Here's a photo of a commercial plane that sustained

severe NOSE damage overrunning an airstrip. Now tell me again, how any plane was able to penetrate 3 rings of the pentagon, keeping in mind that that section had been reinforced. A plane could not have skidded it's way through 3 rings. It would have crumpled, like the wings supposedly did. And why are the punchouts at the base of the building rings, from the outer hole on, and no damage from landing gear striking the lawn? Where are any passenger seats? luggage? The nose could not have created these punchouts. The nose is not made of metal but carbon. Its shape has been designed to be aerodynamic, not crash resistant. The inside casing, as well as its contents, are extremely fragile. The nose would crush on impact with an obstacle, not penetrate it.


The NTBS has 4 reports, but says it's in the hands of the FBI and no complete report will be filed. (to see these, you have to enter the dates on this form)

There is a story here and tho I don't like to think that we've all been setup and lied too, we somehow need to find the truth about 911. We must never give up.

hit the Pentagon, supposedly 500mph. The nose would have been crushed beyond recognition.

Well...the landing gear made that big circular hole into the A-E Drive...don't you know! ;)

That's the latest "official" explanation anyway.

Yeah..from a bomb.

How is a bomb significantly different that a jet fuel laden 757 impacting the Pentagon at 200 to 500 MPH?

but the question here is what part of the airplane "bomb" crashed through the outer wall made of reinforced concrete, brick and limestone, then through several inner concrete walls, through the various inner components of the Pentagon offices and then finally made the exit hole on A-E drive?

Initially, they said it was the nose cone, but that was too ridiculous. Then they said the landing gear, but that didn't really make much sense for the shape of the exit hole. Then they said pressure waves, and I still don't see how pressure waves made such a neatly defined hole out the back wall.

so ALL the parts are numbered.

seems too risky to swap planes.

really, why is there a plane swap theory in the first place?

what if:
the easiest way to frame certain Arabs would be to do it the way the official story recounts, but without hijackers (just Arab decoys on the ground - like Chilabies bunch - fighting over parking spaces and such)

-it's done by remote control. an almost common technology, ties in the war games - if there really were such games. have you heard from independent eyewitnesses to their existence? I'd be interested if anyone has. the out-of-the-way flight paths could be because they needed time coordinate remote signals.

-and some of the calls from passengers and cockpits were faked

...that all...that's it.

but then what would we all be kept busy with?

those two are provable only if there are whistle-blowers. and that leaves us feeling powerless, right?

perchance someone invented - then fed us - a bunch of red herrings to let us feel like we "discovered" these important things. with the added benefit of keeping the pressure off the would-be squealers - to cool their guilt, knowing that there are ppl trying to tell the truth...if they even dare to look.

that French guy from the old- school/respectable leftist magazine was the one to really kick things off, right?...what became of him? and of course there is the thought that part of the left is just the other side of the same coin...the left gatekeepers/the right gatekeepers.

The Nation/The National Review

they may have our (CT'ists) psychological profile down to a tee. they know how to make us jump.

or not? :think: :tinfoilhat:

discrepency. Even if they did find it was from some other plane, how much attention would that get considering how much attention all the other bullshit from 9/11 has gotten? Heck, people have a clear pciture of an engine that must have come from one of the planes that hit the WTC and no one has come forward and said for sure that matches or doesn't.

I responded to you on this point at my blog too, but in a different way.

"that French guy from the old- school/respectable leftist magazine was the one to really kick things off, right?...what became of him? "

By Webster G. Tarpley
5-31-5

MADRID -- The Re-Open 9/11 European Tour organized and publicized by American philanthropist Jimmy Walter - now approaching its halfway mark - has already scored a significant success in moving world public opinion on this issue. The tour, which kicked off in Amsterdam on May 18 and will end in Rome on June 9, takes two international teams of speakers, plus a documentary film program, to eight European cities in seven countries. Among the participants are Canadian television producer and media critic Barrie Zwicker, French activist Thierry Meyssan, the president of the Réseau Voltaire, and leading Dutch 9/11 researcher Daan DeWit, who maintains the daanspeak.com website. Joining them from the US are Twin Towers hero William Rodriguez, filmmaker Penny Little, lawyer Philip Berg (who is suing the Bush administration under the RICO statute), Kennedy assassination author Lisa Pease, 9/11 victim Rachel Hughes, and writers Chris Bollyn, Eric Hufschmidt, and Webster Tarpley.

