9/11 - Did flight AA77 Hit The Pentagon?

[MikeC]

What is "nice" about it?

The wingtips are possibly the weakest part of the aircraft - they are hollow and empty, and have next to no mass - why would you expect them to do as much damage as heavier and more solid parts??

The seriously damaged frontage closely corresponds to those parts of the aircraft that are heavier, denser and stronger.

Looks like physics to me.

Why are Raytheon so quiet or Rolls Royce for that matter, they are old engines, not secret... why have they been removed from the internet?

Quiet about what?? Here is RR's RB211-535 page - what is it they have removed??

 

[Oxymoron]

What is "nice" about it?

The wingtips are possibly the weakest part of the aircraft - they are hollow and empty, and have next to no mass - why would you expect them to do as much damage as heavier and more solid parts??

The seriously damaged frontage closely corresponds to those parts of the aircraft that are heavier, denser and stronger.

Looks like physics to me.

So are you trying to say the engines (which are attached to the wings) have no mass? Please explain the trajectory, i.e lack of damage to the building which should have happened due to the logical, (according to all the laws of physics), trajectory of the engine, being solid, weighing tons and capable of withstanding intense heat.

Quiet about what?? Here is RR's RB211-535 page - what is it they have removed??

Mike, if you can locate anything on that page that could possibly be mistaken for the combustor case which was photographed at the pentagon scene, (shown below... the shiny gold coloured one at the bottom), would you please post it so that we can all view it.

 

[MikeC]

Why would they put a picture of the combustor case on the generic overview page for selling an engine? Are you saying specifically that is used to be there and it was removed? I asked what has been removed - you answered with a seemingly meaningless riddle.

And of course engines have mass - which is, AFAIK, why the facade damage extends to the width of the engines - they and everything between them comprises about 95% of the mass of the a/c.

1/ The engine has mass, but it is NOT solid - it is a construction of many parts, built as lightly as possible and as strong as necessary.

2/ Not all of an engine can withstand intense heat - only the combustion chamber and turbines and exhaust need to - and that is what was found in the wreckage.

3/ The weight of a basic RB211-535 is about 3.3 tonnes - it is not particularly massive at all for the size, diameter and amount of thrust generated.

I have altered the picture you posted to show clearly the path that it looks like the engines took to me - and pointed out the obvious damage at the impact point.

 

[Oxymoron]

Why would they put a picture of the combustor case on the generic overview page for selling an engine? Are you saying specifically that is used to be there and it was removed? I asked what has been removed - you answered with a seemingly meaningless riddle.

The aim is to identify the few parts of wreckage which are evidenced at the site. People have complained that there appears to be censorship on the internet which makes it very difficult to identify these parts.

A number of people have posted links purporting to show proof that these parts are from the RB211-535 engine. So far, not one link, including yours, have managed to identify the parts as belonging to that engine.

And of course engines have mass - which is, AFAIK, why the facade damage extends to the width of the engines - they and everything between them comprises about 95% of the mass of the a/c.

1/ The engine has mass, but it is NOT solid - it is a construction of many parts, built as lightly as possible and as strong as necessary.

2/ Not all of an engine can withstand intense heat - only the combustion chamber and turbines and exhaust need to - and that is what was found in the wreckage.

It is solid and incombustible enough that it should have withstood the crash far better than it apparently did.

3/ The weight of a basic RB211-535 is about 3.3 tonnes - it is not particularly massive at all for the size, diameter and amount of thrust generated.

I have altered the picture you posted to show clearly the path that it looks like the engines took to me - and pointed out the obvious damage at the impact point.

View attachment 1360

This is before the facade collapsed... see how small the 'hole' is there. This is what I intended to post originally but posted the 'exit hole' by mistake.

http://physics911.net/omholt/

Here it is closer up... Amazingly the windows appear not to be smashed and are covered in foam!

Well now the facade has fallen and what do we see?

Right here is where the left
engine should have smashed
everything in it's path
Amazing how the office furniture just sits there unburned and undamaged.

Mike, come on... be reasonable.... the whole OS is completely untenable and there is no evidence to underpin it other than by fiat.

 

[Jazzy]

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit?

[...]
Even turbine blades are uniquely identifiable to an aeroengineer. The number of turbine blades in a particular ring in this case uniquely identified the RB211 engine type as fitted to the Boeing 757.

The Aerospacewebsite simply shows information which could be interpreted to back up the OS or a number of other options. There is no conclusive proof.

There has always been conclusive proof to those that have witnessed evidence directly. I'll accept these people are telling the truth. More or less the way I accept flying in the first place.

If there were conclusive proof that it was a RB211-535 engine, do you not think TPTB would have splashed it all over the media for the last 11 years?

No. [...]

Why are Raytheon so quiet or Rolls Royce for that matter, they are old engines, not secret... why have they been removed from the internet?

That they appear less accessible partly due to the noise... I have noticed that current spares are more noticeable than superseded components. That would be the way of things, I guess.

That was a very interesting flight simulation that you posted. I was impressed by the pilot's flying skill, i.e flying a couple of feet above the ground at 350 to 600mph for such a long distance without crashing into the ground or catching a wing into the ground... Very skillful, expert flying.

