Can I convince PF's resident truthers that American 77 hit the Pentagon?

I don't care what that report says...it BS. I own video, and many pictures of the 16 foot hole, and the entire front of the Pentagon prior to the collapse. There was no damage to support columns, and there was no 75 foot anything. I'll take the actual video and photos of news outlets broadcasting the incident at the time over a BS report after the fact.

Keep up the good work. It might be very convincing to the average Joe Q. Public, I do not doubt (and that's who you're targeting so..). Video doesn't lie. Spin all you like...doesn't make it so.

 

total crock of (*)(*)(*)(*). I showed you a right wing print. Here are a left wing print and a tail print.

 

Sure you do. I bet you won't post any of them though. (Because you really don't)

 

Right next to perfectly unbroken windows huh? Okay...
So...how high up would you say that "tail print" measures from the ground? The wing prints? If those are the wing prints, then the titanium engine marks, or the engines themselves, should be available. Can you show me them??

- - - Updated - - -

Nope...I won't. They're widely available on the web though. Google 16 foot hole...it'll come right up..Yeah I know you know that but, you seem to want to do the dance so...there's mine.

 

Big marks from the titanium engine seem to be missing there. Hmmm...I guess that's probably cause they ain't wing marks huh?

 

Yet another claim you've made that you are impotent to support.

 

The Pentagon, pre-collapse. That hole is much bigger than 16 feet, isn't it? Note also the damage to the facade, as well as the holes from the engines.

 

So after your attempt to falsify the video failed, now you're falling back on the old 'BUT THAT HOLE ISN'T BIG ENOUGH!' argument.. Fraud, why are you so intellectually dishonest to yourself?

So, you want to know where the 'big marks' from the engines are? Well, I can show you two big holes if that suffices.

Starboard engine damage (Center right - the big fiery hole with parts of the second story broken and hanging down);


Let's not also forget this huge hole it also made;


And the Port engine (Center right, also a big fiery hole);


Total damage;


Ya know Fraud, after 16 pages of bickering, I'd have hoped you would have at least looked at the blog you are arguing against.

 

The engines went into the buillding. They did not need a hole as big as the cowling around the engine They didn't even need a hole as big as the entire turbine rotors. the vanes snap off rather easily in a crash.

There are three columns knocked out to either side of the hole. That is where the engines entered.

 

Ok let me see if I can make this a little clearer.

Here is the damage to the Pentagon;



Here is the same damage with a 757 imposed;



Of course, not to scale, AA77 was impacting on an angle, not straight in, so the left wing stretched out farther than my overlay shows, however you can clearly see how the fuselage and the engines fit into that impact pattern.

 

I would have to refine that a little bit. The right engine passed just a little to the right of the cable spool farthest to the right and struck roughly behind it. The right wing would have been just a bit higher, the left a little bit lower, parallel to the ground. The vertical stabilizer would also be tilted more to the left, the top of it impacting on the wall on the third floor where you see a white spot between the two windows directly to thge left of the VS in this picture. This spot was made by the impact of the counterweight of the rudder. The left engine would have hit just to the right of the two columns we see reduced to their rebar inside the facade.

 

I agree, like I said, its not to scale for the reason that AA77 hit on the angle, which puts the engine impacts where you place them. This was basically just to show a 757 engine and fuselage 'can' fit in the damage seen. I'm going to work on an image today with the 757 on an angle towards it and see if I can project the damage path onto the building. Thanks.

 

Boy I wish I knew how to make an animation, would make it a little easier to illustrate, but I think this might give the general idea.

 

LOL...That's a total BS photoshopped something or other. That's NOT what the initial damage looked like at all, friend.

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

THIS is what it actually looked like:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/punchout.html


Bit of a difference there WOULDN'T YOU SAY????


16 FOOT HOLE.

 

Do you even read what you post? Look at the title of the URL ... "Punchout".

That's not the entrance hole from the outside (E ring). What the photo in your link shows is the punch out hole from the interior C ring, where the last of the debris came through. From your link:

Edited to add: the photograph is even dated in your link as 9/14/01. How can that be a 'pre-collapse' photo if it was taken three days after the event?

Way to defeat your own claim, Fraud.

 

Until intelligence does not release all the original frames of the cameras at the Pentagon, and video recordings from tankstation and hotel nearby (they had do release these on the same day as the terror events, but didn't, while the mass media put there cameras on almost only the Twin towers for days (why is clear, to put maximum fear in the masses, it worked, G W Bush gained popularity) Problem with photo and video material is that with todays video technology these can be manipulated (you see this a lot on Youtube) They can let Hollywood and a supercomputer do all the rendering, and even an expert can't see these videos are false (while judges more and more use footage from pin machine cameras of criminals)
In other words, if citizens or independend investigators want to show (not proof) others details via a photo or video recording they are labeled 'conspiracy theorists' or 'comspiracy thinkers', 'birthers' (can also be revolutionaries, like organisations as AE911truth, WAC, OWS), while a judge is not. Because the photos or video material a judge is using are not restrain by intelligence (in a case it's suddenly evidence)

 

Well, yes, it is. The damage to the facade of the E Ring is partly obscured by smoke, however multiple shots (as I linked above and show in my blog) show the total damage bit by bit from different angles. What the result is a composition of multiple different images to form one clear picture of the total damage to the Pentagon wall.

Erm, I really do not know what to say here. Fraud I'm honestly going to have to throw the word 'troll' around here. So you're linking me a picture the punchout C Ring hole, taken 3 days after 9/11, as evidence that the hole in the E Ring, on the day of 9/11 prior to collapsed, did not look like the composition I posted.. I'm lost for words. Are you actually trolling intentionally? Or is upstairs so vacant that you unable to read a title or understand what it is you're looking at here...

