You saw it? I'd settle for a few pics of it and would love some video.

clearly damage from a large aircraft. if you didn't know what happened that day and someone showed you these photos, would your first thought be that it got hit by a 757? it's obvious that it got hit by something but not a 757.

http://pentagon.spacelist.org/images...shot-after.jpg

You need to put this into context here. This image makes it look like it took out a section of a warehouse, which is far from the truth. The Pentagon is the largest building in the world.

The reality is this is a strong building, made up of huge blocks of concrete - and it wasn't hollow (like the WTC LOL). The plane totally destroyed an entire section of one ring, and sliced through two other rings. The plane traveled through five hundred feet of concrete and steel.

why isn't there more pictures/video of it hitting the building? one camera that produces still frames? really? government agents went around and collected all the video footage from local stores so what's the big deal about releasing it? if it was a big deal, why release anything at all?

Have you been to the Pentagon? There are no stores around it. Just lots and lots of parking lots that seem to go on forever. Before 9/11 you could practically drive up to the front door of the Pentagon.

Please explain all the pictures with plane debris. I can't believe i'm even asking this.

Actually, don't even bother. It will be the same old retarded shit you idiots been saying for the last 10 years.

buildings with cameras that were in the "flight path".

The Pentagon didn't release videos showing it was a plane. Therefore it must've been a missile.
- The truther

Dgraves, where did the plane and all it's passengers go if it didn't fly into the Pentagon? And why replace a plane on its way there with a missile.

The truther:
Yes, the American government flew planes into their own buildings.
No, they didn't fly a plane into the Pentagon. They made it dissapear and sent a missile instead.
I know this because the Pentagon didn't show it was a plane. Fuck the witnesses and the plane wreckage found in and around the building. Not relevant.
Yes, that makes perfect sense in my little fantasy world.

All the people that were sitting on GW Parkway and other area highways that saw it are lying, too?

Funny how i post this picture to make fun of truthers and they don't even get it that they are doing exactly that.

Yes obviously they were part of the conspiracy. They actually were there to quickly plant plane debris in and around the Pentagon seconds after the missile hit the building.

The truther:
No video it was a plane = evidence it was a plane.
Pictures of plane debris in and around the Pentagon = not evidence it was a plane.

Amazing how everything has to be a conspiracy. I mean it doesn't even make any sense whatsoever anymore. There were no hijackers, the American government flew into their own towers. And at the same time it's impossible one of those planes flew into the Pentagon. These people are just so fucking batshit crazy. Any form is logic is completely non existant.

i can't explain that, that would be a "theory". my point isn't about the debris, it's about the lack of pictures/video of the impact. are we expected to believe that's all the government has? everyone agrees it's a stout building with some important shit in it and it's a prime target for an attack. the government isn't concerned about security costs so you know that building is loaded with all kinds of surveillance equipment so why not show any other angle. at least something other than crappy "now you see it, now you don't" stills from a parking lot gate camera.

i doubt anyone would attack my gym but if they did, they would have multiple video angles of the event. surrounding buildings would even have some angles of it.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

God, this is just too much...

Fuck the plane debris, not important, who cares. Right?

On ignore, i can't handle this insanity anymore. Bye retardboy.

I think this one sentence sums up this whole thread and the insanity of truthers in general and why you never can win from them:

You read it right. The pictures of plane debris is "just a theory". The PICTURES are just a theory. The debris itself also does not matter. That doesn't mean anything. It's better to completely ignore the pictures and the debris. It simply has to be a missile because the Pentagon has not shown us it was a plane through video. Period.

Yes, this makes perfect sense to the truther. Not ONE moment of doubt when thinking this way. This logic will actually be picked up by another truther and be repeated on another forum.

Like i said, there is no way of winning from this kind of thinking. Impossible.

and dozens of people heard timed explosions from inside the towers before they collapsed but i guess we pick and chose which witnesses we want to believe.

Dozens out of how many thousands?

"winning"? there's nothing to "win", it's already been won and the mission was a success. if a group of american terrorists went to another country and attacked it, would that country go to war with us over the attack?