Which neatly accounts for the facts. Unlike any alternative arguments you would care to pose.

Below is also interesting... like the trajectory of the left engine and how the wings folded in so nicely.

One eyewitness saw the right wing fold prior to impact. The right engine struck a curb and the outer right wing a generator set. It still went a long way in into a very tough structure. Wings would be most impactive because of the fuel mass within them, but their aluminum parts would be melted, torn and impact-formed into small pieces. The tail would be subject to lower levels of deceleration and the size of its fragmentation would increase towards its rear. The engine shafts and undercarriage legs would penetrate the deepest.

Whether an engine survives at all would depend on its collision vectors. An absolute "head-on" into reinforced concrete at 800ft/sec might destroy it entirely.

​

 

[Jazzy]

censorship on the internet which makes it very difficult to identify these parts.

Links are dropped over time as newer information supersedes them. It's the nature of the web.

It is solid and incombustible enough that it should have withstood the crash far better than it apparently did.

That statement is based on what, exactly? Your opinion?

This is before the facade collapsed... see how small the 'hole' is there. This is what I intended to post originally but posted the 'exit hole' by mistake.

I see a picture of the FIRST FLOOR. What of the GROUND FLOOR, which is behind the foam, that lost ninety plus feet of its vertical columns?

Amazingly the windows appear not to be smashed and are covered in foam!

A testament to armoured glass and reinforced concrete.

Right here

You mean fifty feet to the right of there.

 

[Oxymoron]

Even turbine blades are uniquely identifiable to an aeroengineer. The number of turbine blades in a particular ring in this case uniquely identified the RB211 engine type as fitted to the Boeing 757.

Prove it... You can't can you? You waffle on as if you know something.... like your some educated, illumined person above every normal person but you come up with zilch... zilch and more zilch. The reason being is because you are generally no better informed or educated than most others here.

That they appear less accessible partly due to the noise... I have noticed that current spares are more noticeable than superseded components. That would be the way of things, I guess.

Thank you for the common decency of tone and that you at least attempted a constructive response. However, I must say... the absence of information has been apparent since 2001 or thereabouts, according to researchers in this field.

Which neatly accounts for the facts. Unlike any alternative arguments you would care to pose.

What, the amazing fact that an inexperienced pilot can carry out a highly complex manouvre, culminating in flying a couple of feet off the ground over a large distance, without crashing into the ground, despite collisions on the way... If that pilot was not remote flying, he had nerves of steel!

One eyewitness saw the right wing fold prior to impact. The right engine struck a curb and the outer right wing a generator set. It still went a long way in into a very tough structure. Wings would be most impactive because of the fuel mass within them, but their aluminum parts would be melted, torn and impact-formed into small pieces. The tail would be subject to lower levels of deceleration and the size of its fragmentation would increase towards its rear. The engine shafts and undercarriage legs would penetrate the deepest.

Jazzy, you are simply quoting the OS but without even attempting to validate it... this is not evidence. Who are these witnesses anyway? Where can I see their statements? If I could, how would I know they were not faked.

Largely, this comes down to, do you trust the Bush administration and lets face it, there are plenty who do not and I am one of them. The only way to convince skeptics is with cold hard unassailable facts... and they are very thin on the ground in terms of underpinning the OS.

Whether an engine survives at all would depend on its collision vectors. An absolute "head-on" into reinforced concrete at 800ft/sec might destroy it entirely.

Yes it is incredible isn't it... 4 planes... 8 engines... none recognisable .... No engine numbers or unique part numbers. All 8 totally destroyed beyond identification. Another virtually unheard of event.

 

[Oxymoron]

Links are dropped over time as newer information supersedes them. It's the nature of the web.

Like I said, the information went virtually straight away

I see a picture of the FIRST FLOOR. What of the GROUND FLOOR, which is behind the foam, that lost ninety plus feet of its vertical columns?

What do you mean by 90+ feet of columns?

A testament to armoured glass and reinforced concrete.

Yep... they should build the engines and flight recorders from it! Oh yes... they supposed to be pretty indestructible anyway are they not?

 

[Billzilla]

It is solid and incombustible enough that it should have withstood the crash far better than it apparently did.

Not at all. They would have been making high power at impact and we also know the aeroplane was at high speed.
That makes for very good conditions to wreak massive damage on a jet engine - they are more fragile than you think under those conditions.

Anyway I am stunned that people are still trying to argue that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon. All the physical evidence was there and can easily be found if you ignore the woo-woo sites.

 

[Oxymoron]

Not at all. They would have been making high power at impact and we also know the aeroplane was at high speed.
That makes for very good conditions to wreak massive damage on a jet engine - they are more fragile than you think under those conditions.

Anyway I am stunned that people are still trying to argue that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon. All the physical evidence was there and can easily be found if you ignore the woo-woo sites.

Well you say that but are you going to expound on it or are you just going to do a Jazzy and say 'it's on the web'?