Extending the gear implies you're landing. AAL77 was crashing.

There's a difference.

rings.

"and no damage from landing gear striking the lawn?"

I meant to reply to them.

As documented by Dr. Griffin's book, the Commission findings for each of the 4 flights were documented by the majority of credible testimony to not be true. A summary showing that major findings in the Commission report for each of the 4 flights is clearly not true, based on testimony, is found in the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41194

or the URL
http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

it seems rather easy to imagine it punching through a pentagon wall. Regardless of whether it was an intact airplane or a bunch of fragments, there was no loss of MASS - there was still 100 TONS of material hitting that wall. And when you consider that in the KE equation, velocity is squared, there was a tremendous amount of energy directed against that wall. The nose itself may not have punched a neat hole in the wall but all that stuff behind it would have.

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

and give me a scenario other than an 757 that explains the damage shown.

That's actaully a pretty good analysis and does the best job I've seen that a 757 could have hit the Pentagon. My main beef with the Pentagon hit has mostly been that I didn't think a normal 757 hit there, not one piloted by a poorly trained terrorist hijacker pilot anyway.

Another issue is one has to marvel at how the left engine didn't scrape the ground coming in at that angle.

Yet another issue is what happened to the right wing, which clearly didn't enter the building according to this analysis?

No one yet has explained what happened to the tail (vertical stabilizer)? Did it fold up and go into the hole? Certainly it wasn't seen outside the impact area.

Finally what made the exit hole on the A-E drive?

Clearly, there was a large impact/explosion that created the damage and some of the damage is consistent with a large plane. The main problem is where are the parts of the plane that didn't enter the building?

"This page is put up by the leading debunker of the Pentagon hit, who goes under various pseudonyms but has been identified as Sarah Roberts of Stanford University. It seems to us that what it offers in apparent detail it lacks in coherence. It seems designed to persuade visiting journalists in a hurry rather than serious investigators. For instance, the alleged wing marks seem to be the same as other marks which are evenly spaced vertically on the columns and cannot therefore be caused by the plane.

Roberts and the debunkers fail to answer these points:

1.

There is no wreckage
2.

The hole is too small
3.

There are no reports of the plane's second engine
4.

Passenger jets cannot travel at ground level"

Btw, if anyone is interested in the Pentagon hit, the Killtown website is quite good:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77.html
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/debunking.html

A weak attempt to undermine a well thought out presentation by repeating unsupported CT talking points. I don't need someone to do my thinking for me - I can look at the photos and form my own impressions.

The early pictures of the impact site show no traces of these and it is highly unlikely they went into the hole. It is not clear to me why these large pieces of the plane would disintegrate into small pieces either. Where did they go?

What do you think happens when you pile a bunch of aluminum on top of a hot fire for hours? You will find steel components designed for high temp applications but not aluminum.

If so, how did they do that? The hole is simply not big enough for the tail and the right wing.

If they didn't go in, then they wouldn't be burned by the fire.

if you check through the forum pages starting at:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

1. There is no wreckage

You can't possibly believe that.

2.The hole is too small

OK, honest people can disagree about the hole.


3.There are no reports of the plane's second engine

So what? Is there supposed to be a report about the various parts?

4. Passenger jets cannot travel at ground level

I guess it depends on how you define "travel." That's true if you are traveling from one destination to another. But on the other hand if your crashing a jet, it will travel at ground level for a while.

have a strong opinion about what hit the Pentagon-though I've looked at a lot of pictures and sites;
but its clear that there is evidence suppression and cover-up going on; so the question is why?

there was no clear evidence of parts from a 757 shown and the parts are being suppressed from public disclosure; there was surely enough evidence at the site to identify what hit the Pentagon if a serious, public inquiry had been allowed.

And its clear that the videos from the gas station, hotel, and Pentagon that show what hit the Pentagon are being suppressed. Again, why??

Is the obvious cover-up due to the fact the evidence is contrary to the official story?
or that the cover-up diverts peoples attention to the physical evidence and away from another problem- such as complicity??

Pentagon and WTC impacts are all much, much higher velocity than any sort of accidental crash.

And 100 tons of mass moving at 500 mph is going to smash through a helluva lot of stuff.