Ofcourse there are explosions after a huge fucking plane flies into a huge fucking building.

dozens that were interviewed. no one knows for sure what others heard or saw. none of us were there so we just have to go by evidence.

if a dirty cop committed a crime and he was in charge of the investigation, how do you think the crime scene would look?

Look, a piece of the landing gear INSIDE the Pentagon. But hey, to the truther that is NOT important. This is "just a theory" and can be ignored. This is no evidence whatsoever. This does not mean a plane flew into the Pentagon. The fact that the Pentagon didn't release a video of a plane hitting the building however IS evidence that a missile was used.

http://www.rense.com/general32/landinggear002.jpg

Makes total sense in the fucked up fantasy world of the truther.

really? timed explosions?

oddly enough it was just like a demo job.

looks exactly like a demo job + sounds exactly like a demo job = no way it can be a demo job?

they also found the passports of the terrorists in the tower debris. how about that compelling evidence! maybe they should start covering buildings with passport material to keep them from burning.

hold onto that evidence but haul away all the steel and melt it down as quickly as possible.

Yes. Huge segments flew laterally away from the building at speeds that could only be accounted for by an external agent, such as an explosive.

Those movements cannot be accounted for by gravitationally driven, "organic" collapse.

There was plenty pluming out from a distance. Nothing that could be accounted for by a gravity-collapse.

Under the microscope, WTC dust was highly detailed evidence of incendiaries.

A gravity-driven collapse, or "pancake" collapse, does not produce a "cloud" or dust on the level of the WTC destructions.

You're correct. A controlled demolition produces powdered, obliterated debris in cloud like formations because of the external agents such as explosives and incendiaries used to bring the building down. An "organic", gravity-driven collapse will not to such an extent...

I'm acknowledging scientifically validated evidence and don't care for uncorroborated theories in this case - I don't have a "versin" of what happened. The government version/s simply don't carry any evidentiary weight for their theory to be considered .

Uh, vertical descent is y-axis movement.

The videos show a building imploding due to external agents removing the paths of most resistance from the vertical movement of the undamaged segments above the damaged segments down into and through the majority of the undamaged building.

You say to "imagine yourself closer to the explosion" when in fact you subscribe to the "organic collapse" theory indicating there were no explosions or external, incendiary or explosive influences on the buildings' falls.

Be consistent?

:D

These planes aren't built to go this fast at these altitudes. The speed factor obviously shouldn't be dismissed, but the 9/11 Commission version goes against basic physics and Boeing specs on engine performance at sea-level...

It does when they're the only ones pronouncing themselves on the matter, and the remainder of the pilot community keeps their mouths shut because of career-fear.

The problem is that GPS data hasn't been released. The ground radar lost each plane at crucial points in their bizarre trajectories.

And the speeds were never confirmed by the FAA or any agency because they could not corroborate the government story.

It's irrelevant - whether they were travelling at 300mph or 600mph, the damage at this point would be similar, and the buildings were designed to take it.

Based on projections and design, a lot more than 7 to 15% (worst case scenario).

No, oscillation was built-in to prevent building shattering.

Projections would not include "melting of steal [sic] beams" because airline fuel could not cause that particular occurrence, as has been proven in countless skyscraper fires, including a major WTC fire in 1996, and the fact that the steel is used exactly because normal fires cannot affect the beams. The WTC fires, 2011 and 1996, were considered "normal fires".

Steel has been used for thousands of years. The Industrial revolution, which started in the 1700s, eventually introduced steel frame construction for buildings whose main advantage above the obvious solidity and stability was its resistance to fire.

Building built in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and into the present day and age have been always built with airliner crashes considered, using science as a way to simulate a plane crash. The same science that informs "computer aided design" - which in no way provides advantages in technical and forensic forecasts.

The damage and resistance "due to fire" was absolutely considered by Underwriters Laboratories before they approved the steel, using science established for centuries and never, until 9/11, contradicted in any way. Computer simulations are much more fallible than science, as the NIST simulations could prove if they weren't kept classified to "protect national security".

Projections at the time were based in science as they have been for at least 200 years and were in no way "good guesses".

At which floor?

And was it enough to disrupt the molecular structure of every beam on every floor above and below the impacts to completely compromise their integrity? Please...