 

[SR1419]

I think this site summarizes the evidence against the "no plane/no AA77" theory quite well:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

In particular, it has compiled several pictures of airplane debris that are quite compelling.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think this site summarizes the evidence against the "no plane/no AA77" theory quite well:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

In particular, it has compiled several pictures of airplane debris that are quite compelling.

Sorry but it looks planted and could be from anywhere.

The real key is as you state on the link above:

The question of what hit the Pentagon has remained a source of intense interest and debate for almost three years now, overshadowing many other issues of the 9/11/01 attack. The controversy has thrived in the evidence vacuum created by official actions in the wake of the attack, which included the following:

• Minutes after the attack, the FBI seized from businesses adjacent to the Pentagon videos that likely recorded the event.
• On the day of the attack, Pentagon personnel participated in a rapid mop-up of the crime scene, moving and removing evidence before it could be documented.
• In the weeks following the attack, authorities controlled the crime scene, destroying or suppressing nearly all the physical evidence inside the building
  
  • The attack plane executed an extreme spiral dive maneuver to hit that portion of the building rather than the part housing high-level officials.
  • The alleged pilot of Flight 77 was not competent to pilot a Cessna, let alone pilot a 757 through a maneuver that may have exceeded the skills of even the best test pilot.

All TPTB need to do is roll out the evidence... if they have any. Where are the recognisable parts, the pictures, flight recorders, statements, analysis reports all the usual investigative process normally attributed to an accident, crime, terrorist attack. Where are the CSI reports... we keep seeing how wonderful they are on the TV every week but they are not so good when it comes to reality are they.

 

[SR1419]

Interesting...Evidence that clearly refutes your assertion and you simply wave it away as "planted".

The analysis of that website was quite compelling- did you read it it? It is a "truther" website.

Do these 757 parts look planted?

 

[Oxymoron]

Interesting...Evidence that clearly refutes your assertion and you simply wave it away as "planted".

The analysis of that website was quite compelling- did you read it it? It is a "truther" website.

Do these 757 parts look planted?

View attachment 1364

View attachment 1365

View attachment 1366View attachment 1367

Well I posted a number of these pics a few posts back and discussed them at length, attempting to firmly conclude they were indeed from a 757. I would expect all websites to say they were "truther" websites, they are hardly going to say we are liar websites. Even Popular Mechanics would claim to be a truther website.

Which parts of the site prove that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon... even that little bit cannot be proved because they contaminated all of the crime scenes... where are any of the planes?

 

[MikeC]

The aim is to identify the few parts of wreckage which are evidenced at the site. People have complained that there appears to be censorship on the internet which makes it very difficult to identify these parts.

A number of people have posted links purporting to show proof that these parts are from the RB211-535 engine. So far, not one link, including yours, have managed to identify the parts as belonging to that engine.

I think several links have done exactly that - but you don't want o accept them.

But, going the extra yard, here is one that says :

The plane debris observed in the various photographs does indeed comport with that of a 757, at least to the limited degree with which they can be compared to actual 757 parts or the manufacturer's detail drawings, as shown above. The engine compressor or turbine disk appears to be approximately the correct diameter to have been used in a Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B engine, as used in American Airlines 757 aircraft. The fragment of the high pressure combustor casing also comports with the string of fuel inlet nozzle holes, the mounting bosses of which have the correct number of screw holes (6). The combustor is definitely not from a Pratt and Whitney PW2037, which is the other make of 757 engine used in the airline industry, nor is it from a General Electric CF6-80C2.

And this is from a site that doubts the official story - it is not a "debunker" site at all. However their question is with the number of parts shown - not whether they are from the appropriate engine or not.

It is solid and incombustible enough that it should have withstood the crash far better than it apparently did.

Says who? Where are the tests to show how well and engine should withstand ingesting a building??

Part of engine testing is for bird strikes - there is even a proposal to create a standard artificial bird that ensures all tests are comparable

Engine parts are mostly thin metal - sheet metal in fact. Discs, shafts and blades excepted the rest of it is entirely unsuied to withstanding any impact at all!!

This is before the facade collapsed... see how small the 'hole' is there. This is what I intended to post originally but posted the 'exit hole' by mistake.

http://physics911.net/omholt/

I see no hole here at all - there is some damage at the bottom of the picture but it is impossible to say it is a hole.

Here it is closer up... Amazingly the windows appear not to be smashed and are covered in foam!

You seem to be easily amazed! Why is it amazing that windows that are not smashed are coverd in foam??

Well now the facade has fallen and what do we see?

Right here is where the left
engine should have smashed
everything in it's path
Amazing how the office furniture just sits there unburned and undamaged.

Because that is the inside of the floors above that suffered no impact damage - the undamaged furniture is behind 3 undamaged walls (as far as the photo shows)!!! Why would you expect here to be damage where the aircraft did not hit, and the structure below it was not so damaged as to cause a collapse??

Did you expect aircraft parts to teleport into the interior smashing furniture without damaging intervening walls??

Mike, come on... be reasonable....

You complain that no damage was done where the aircraft didn't hit and there was no collapse, and you ask ME to be reasonable?

the whole OS is completely untenable and there is no evidence to underpin it other than by fiat.

On the contrary - every one of you ludicrous suggestions makes the OS seem more and more reasonable.

