a real stretch to see a commercial jetliner fit the pattern of the damage and the visible debris

Ive seen the animation, and its... impressively animated. But unless it can seriously match the record of the physical evidance, its just imagination

freddie · Post by **freddie** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:49 pm

Hey John,

The impact hole was 90ft wide on the ground floor - I've never heard an argument against this that says anything other than "Oh come on...the hole was 16ft wide!" - If you have another line then please let us here it, as I can't believe this one little issue (the 16ft claim) still persists.

John White · Post by **John White** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:05 pm

It doesnt look like a 30M hole to me....I also am not aware of that being de-bunked. But then I havnt studied the Pentagon nearly as much as areas like the Towers

I'll get back to you on that freddie

physicist · Post by **physicist** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:24 pm

DeFecToR wrote:I have mostly held the opinion that it was something other than flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

I suppose if they released all the mass of video evidence, it might clarify matters.

Bufordt06 · Post by **Bufordt06** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:08 pm

Wait so a professionally done animation proves fligth 77 hit. So if they made a proffessional animation that proved Elvis was alive you would belive that also.

Computer imaginery proves nothing, the facts do, and its fact theres no plane there. All they have done is taken sounding debris and what little "evidence" they have and worked backwards makeing an animation that suits these. Like the plane being behind that block and the tail sticking up, but its still there after becuase its not the plane, and the light poles, its pathetic.

Wheres the engines, wheres the wings, wheres the tail? whys there no damage where the wings/engines/tail would have hit. Why are the so called bits of plane found on the lawn not marked if the plane vapourised. All questions raised In LC2 and not answered here.

This is nonsense to anyone with half a brian cell.

Mr-Bridger · Post by **Mr-Bridger** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:17 pm

This also reminds me of NIST try to prove the collapse of the towers was caused by fires using models.
They couldnt when using proper models of the towers , only when they moved to computer animation they got the results.
Computer animations can be easily adjusted to get the required results.

Only when they release the CCTV footage of the plane impacting with the Pentagon and then vapourising will i be impressed.

Eckyboy · Post by **Eckyboy** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:29 pm

Although I respect your posts and value your opinions DeFecToR I do not agree with you on this topic. As Bufordt06 rightly points out where are the wings, engines and tail of the airplane? The footage does not provide an answer. There are some pictures of debris I have never seen before and the theory of the lamp pole causing the smoke in the right engine is nothing more than speculation. Most importantly though it does not answer for me what is the most important question of them all. Why does a terrorist fanatic intent on causing as much death and destruction as possible go to such lengths to hit the only part of the pentagon that was reinforced and supposed to be empty? The footage to me feels like it was set up to validate the problems which have emerged and tries to conveniently tie up the loose ends. I like to think that I have an open mind and I believe in checking all angles and exhausting every theory before making my mind up about what really happened on 911 and after checking the links you kindly provided I still feel there are problems with the pentagon impact.

Me · Post by Me » Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:48 pm

Hey John,

The impact hole was 90ft wide on the ground floor - I've never heard an argument against this that says anything other than "Oh come on...the hole was 16ft wide!" - If you have another line then please let us here it, as I can't believe this one little issue (the 16ft claim) still persists.

There's always so much confusion surrounding the size of the hole because most people have only seen the photos of the damage 'after' the outer wall of the Pentagon had collapsed. That's all the mainstream media ever shows. The often cited 90 foot hole wasn't created until about twenty minutes 'after' the initial impact. This is a critical distinction that's often ignored.

This is the photo that the media won't display.

It's clearly nowhere near being 90 feet wide. As the Loose Change creators correctly stated, that would mean that by proportional comparison the windows just above it would have to be thirty feet wide each. You can also see the white car in front of it with the hole not being much wider than it is. A limo is 20 something feet long and that white car in front is just a small to mid-size vehicle which is much smaller. The point being, it's not a 90 foot car. Anyone with any sense of comparative ability should easily be able to tell that a Boeing could not have fit through that hole.

Here's another one from further back, 'before' the outer wall fell.

The damage just doesn't match the profile.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/3v/DD2b.jpg

Here's your 90 foot hole. Again, this was well after the outer wall had collapsed.

All that you have to do is compare the wounds of the WTC buildings with this one to see that they aren't in anyway consistent with one another in size or shape. It's not even close. Case closed...