"D

Because in 2001, it wasn't common to video cameras everywhere like they do now. When they did, they were inside focused on theft and rarely outside. Security at the Pentagon wasn't too concerned about security on the outside, but instead security on the inside.

What's the big deal about releasing video from local stores? Chances are nothing at all. All of these businesses were most likely far enough away from the Pentagon that they didn't show much at all. But rest assured, the truthers will find something like a flash of light and call it proof that it wasn't a plane, but a missile.

If you want to see the video that badly, why hot request it under the freedom of information act? That's how they released the Pentagon video, which showed nothing of interest to anyone.

And all of those cameras were pointed up at the sky watching airplanes, right?

And why does this come as a surprise to anyone? Your talking about a building that was a city into itself, a city of fifty thousand people. These buildings had their power supplies, back up generators, and hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil in the event it needed to generate it's own power. Fireballs traveled down elevator shafts from the point of impact all the way to the basement. Of course there was explosions - there was a huge fire.

How many millions of pieces of paper survived the impact and the fire? Seems to me like entire sheets of paper were falling out from the debris.

As for the steel and most of the debris that had little importance, what are we supposed do with it? Store it for the next forty years? What do you think they do with airplanes after crashes? They spread them out in a big warehouse, try to piece together what happened, and then.... They get rid of it. Once the investigation is done that's that. They don't store the debris for the next forty years.

Of course it makes a difference. But the difference here is not 600%.

The difference between the actual probable speed and the reported speed of the airliners is a niggle, not really pertinent, just further evidence of the self-evident and admitted fallacies of the 9/11 Commission report...

Ok, now you're being ridiculous. There is a very huge window of qualification for even Cessna pilots, let alone commercial jet pilots...

SOME of the steel was damaged and/or compromised. This was accounted for.

You're referring to degrees celsius, which is not the same at all. 800 celsius is 1472 ºF. Read the NIST report. Non of the temps got that high for more than a few seconds, IF they did...

Please point out the divergencies? The government (ie. NIST) claims that super-heating somehow caused support columns to expand rather than weaken/soften in the case of WTC7, but that softening/weakening caused these supports to pull in the external supports in the case of the towers...

Either way, they couldn't and didn't account for the differences in reported temperatures, actual temperatures, and the subsequent collapse. They simply did not report on that.

Most of it was NOT sent off to various agencies. Only certain authorized representatives from certain authorized agencies were allowed to look at the debris. Most of the debris was not authorized to be removed for investigation. Read up on this.

Please provide your sources for this? In fact, the buildings were in every way designed to withstand not just such impacts but multiple impacts of the sort, and especially the fires...

The planes they used in their projections were larger and/or heavier than the planes that actually hit the WTC - because less aluminum and more steel was used in those at the time. You can't even find sources for that useless and false claim...

Again, these are scientists and scientists use centigrade, not Fahrenheit, for their science.

Review your considerations....

:D

This was the strongest, recently renovated section of the Pentagon.

The plane didn't slice through anything.

According to official reports, the soft, hollow aluminum tip of the plane's nose punched through this re-inforced section, and the rest of the plane somehow folded itself into a 16-foot diameter entry hole to vaporize most of its contents against all expectations.

It did not destroy "an entire section of one ring" at all.

I have no idea what did this or how a regular aluminum airliner did this. I just don't buy the Pentagon bullshit.

:D

There are/were gas stations, hotels and convenience stores. They all had cameras. The employees of the Holiday Inn who saw the video were apparently speechless, and warned by the FBI to STFU about what they saw before the agency appropriated all the recordings - of all the commerces around the Pentagon...

:D

Anyone can fly an airplane without any training at all. It's just a difference between a car and an 18 wheeler - both have gas (throttle) and a steering wheel (stick). Once you learn how to drive a car, you can drive an 18 wheeler.

It's not much different with an airplane. Anyone can do it:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-13/u...plane?_s=PM:US

And it's not like these guys didn't have flight training? They had months worth.

This is not true. The Pentagon and other government buildings, as well as commercial places such as the local Holiday Inn, all had cameras, and perimeter cams pointed outside the establishments. Why would the FBI care to confiscate them all otherwise?

Again, many and most of these commercial establishments like gas stations were Pentagon-only employee spots.