 

[SR1419]

suspending rational analysis and taking a gargantuan dose of 'I have faith in the Bush administration and they always tell the truth and it is heresy and unpatriotic to believe different'.[/B]

That is not accurate at all- that is simply hyperbole on your part.

This website- which espouses the view that the official story is a cover-up- did a very detailed rational analysis of the pentagon and concluded that a 757 hit it.

Can you refute their analysis?

Just waving it away as "planted" evidence is very weak sauce.

You never answered the question- do those 757 parts look planted?

Is it possible that the parts of the fuselage found on the lawn of the pentagon were NOT planted?

What evidence do you have that suggests the parts of a 757 found in the wreckage were planted?

 

[Oxymoron]

That is not accurate at all- that is simply hyperbole on your part.

This website- which espouses the view that the official story is a cover-up- did a very detailed rational analysis of the pentagon and concluded that a 757 hit it.

Can you refute their analysis?

Just waving it away as "planted" evidence is very weak sauce.

You never answered the question- do those 757 parts look planted?

Is it possible that the parts of the fuselage found on the lawn of the pentagon were NOT planted?

What evidence do you have that suggests the parts of a 757 found in the wreckage were planted?

Firstly, yes the fuselage parts look planted... they are not even singed or blistered. Secondly by what process are they there, no one even suggests a method for how they could be there. Thirdly, is there any evidence they belong to a 757, they could belong to anything.

Where is the 'verifiable' evidence.... all disappeared is the answer.

Unprecedented 4 planes disappeared without trace in the same day. Unprecedented, no information is made available from black box recorders. Unprecedented, 3 steel framed buildings collapse at nearly free fall speed, virtually in their own footprint.

 

[Mick West]

Firstly, yes the fuselage parts look planted... they are not even singed or blistered. Secondly by what process are they there, no one even suggests a method for how they could be there. Thirdly, is there any evidence they belong to a 757, they could belong to anything.

What about the bodies, do you think they were planted there too? Bodies that were later identified to be the passengers listed on AA11.

Does it not concern you at all that things you though to be problem with the OS usually turn out not to be problems at all? Like how could you possible have thought, after all these years, that that photo of the exit hole was the entry hole. Doesn't the fact that you were so easily misled give you any pause?

 

[Billzilla]

Unprecedented 4 planes disappeared without trace in the same day. Unprecedented, no information is made available from black box recorders. Unprecedented, 3 steel framed buildings collapse at nearly free fall speed, virtually in their own footprint.

Complete fiction, all of that.
All four aeroplanes are completely accounted for, there is FDR data available (Ive seen it), and the buildings did not fall neatly.

I'm not trying to convince you as you have already made your mind up to ignore the reality of it all, it's for people who want to know the complete story.

 

[SR1419]

is there any evidence they belong to a 757

Yes, they have identical markings to an AA757

My question "do those 757 parts look planted? " was refering to the parts INSIDE the Pentagon. Can you truly say in with an unbiased, rational analysis that those parts are planted? It has been established that they ARE from a 757.

Unprecedented 4 planes disappeared without trace in the same day.

That is an utterly false statement.

You been shown plenty of traces- you simply choose to ignore it. Cognitive dissonance?


Are you really going to try to claim these airplane parts from Shanksville, PA are not traces?

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Here it is closer up... Amazingly the windows appear not to be smashed and are covered in foam!

Amazing how the office furniture just sits there unburned and undamaged.

A Boeing MD-83 Dana Air plane crashed into businesses and crowded apartment buildings near Lagos on 3 June 2012. The front end of an apartment building was completely destroyed. Yet a few feet away, clothes remained hanging on a line.

Amazing how a child's clothes could just sit there unburned and undamaged.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXh-9aG8sxM at 2:20 minutes

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Firstly, yes the fuselage parts look planted... they are not even singed or blistered.

This is the tail section of Dana Air flight 992... not even singed or blistered. Does that make this tail section planted evidence?

 

[Jazzy]

Prove it... You can't can you? You waffle on as if you know something.... like your some educated, illumined person above every normal person but you come up with zilch... zilch and more zilch. The reason being is because you are generally no better informed or educated than most others here.

You call the turbine ring blade count "zilch" when it is unique to the RB211. What's more to be said? Even with missing features the engine wreckage is completely identifiable with an RB211.

 

[Jazzy]

What do you mean by 90+ feet of columns?

Tsk tsk... I think you will find there is some controversy around that.

There's no controversy at all. Or if there is, it's initiated by people who fail to make the necessary distinctions. Such as looking for the right floor.



All the way down to that apostrophe.

 

[joe24pack]

and the buildings did not fall neatly.

I know this thread is about the planes hitting the Pentagon but there's a much easier way to settle all of this. Just focus on the one smoking gun that can absolutely NOT be explained by the official story. The smoking gun is Building 7. The problem with all this plane crashing into the pentagon talk is that none of us are experts on plane crashes as they are very rare and few of us make a living researching large commercial aircrafts and what happens when they hit something. Let's focus on something where there are a lot more experts that make a living practicing their trade- how about Architects and Engineers. How about 1700+ professional architects and engineers that have looked into Building 7 and without question there is NO WAY IN HELL that building should have fallen without the help of controlled demolition.