They did, back in 2006. Catch up. You can download them from 911datasets.org. Or watch them on youtube.

Completely false. It was quite within their jurisdiction to confiscate evidence. They required it for PENTTBOM.

Uh, maybe because the Towers were two 110 story buildings known world wide which collapse with 2800 people inside them? Because it was one of the largest rescue operations in history? Because of the tragedy that the rescuers were digging out 300 of their own brothers?

Thats a lot of waffle and no beef. You go on about 'video and photo evidence' like its the only thing available. Have you visited the link? Or are you like Fraud where you're still here after 17 pages and haven't even bothered looking at the link?

Here it is again; http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

Video and photos make up a lot, but it is heavily supplemented with dozens of eye witness accounts, RADAR, FAA data, flight manifests, detailed accounts of the hijackers, and much more. The fact of the matter is my blog proves 100% American 77 impacted the Pentagon, while after 17 pages to disprove this, all the resident truthers have done is bleated on about the same old rhetoric "no video!" or "that holes not big enough" falsities. Not one scrap of evidence to support their claims, not one mention of an item of evidence which would change their mind (like I asked), instead just spamming the same old debunked incoherent claims from 2005, which my blog clearly proves otherwise. How about you guys actually look at it.

 

Testing? testing??? ROFL!!!!!!! See???? You fellas DO pay attention when it suits you. Now, since I have your attention...use that same scrutiny (that you're obviously capable of) to scrutinize the inaccuracies of the "official" BS story. You can pick up on that with no problem at all but, somehow, you can't seem to object with the same "enthusiasm". Why is that I wonder??? (trying not to bust out laughing here but...) Why when the facts point AWAY from the propaganda many here spend so much time cultivating (near what...near a decade or more now?), you attack in droves with deadly accuracy.

The answer is obvious.


Here's another tidbit for your entertainment pleasure.
http://911review.org/Wget/investigate911.batcave.net/pentagon1.html

Let's see what the team an serve up here, if you would please. (now...WATCH what happens here......intelligent reader).


Display the same intuitiveness and quick response as you just did and offer a response and we'll ALL watch.
So.....let's talk about the tail and the photos above...pretty please. REMEMBER....consistency is what we all strive for...no?

Enjoy...I'll wait.

 

After all this time it's puzzling that fraud STILL doesn't know how the pentagon was constructed,or what blast proof windows are designed to do.....

Or how a structure weakened by fire and structural damage looks prior to collapsing.

 

I haven't read the whole thread so I'll apologise if I missed it but, have you actually posted a single photo or video of the aircraft hitting the building?
More security cameras than enough but I have yet to see a single photo of an aircraft.

 

Those of us with expierence in aircraft crashes and structural fires don't know of any. We have seen a lot of total crap that some amateur pulled out of his undies, but no evidence of inconsistancies.

OWWW! The stupid. It burns!

Nobody on that site has a freaking clue what he is talking about, if that is what those clowns actually believe.

I have already shown you pictures of where the tail hit. It hit at a slight angle to the left of the entry hole, between the windows that the nutjobs think it should have taken out.

The entire empange of the typical Boeing aircraft is incredibly fragile when it comes into contact with a solid object. It snaps right off sometimes and, in this case, would have folded down and followed the rest of the plane into the entry hole. Rarely does the vertical stabilizer of any kind of aircraft leave major damage when it hits a solid surface. Usually, as was the case with both the olane that hit the Hinsdale and that which hit the Pentagon, only the counter weight of the rudder leaves any noticeable mark.

 

The only two cameras which were pointed at the path along which the plane approached was actually there to watch one sally point, thus offer only relatively low resolution pictures at that distance,

Primary security at the Pentagon is boots on the ground. Cameras are only aimed at sally points. Since there are no sally points along the path of the aircraft, there would have been no reason to point one there.

This is about the best resolution you could reasonably hope for.

 

What you're trying to tell me is; there isn't a gate so they didn't bother with any cameras anywhere.

I suppose you'll try to convince me, best tactics are a covert entry are to walk though a gate and proceed in a straight line to your target.
Get real.
The place must have been equipped with the best technology available at the time and it'll have been covering the whole area. I've heard crap about the operators not being able to set a clock on a video recorder, no cameras managed to get a single photo, holes that just aren't big enough, aircraft vaporising but DNA being recovered from bodies and paper passports surviving a minimum 260 degree c fireball but the aircraft were almost totally destroyed.

It just doesn't fit. I've studies photographs of the Indonesia Sukhoi crash.
That thing rammed a mountain but large chunks of wreckage and bodies were found.





So, where are the bits of aircraft, marks on the grass and so on?
Come to think of it, what doesn't the aircraft fit into the hole it made?

 

The grounds were patroled by vehicle and by foot. No need for cameras.

There are guards at the gates.

If there are that many cameras covering the area, you should be able to provide a picture of them from the pictures taken on the day of the attack.

You presume to much.

The holes were big enough. Don't take the word of a senile old low-life like Stubblebine. He lost his marbles before he retired. To any experience fire fire, the holes look more than big enough to squeeze an aircraft into.

So? It was all out in the open. The wreckage of Flt 77 was mostly shoved up inside the building, comingled with a lot of construction materials, office contents and bodies.

The aircraft was about a foot off the grounnd when it hit the wall. Why would there be marks on the grass?

 

Indofred -

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

View it, then get back to me.