Each had out-pointing cameras.

Each had their recordings confiscated - within fifteen minutes of the impact.

The FOIA requests for these videos didn't produce any results. The Pentagon released their five-frame parking-entrance glimpse after pressure from the public.

Nope. They were pointed inward for obvious security reasons and outward to the Pentagon for further security reasons.

The fireballs that supposedly travelled down the elevator shafts have not been accredited with any damage to the ground lobby.

Regardless, even if they didn't just damage the sky-lobbies, and made it to the basement, they wouldn't have the force to compromise the basement supports.

Only after the collapse began. Before this there's no realistic consideration as to why flammable materials from inside the aircraft could have survived the impact fuel explosion.

Since they did not conduct forensic investigations in the cases of the WTC buildings and crashes, they would have to keep the evidence (from a scene which was qualified by the FBI as a crime scene) for as long as it was required...

:D

According to trained, experienced pilots, the maneuvers were extraordinary, not possible with commercial airliners, though *possible* with jet fighters, and even at that with highly trained and experienced pilots.

According to all accounts, none of the pilots had any ability or experience - this from their instructors at the Florida flight schools where they "trained".

ONE of the supposed hijackers was an ex-military trained pilot. And he was supposedly not at the controls, though how they determined that is up to their magical crystal ball that determined any of the hijackers were aboard any of the flights in the first place...

:D

There really wasn't anything in the ground lobby - it was really just a vast open space. Maybe a few minor things caught fire, but that was either quickly burned out or put out. While it was enough to burn people, it was nothing but granite and windows.

But being as fireball traveled down to the ground level, it must have hit the basement levels too. Everything under the sun was in the basement. Air conditioning transformers, entire power plants, tens of thousands of gallons of oil....

This is stupid. It's well documented that the terrorists had flight training. Some of them at military bases.

It's not nearly as difficult as people play it out to be. I've got no training, and I've flown an airplane....

It's well documented that they were registered and attempted flight training, however they were not accredited or given any sort of compiance or license because they were terrible pilots...

:D

A fireball is not an explosive event, even if it did make it to the bottom of the shaft it wouldn't have the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces, let alone the walls and columns in the basement...

:D

Just because you fail to get your driver's license doesn't mean you can't drive a car.

It's not difficult at all.

A fireball is in fact an explosive event. It's a fucking exploding ball of fire.

I never said it had the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces. It didn't. But it did in fact destroy elevator doors.

I didn't say anything about walls or columns in the basement. However, a fireball would do a huge amount of damage to an air conditioning unit, transformer, generator, and tens of thousands of gallons of oil located in the basement.

You already know the fireball traveled all the way down to the lobby and lower levels; This is documented. If you can't see the damage that can be done in the lower levels by a fireball of this size, well, your retarded.

Well the performance reports of all these flight school trainees was that they could barely pilot a Cessna off the ground, in the air, or back...

This is where you're wrong. The air pressure requirements and factors with an explosion aren't the same as a ball of gas igniting.

I never said it had the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces. It didn't. But it did in fact destroy elevator doors.

Scorched air conditioning units wouldn't destroy the foundations of the buildings or even blow off marble wall tiles in the lobbies...

Actually, the fireballs are not documented as you say. Their existence is conjectured because of the people who were burned by them. But the explosive consequences like the blown off marble wall tiles cannot be accounted by the fireballs alone...

:D

They didn't need to land or take off. Any jackass can hold a stick and turn a plane left or right. I did it with about thirty seconds of instruction.

The entire building was pressurized. You launch a fireball into that environment, and it's going to be a party.

So your saying that shooting flame at transformers and tends of thousands of gallons of oil won't cause further explosions?

And no one is saying anything about marble walls and titles except for you.

So people getting burned by fireballs is not proof of a fireball. It's proof that they magically got burned for no reason at all.

Good one.

it's an interesting topic but pointless to argue, much like religion. you either believe one story or the other. those who believe it was an inside job are labelled as "paranoid freaks" and those who believe it was an actual terrorist attack are labelled as "blind sheep". in either case, the government was counting on us and we didn't let them down.

i bet the reports would be considerably different if the exact same attack happened in Iraq and they blamed it on american terrorists.