Never in the history of architecture has a modern steel framed skyscraper collapsed due to fire. Yet on 9/11 THREE buildings collapsed on the same day. Jet fuel can not melt steel and even if you believed that ridiculous story, building 7 was not even hit by a jet. It was one football field length away from the other 2 towers and all 3 buildings collapsed in a matter of hours. We have numerous examples in history of raging infernos that last for days where the skyscrapers were left standing tall but completely gutted from the fire. Years after this, we discover nano-thermite in the dust. Nano-thermite is used to cut steel and can only be made in a military facility, not by bearded men living in a cave.

Controlled demolition takes MONTHS to set up. Building 7 collapsed into it's own footprint at near free fall speeds... and this is the kicker- in NEAR PERFECT SYMMETRY. This can only be accomplished by expert controlled demolition. You can see all the signatures on the petition for a new investigation at ae911truth.org

It's clear to me that the complete and total disintegration of the planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is ridiculous. The Pentagon is the most heavily protected facility on earth with hundreds of CCTV cameras and they can't show us a clear picture of the airplane hitting the Pentagon?!? I was born at night, but not LAST night. Use your common sense folks. They used these attacks to invade Iraq, Libya and soon to be Syria and Iran. They used these attacks to pass the Patriot Act and the NDAA. They know the bankers have stolen 1 quadrillion from us (in derivatives) and they need to clamp down on us very soon before the whole system collapses. Just focus on Building 7. That answers everything.

 

[Oxymoron]

What about the bodies, do you think they were planted there too? Bodies that were later identified to be the passengers listed on AA11.

Does it not concern you at all that things you though to be problem with the OS usually turn out not to be problems at all? Like how could you possible have thought, after all these years, that that photo of the exit hole was the entry hole. Doesn't the fact that you were so easily misled give you any pause?

There is much that concerns me regarding 9/11 and many other things as well. Many things do not ring true, have been covered up, ignored or plain lied about. You cite the apparently unsubstantiated identification of passengers but I would point out the fact that information provided, including from the BBC, proves at least 6 of the 19 "hijackers", were still alive as of 2006, and likely still are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

You say,

how could you possible have thought, after all these years, that that photo of the exit hole was the entry hole

. Firstly, I take it you are not suggesting that 'if I misunderstand something or quote something that is erroneous', the whole conspiracy theory falls as a result. Secondly, I have already explained that I had not researched flight 77 as much as the other aspects, (I was intrigued by the 'coincidence' that executives from Raytheon were listed on all flights, and opined about some other irregularities, including a recollection from about 5 years ago that the entry hole was exceedingly small and I mistook that picture 'temporarily' as the one I recalled. I subsequently posted the correct one.

I think it ill conceived to repeat such an accusation when it has previously been addressed, especially when you repeatedly rely on evidence which has been previously discredited and I cite your continued use of the verinage demolition process to show that the towers could collapse virtually in their own footprint. When I state 'virtually in their own footprint', you are perfectly well aware of what I mean by that because I have explained it previously on another thread, inc video footage.

But to make it clear again I will post some more videos on the subject starting with one which vividly depicts the virtually identical collapse process which happened at the WTC, note how it disintegrates in mid air and the dust cloud.

​

And this is what I mean by not collapsing in their footprints, (even though they were professionally demolished), but went wrong. NB, there are even better examples out there which clearly show the extremely low probability that an 'accidental collapse' is likely to fall straight down.

​

Jazzy has now brought up an argument that the entry hole was actually much larger than first reported and I will address that separately.

"There's nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (allegedly)

 

[Grieves]

What really gets me about this whole thing is how it's public knowledge that there were cameras in service with better angles on the impact, and yet all of their footage has apparently been seized and classified, with the only video released being a grainy, stop-motion image, conveniently centered on the impact site and with no view of the lead-up, of something hitting the pentagon in a big, firey explosion. What that something is isn't remotely apparent in the video, all you see is a fleeting flash of silver, and then boom.
So if we know it's a plane, know which plane it was, know exactly how it was done and have even put out video of the fatal explosion, what excuse is there NOT to release the other videos, from better angles, of the event? Wouldn't it put this decade of arguing over the facts to rest? Wouldn't it be a vital step in putting all the destructive, nation-dividing 'crazy talk' to rest, at least surrounding this one issue?
Seems like either an intentional encouragement of conspiracy theorists, or like there's something on those tapes worth hiding.

 

[Mick West]

What really gets me about this whole thing is how it's public knowledge that there were cameras in service with better angles on the impact, and yet all of their footage has apparently been seized and classified, with the only video released being a grainy, stop-motion image, conveniently centered on the impact site and with no view of the lead-up, of something hitting the pentagon in a big, firey explosion. What that something is isn't remotely apparent in the video, all you see is a fleeting flash of silver, and then boom.
So if we know it's a plane, know which plane it was, know exactly how it was done and have even put out video of the fatal explosion, what excuse is there NOT to release the other videos, from better angles, of the event? Wouldn't it put this decade of arguing over the facts to rest? Wouldn't it be a vital step in putting all the destructive, nation-dividing 'crazy talk' to rest, at least surrounding this one issue?
Seems like either an intentional encouragement of conspiracy theorists, or like there's something on those tapes worth hiding.