Busker · Post by **Busker** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:47 pm

If you want me to believe the flight hit the Pentagon as stated, show me clear full motion video from all the angles of the different cameras on what must surely be one of the most CCTV'd buildings in the world.

All that footage that should be available, only a few frames made public?

Plus all the stills that lack context within the framing could have been taken anywhere at anytime.

A nice animation, but certainly nowhere near what I would call convincing.

Let's have all the footage in the public domain for proper scrutiny. They we can start to consider the 'official story'.

Wokeman · Post by **Wokeman** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:38 pm

Busker,
No such images are available. Any that would have been captured by CCTV cameras close to the Pentagon, were confisicated by the FBI within minutes of the object hitting the Pentagon.

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:41 pm

Eckyboy wrote:Although I respect your posts and value your opinions DeFecToR I do not agree with you on this topic. As Bufordt06 rightly points out where are the wings, engines and tail of the airplane? The footage does not provide an answer. There are some pictures of debris I have never seen before and the theory of the lamp pole causing the smoke in the right engine is nothing more than speculation. Most importantly though it does not answer for me what is the most important question of them all. Why does a terrorist fanatic intent on causing as much death and destruction as possible go to such lengths to hit the only part of the pentagon that was reinforced and supposed to be empty? The footage to me feels like it was set up to validate the problems which have emerged and tries to conveniently tie up the loose ends. I like to think that I have an open mind and I believe in checking all angles and exhausting every theory before making my mind up about what really happened on 911 and after checking the links you kindly provided I still feel there are problems with the pentagon impact.

Thanks for your response. And everyone else too. Lets keep things civil here though. We all agree on the basics so there is no need to resort to insults on the issues we disagree on.

First i should clarify something. I am NOT satisfied with the official explanation of what happened at the Pentagon. There are a great many anomalies, not least of all; where is the footage? Also, the hole (as i posted a picture of in a previous debate wanting people to explain how flight 77 went through it) does certainly SEEM to be too small to match the damage one might expect from a 757.
However, my original list of questions and anomalies has been slowly whitlled down to where i am now at the point where i have to concede that the majority of the evidence points to a large aircraft having hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was not flight 77. Maybe it was some kind of retrofitted drone, but without any evidence to support these theories we are i feel left with only one conclusion. I'm not happy with it, and i'm sure there a hell of a lot more going on but for now it seems to me that there is simply no evidence that anything other than a large aircraft hit the Pentagon.

Eckyboy wrote:theory of the lamp pole causing the smoke in the right engine is nothing more than speculation.

Yes it is. But as that animation shows, that shape in the security camera footage could well have been a 757. It also shows that one of the engines would have hit one of the poles. Therefor, i think it might be safe to say that the smoke seen in the footage may well have been caused by this. This certainly fits the facts more than saying its the smoke ejection from a missile.

Eckyboy wrote:Why does a terrorist fanatic intent on causing as much death and destruction as possible go to such lengths to hit the only part of the pentagon that was reinforced and supposed to be empty?

This is a very valid question. And one that convinces me that it was an inside job. However, it is a question regarding the pilots motivation and bares no relevance to what he was flying.
Dont forget, as the Zembla documentary shows quite conclusively, Hani Hanjour certainly could have performed those manouvers and 757 itself would not have broken up as has been claimed.

As for the issue of the flight data recorder, i myself would need more confirmation one way or the other. It seems like a valid anomally but i'm just not sure.

Please, just to confirm again; i think the whole Pentagon thing stinks to high heaven but i am forced to go with the evidence, and right now there appears to be more evidence to say that flight 77 did hit than there is evidence of anything else hitting.

Yes i am forced to backtrack on my opinions. I would rather have had my initial beliefs proven but it has not turned out that way for me.

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:45 pm

Wokeman wrote:Busker,
No such images are available. Any that would have been captured by CCTV cameras close to the Pentagon, were confisicated by the FBI within minutes of the object hitting the Pentagon.

This again is a valid point. Why all the confiscated footage? Maybe it does show something else, but for now its just speculation.

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 8:49 pm

BTW. Feel i should apologise for my assertion that we should 'settle this debate'.

