Time to settle the Pentagon debate

[DeFecToR]

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

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

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/09/us-flight-77-simulation-demol ishes.html

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

http://omroep.vara.nl/tvradiointernet_detail.jsp?maintopic=424&subtopi c=4177
(Scroll down to '11 september: English version')


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

[mason-free party]

Defector...thats funny!

[DeFecToR]

[telecasterisation]

[mason-free party]

[Snowygrouch]

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

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

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

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

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

C.

[telecasterisation]

[John White]

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

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

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

just doesnnt make sense

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

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

[freddie]

Hey John,

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

[John White]

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

I'll get back to you on that freddie

[physicist]

[Bufordt06]

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

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

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

This is nonsense to anyone with half a brian cell.

[Mr-Bridger]

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

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

[Eckyboy]

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

[Me]

[Busker]

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

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

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

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

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

[Wokeman]

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

[DeFecToR]

[DeFecToR]

[DeFecToR]

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

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

[telecasterisation]

[DeFecToR]

[Mark Gobell]

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

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

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

[waking life]

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

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

His conclusions are very similar to mine.

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

[Sam Danner]

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

[DeFecToR]

[alwun]

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

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

cheers Al..

[DeFecToR]

[alwun]

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

cheers Al..

[SHERITON HOTEL]

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

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

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

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