Where were these cameras? What direction were they pointing in?

 

[Mick West]

But to make it clear again I will post some more videos on the subject starting with one which vividly depicts the virtually identical collapse process which happened at the WTC, note how it disintegrates in mid air and the dust cloud.

​

Other than not falling sideways, that video is ENTIRELY UNLIKE the collapse of the WTC towers. It's a collapse from the bottom, not the top. You need to compare the WTC collapse against other top-down collapses:
​

It's practically impossible for a top-down collapse to not fall roughly straight down. Especially at the scale of the WTC. Think about it. How could it NOT collapse like it did? Draw a diagram of how you think it SHOULD have collapse. Think about the center of gravity of the top block. What would have had to happen for it to "topple"? What would the end result be in your explosive-less scenario?

 

[Oxymoron]

Yes, they have identical markings to an AA757

My question "do those 757 parts look planted? " was refering to the parts INSIDE the Pentagon. Can you truly say in with an unbiased, rational analysis that those parts are planted? It has been established that they ARE from a 757.

If they are proven to be from a 757 I will stand corrected but as yet I have seen nothing that proves this to be the case.

For clarification, I am not saying that it was not flight 77 that hit the Pentagon but merely expressing my concern as to the lack of published evidence. I am not saying it was a 'A3 Skywarrior', but simply examining the possibility that it was as put forward by some CTists. I simply said and I quote

I think it infinitely more believable than the OS, BS

In fairness, I think that says more about the implausibility of the OS than the plausibility of that particular CT.

Originally Posted by Oxymoron Unprecedented 4 planes disappeared without trace in the same day.

That is an utterly false statement.

It is not an utterly false statement... it is a very slight exaggeration, I should have included the word 'virtually' and then it would have been entirely accurate... as is evidenced by the 'tiny amount of combined wreckage' that you subsequently evidence later in the post.

You been shown plenty of traces- you simply choose to ignore it. Cognitive dissonance?

Cognitive dissonance cannot apply to CTists. The overwhelming majority of CTists 'do not want there to be foul play', we would love to accept that the Bush administration were incapable of orchestrating such an outrage but their actions and lies and cover ups spawned, validate and perpetuate the theories.

Are you really going to try to claim these airplane parts from Shanksville, PA are not traces?

No I am not claiming that... but that is exactly what they are...'traces'.

There appears to be evidence that flight 93 was shot down with sidewinder missiles by Maj Rick Gibney

They, the Happy Hooligans, a unit of 3 F-16 aircraft, were ordered to head toward Pennsylvania. At 0957 they spotted their target; After confirmation orders were received, A one Major Rick Gibney fired two sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight at precisely 0958;

He was awarded a medal from the Governor one year later for his heroic actions. As well as Decorated by Congress on 9/13/2001. The Happy Hooligans were previously stationed in North Dakota, and moved to Langley Air Force base some months before 911 occured on a "temporary assignment."

Which, if true, would account for the lack of and unusual displacement of wreckage. Further Dick Cheyney inadvertently refers to 93 being shot down and also the ex CIA asset Susan Lindauer talks about 'the pilot who shot down flight 93' being in prison. Obviously both accounts cannot be true but there appears to be at least; a lot of mis information, ergo conspiracy around it.
​
CTists are simply trying to get the truth from all the disinfo and I agree, it is not easy.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html


View attachment 1368

View attachment 1369

View attachment 1370

 

[Grieves]

Where were these cameras? What direction were they pointing in?

First google-result I found on the issue = http://rense.com/general67/fbicl.htm

If you overlook the suppositions and simply focus on the fact the FBI seized these videos, and then refused to release them on the basis that 'there's nothing in them', it's hard to look at their decision as anything but odd. If there's nothing on them, there's no reason to withhold them. If they confirm the official account, there's no reason to withhold them. Most all court-proceedings in regards to the event are long over, so there's no potential for any effect on proceedings, and thus no legal reason to withhold them. What's the motivation then for continueing to withhold them?

Also, the still images which were compiled to form the 'video' of the events seem to be just that, still images that have been compiled, and not an actual video taken directly from a camera. If it is the actual full video as taken by the actual camera, I'd wonder what in the hell the Pentagon, the most well funded security agency perhaps in the history of mankind, was doing with such a crappy camera watching their parking lot, with such a delay between frames that a guy could run by it without being noticed. If it's not the actual video, and just a composition of stills taken from it (as suggested in the above link) then what the hell? Why not show the actual video?

 

[Mick West]

First google-result I found on the issue = http://rense.com/general67/fbicl.htm

If you overlook the suppositions and simply focus on the fact the FBI seized these videos, and then refused to release them on the basis that 'there's nothing in them', it's hard to look at their decision as anything but odd. If there's nothing on them, there's no reason to withhold them. If they confirm the official account, there's no reason to withhold them. Most all court-proceedings in regards to the event are long over, so there's no potential for any effect on proceedings, and thus no legal reason to withhold them. What's the motivation then for continueing to withhold them?