That ain't happening i know. No harm in fleshing things out though.

telecasterisation · Post by **telecasterisation** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:09 pm

telecasterisation wrote:
First i encourage people to watch this absolutely superb 3D animation;
The animation though was well put together although I would just like to ask you your opinion;

The aircraft is supposedly at such a low altitude that it struck a lamp post that then damaged a taxi. The plane is going somewhere between 350 - 500mph - how do you explain the fact that the taxi wasn't simply torn off the road and spiralled away by the vortex created by the plane's engines?

Defector

You appear to have avoided my question?

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:17 pm

telecasterisation wrote:
telecasterisation wrote:
First i encourage people to watch this absolutely superb 3D animation;
The animation though was well put together although I would just like to ask you your opinion;

The aircraft is supposedly at such a low altitude that it struck a lamp post that then damaged a taxi. The plane is going somewhere between 350 - 500mph - how do you explain the fact that the taxi wasn't simply torn off the road and spiralled away by the vortex created by the plane's engines?
Defector

You appear to have avoided my question?

Hey, calm down there. I didnt 'avoid' anything. There were so many points made, i'm sure i missed loads.

I cant explain that. I simply dont know what should have happened. I would need to see detain arguements from both side of the debate before i could commit. At first glance, it does seem like an anomally.

Mark Gobell · Post by **Mark Gobell** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:36 am

Snowygrouch has the animation from the NTSB which was created from the FDR of Flight 77, allegedly.

From what I understand of this data and representation of it, there is a problem with the altitude vis a vis the light poles.

The question I have is should we trust the data from the NTSB ?

waking life · Post by **waking life** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:35 am

Here is the best site on the pentagon, which includes the following rare footage taken soon after the impact.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/bob.html

His conclusions are very similar to mine.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/conclusions.html

Sam Danner · Post by **Sam Danner** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:43 am

Damn good work Superposter. I stake My life on it. No 757-300 and no Bodies and well I have preached enough to the Choir. I was there and you did not believe me, why should you now?
Sam Danner~~~~That is the Last on the Pentagon from me until Sky news runs ther addy.

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:04 am

waking life wrote:Here is the best site on the pentagon, which includes the following rare footage taken soon after the impact.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/bob.html

His conclusions are very similar to mine.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/conclusions.html

That is a very good site. I too agree with most but not all of his conclusions.

I've no idea what happened there. All i know is that i am far less sure that a 757 did not hit. There just seems to be not enough evidence left to support the idea. If i'm forgetting stuff please remind me.

alwun · Post by **alwun** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:57 pm

I wonder if those who still think/believe a large plane hit the Pentagon have seen and/or considered this page?

http://killtown.911review.org/pentalawn.html

cheers Al..

DeFecToR · Post by **DeFecToR** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:05 pm

alwun wrote:I wonder if those who still think/believe a large plane hit the Pentagon have seen and/or considered this page?

http://killtown.911review.org/pentalawn.html

cheers Al..

Yes the lawn is undamaged and at first it does seem to be inconsistant with a large aircraft, but have you watched the animation i posted above? It does a pretty good job of showing how the plane may well have hit its target without touching the lawn.

alwun · Post by **alwun** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:22 pm

well, quite. It does indeed at first 'seem' to be inconsistent with a large aircraft. To my admittedly untutored eye, it seems to retain the inconsistent ambience even after a second viewing.
In fact I will now go as far as to state that to me it trancends the 'inconsistent' and could well be moved to the higher plateau where resides 'the sublimely ludicrous bullshirt'.

cheers Al..

SHERITON HOTEL · Post by **SHERITON HOTEL** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:40 pm

Isn't it a fact that the Pentagon's original story was that ALL the CCTV security cameras outside and in, failed to get an image of whatever caused the 16 foot hole in that obscure side of the facility and piercing three rings ?

They then changed their story when Messan started putting the heat on them, to four grainy frames with the wrong date and time on from the other side of the hellipad, that showed nothing conclusive.

A FOI action forced them to release the other frames from this one camera, these also failed to conclusively show a 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

Isn't it nearly always dodgy when a defendent changes his/her story?

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Time to settle the Pentagon debate

Time to settle the Pentagon debate

Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate

The animation

Re: The animation

Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate

Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate

Re: Time to settle the Pentagon debate

Pentagon

best site??

Re: best site??

ooops!