Also, the still images which were compiled to form the 'video' of the events seem to be just that, still images that have been compiled, and not an actual video taken directly from a camera. If it is the actual full video as taken by the actual camera, I'd wonder what in the hell the Pentagon, the most well funded security agency perhaps in the history of mankind, was doing with such a crappy camera watching their parking lot, with such a delay between frames that a guy could run by it without being noticed. If it's not the actual video, and just a composition of stills taken from it (as suggested in the above link) then what the hell? Why not show the actual video?

Back in 2001 (and even now to some extent) security camera would just take still frames every second or so, and not shoot continuous video, as it takes up too much space. This allowed much more to be recorded before the tape needed changing.

Security cameras are generally mounted high, and they look down at the region being surveilled. Look at any typical gas station security camera footage, the camera is mounted high, and looks down. When covering a door the camera is mounted above the door and looked down.

Since they are looking down, and most of what you see is ground then the sky is often not preset, small, or flared out.

Since they want to cover a wide area, they are often wide angle, so anything in the distance, like a plane, would be sub-pixel in size, if there at all.

And since it was 2001, the cameras would have been low resolution, probably analog, so blurry.

Most likely the FBI simply got every single tape where there was even a possibility of there being something - but it turned out they were all useless.

I'd also imagine that the cameras at the Pentagon were also focussed on specific areas as well, generally looking downwards, covering entrances.

 

[Oxymoron]

Other than not falling sideways, that video is ENTIRELY UNLIKE the collapse of the WTC towers. It's a collapse from the bottom, not the top. You need to compare the WTC collapse against other top-down collapses:
​

It's practically impossible for a top-down collapse to not fall roughly straight down. Especially at the scale of the WTC. Think about it. How could it NOT collapse like it did? Draw a diagram of how you think it SHOULD have collapse. Think about the center of gravity of the top block. What would have had to happen for it to "topple"? What would the end result be in your explosive-less scenario?

Mick, I know full well that you are very intelligent, which makes it all the more worrying that you insist on trying to justify the unjustifiable. In fact the only people who can make the implausible appear plausible, are people such as yourself. Normally it is attorneys/barristers, politicians etc that do such things. I cannot fathom why you deny the evidence before your very eyes.

The first demolition looked very similar to the towers, inc the disintegration in mid air. I will grant that most of the damage occured lower down but you could clearly see the squibs going off further up the building as well.

This video is even more apparent and even more comparable to the towers. Note the puffs from the sides, exactly like the towers. Here it is acknowledged what they are... squibs... with the towers, the ejections are camouflaged with the highly dubious explanation that it is 'air/smoke being ejected by the collapse.

​

The verinage demolition, (albeit a demolition which took much preparation, as opposed to a spontaneous collapse), bore hardly any similarity to the towers. Firstly the building was severely structurally degraded by removal of support infrastructure throughout the building. Secondly, the collapse was initiated clearly by mechanically pushing the supports in the middle section until they gave way.

This was obvious and was not seen on the towers and the initial collapse was within the top 15% of the structure not at mid point.

The verinage demolition was 'jolty', (not to get too technical lol), coming down in stages, not fluid like wtc.

Why don't you do everyone a favour and post a video of a blazing high rise block, collapsing straight down and disintegrating in mid air, without the aid of demolition... then we can all take a break.

 

[Oxymoron]

First google-result I found on the issue = http://rense.com/general67/fbicl.htm

If you overlook the suppositions and simply focus on the fact the FBI seized these videos, and then refused to release them on the basis that 'there's nothing in them', it's hard to look at their decision as anything but odd. If there's nothing on them, there's no reason to withhold them. If they confirm the official account, there's no reason to withhold them. Most all court-proceedings in regards to the event are long over, so there's no potential for any effect on proceedings, and thus no legal reason to withhold them. What's the motivation then for continueing to withhold them?

Also, the still images which were compiled to form the 'video' of the events seem to be just that, still images that have been compiled, and not an actual video taken directly from a camera. If it is the actual full video as taken by the actual camera, I'd wonder what in the hell the Pentagon, the most well funded security agency perhaps in the history of mankind, was doing with such a crappy camera watching their parking lot, with such a delay between frames that a guy could run by it without being noticed. If it's not the actual video, and just a composition of stills taken from it (as suggested in the above link) then what the hell? Why not show the actual video?

I cannot help but notice the similarity of 'coincidences', in that 'all the cameras on route to the tunnel' where Princess Diana's car crashed, 'were malfunctioning'.

 

[Billzilla]

..... and without question there is NO WAY IN HELL that building should have fallen without the help of controlled demolition.

It's actually explained quite accurately. If you only look at the outside of the building and ignore what was going on inside it, then you could easily be suckered into thinking it was deliberate. But if you look at the entire system of its damage and destruction it makes perfect sense.

Never in the history of architecture has a modern steel framed skyscraper collapsed due to fire.

Never in history has such large buildings nearly been cut in half by high-speed & heavy aeroplanes violently impacting them. as I have said many times in many places before, I am more surprised that they didn't collapse immediately. That would have been far less surprising that them taking an hour+ to fail.

Jet fuel can not melt steel

Normally it can't however it most certainly can significantly weaken the strength of it. Add in the fact of massive damage to the buildings and again I am more surprised that they didn't collapse immediately.
If you want to have a look at one of nature's conspiracies, please explain how burning grass (not all that hot really) can melt aluminium in a very dramatic manner ....

Years after this, we discover nano-thermite in the dust.

Pure fiction, there is no such thing as 'nano thermite'. What was found was the scale rust from the burnt steel and that is the same base material as regular thermite.

Controlled demolition takes MONTHS to set up.

Correct, and yet not one single person anywhere noticed anyone in any building placing the explosives. When the aeroplanes hit they would have somehow managed to hit exactly in the correct pre-planned spot on the correct face, or the damage the pre-placed explosives would have created would have been in the wrong spot. The way to ensure that you get an explosion at the point the aeroplane hits is to have a lot of explosives all over, but then you need to not set them off where the aeroplane doesn't hit so it doesn't look fake. Funny thing is that no explosives were found in the debris. Nothing. No det cords, no timers, no nothing.

It's clear to me that the complete and total disintegration of the planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is ridiculous.

It might be clear only if you never ever look at any other high-speed airliner crash. If you do, you'll see many examples of very similar damage.

 

[Grieves]

Then again I ask Mick:
What is the possible harm in releasing the classified footage?
You've effectively demonstrated it's possible the multiple cameras might not have had a workable vantage. The FBI stated,in what was seemingly a revision of initial statements, that there was no vantage of the incident on any of the tapes. In response to freedom of information petitions, they then apparently actually released a small portion of the footage in 2006, including the gas-station footage, which seemingly showed nothing. They also released footage from the Doubletree hotel nearby, which doesn't show the plane in flight but does actually show the explosion on collision, which directly contradicts sworn affidavits from the fbi which claimed neither the Doubletree, nor any of the other footage, had a vantage of the incident.

The footage from the Sheraton hotel nearby, which is theorized to have he best chance of having captured the plane in flight, is still classified... As is the lions share of the rest of the tapes.

Again I ask: if all the tapes support the official account, what is the harm in releasing all of them? Why would the FBI so reluctantly release small portions of the tapes as a weak effort to appease Freedom of Information Act petitions? Why not just toss them all out, let the experts/crazies rummage through them, and then 'told you so' it when nothing significant comes up? Why all the dicking around?

 

[MikeC]

I cannot help but notice the similarity of 'coincidences', in that 'all the cameras on route to the tunnel' where Princess Diana's car crashed, 'were malfunctioning'.

Ahhh....well that explains everything - it was actually Princess Di who crashed into the Pentagon!

 

[Mick West]

Then again I ask Mick:
What is the possible harm in releasing the classified footage?
You've effectively demonstrated it's possible the multiple cameras might not have had a workable vantage. The FBI stated,in what was seemingly a revision of initial statements, that there was no vantage of the incident on any of the tapes. In response to freedom of information petitions, they then apparently actually released a small portion of the footage in 2006, including the gas-station footage, which seemingly showed nothing. They also released footage from the Doubletree hotel nearby, which doesn't show the plane in flight but does actually show the explosion on collision, which directly contradicts sworn affidavits from the fbi which claimed neither the Doubletree, nor any of the other footage, had a vantage of the incident.

The footage from the Sheraton hotel nearby, which is theorized to have he best chance of having captured the plane in flight, is still classified... As is the lions share of the rest of the tapes.

Again I ask: if all the tapes support the official account, what is the harm in releasing all of them? Why would the FBI so reluctantly release small portions of the tapes as a weak effort to appease Freedom of Information Act petitions? Why not just toss them all out, let the experts/crazies rummage through them, and then 'told you so' it when nothing significant comes up? Why all the dicking around?

Beats me. Maybe they don't have the tapes any more. What did the FOIA request responses say?

 

[Mick West]

Mick, I know full well that you are very intelligent, which makes it all the more worrying that you insist on trying to justify the unjustifiable. In fact the only people who can make the implausible appear plausible, are people such as yourself. Normally it is attorneys/barristers, politicians etc that do such things. I cannot fathom why you deny the evidence before your very eyes.

Thank you. I think here we are getting at a fundamental problem of communication. I personally can't see how you can say the controlled demolition with explosives looks like the towers collapse, but the Verinage does not. That seems entirely backwards to me.

Consider the conventional demolition. Would you agree that the entire structure sinks as one? Would you agree that in the WTC1&2 collapses, the collapse starts at the impact floors, and works its way down - such that when WTC1 is half collapse, the bottom half is still perfectly intact?

 

[Grieves]

Beats me. Maybe they don't have the tapes any more.

lol, fair 'nuff. Why would the FBI archive evidence they seized and classified?

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=judicial_watch

The site above is a timeline of various events in which Judicial Watch, a self-described conservative watchdog group, had a hand. The pertinent stuff is toward the bottom, and is hard to miss, as it begins with a picture of the pentagon blast.