9/11 wreckage

[Broomstick]

@reef_shark

'Keep in mind that there are very few available photos of aircraft debris inside the Pentagon: a wheel rim and a landing gear strut, and an engine combustion chamber. The wheel rim was in the non-renovated Wedge 2 by the AE drive hole. And despite the assertions of the author of the ATS post, without expert analysis, no one can say that the few recognizable airplane parts are unequivocally from a 757.

Oddly enough, there WAS expert analysis… it is just that you do not accept those experts as being honest.

We have at least one Boeing worker on the Dope, as well as several pilots who fly large airliners I’m wondering whether it’s worth it to ask their opinion, or if you will simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.

Landing gear strut - appears to be from the nose gear - note how charred the area around it is.

Yes. Charring happens in a post-crash fire. It is so unremarkable, in fact, I don’t understand why you even bother to point it out.

We should note that we are not saying that “no plane” hit the Pentagon, we are simply saying that the damage and debris is inconsistent with a Boeing 757.

If you do not believe it was a B757 then what do you think it was?

Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.

“Boeing green primer” my sweet patootie - MOST aircraft primer is green! Boeing does not have some proprietary color and wording it this way makes it sound oh-so-myterious.

be sure that these greenish pieces of material are not from some part of the inside of the Pentagon or from another type of aircraft?

It sure looks like crashed airplane parts to me - and yes, I have seen crashed airplanes up close and personal. Even helped haul one off a runway once. Granted, it was a small aircraft but underlines my point that the green primer is nothing particularly special or confined to Boeing. Based on that, I’d say it was extremely unlikely to be “some part of the inside of the Pentagon”. Can we at least eliminate THAT possibility. :rolleyes:

The very fact that all of these parts and bits of “evidence” were NOT trotted out by the government and put on display for the public and experts to examine is more indication that if they had been, someone would have recognized them as something else entirely.

What other airplane crash are “all of these parts and bits” trotted out for public examination? For the most part the public doesn’t have the knowledge or expertise to make a judgment regarding plane crashes. Crime solving is not for amateurs. Sure, amateurs are free to speculate, some do it as a hobby, but crimes are generally solved by experts, not armchair theorists.

No official explanation for the above hole in ring C has ever been put forward, and the ATS author studiously ignores this fact. The official Pentagon building performance report simply states that:

“There was a hole in the east wall of ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2. The wall failure was approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building…”

Seems pretty straightforward to me that the cause was the airplane that crashed into the building. Good lord, haven’t you ever read an accident report before? They’re ALL written in that same style.

That’s it. The fact that whatever came out through this hole is essentially the object that hit the Pentagon and did the major part of the damage is apparently not deemed important enough, either by the US government or CatHerder, to deserve comment. ’

Probably because 90% of the world is intelligent enough to make the connection between “airplane hits building” and “hole appears in wall”.

Your questions have been answered - you refuse to accept the answers. You insinuate there is a vast conspiracy but you provide no evidence while rejecting actual evidence of a conspiracy because… well I don’t know why you can’t accept hijackers crashing a 757 into the Pentagon, or the notion that the US has foreign enemies that might train hijackers.

[Gukumatz]

reef shark, your attention please.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@reef_shark

jesus, bc there were dozens of accounts either way, some saying it was a plane, some sayin it was a missile, some saying it was a commuter jet

No, that is a lie from conspiracy websites.

From here:

Google Sites: Sign-in

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a “commuter plane” but didn’t mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane’s flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it’s unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said “3-4 warnings.”

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

Incidently, the ‘missile’ comment comes from one witness saying it ‘came in like a missile’. In the same quote they state it was a plane.

why do i have to breast feed all of you find it yourselves i really have to go peace fellas

You are very arrogant for someone who is so utterly wrong.

[Loach]

@reef_shark

dude… lol…

an “operational environment” is iraq and afghanistan???

do we really have to worry about an air strike from them? or are you off your rocker??

the cold war has nothing to do with anything here, unless you want to discuss putins views on this

i highlighted in bold what you shouldnt have said

and am i supposed to reveal the holy grail of american conspiracies, where this so-called “missile came from (notice how i never implied this in this thread)”

dude it sounds like maybe you are in an airborne division, those guys are funny

division #?

You asked for the definition of operational environment. Sorry if you don’t like it. I didn’t make it up. Has nothing to do with if we are worried about an airstrike from the country.

Try to follow this. There is one reason why I mentioned the Cold War. It was peoples perception that we had a shield of fighters ready to scramble and shoot down planes at a moments notice like we did during the Cold War. That was not the case. That was expensive to maintain and did not appear to be needed. If things heated up with a country capable of bombing this country then steps could be made. They weren’t in place on 911.

You are supposed to give a plausible explaination. We have. Now its your turn.

I have never jumped out of an airplane.

Please don’t ignore this or I will have to ignore you:

@Loach

Please before you go any further:

1. Give a plausible scenerio how a conspiracy of this size could have happened. How many people and from where.

2. What do you think happened? A missile at the Pentagon? A switch of planes at the WTC? Until you answer that we have no idea what you are getting at.

3. Why? Not necessary if you can adequately answer #2 but I am curious.

By the way, where are you from? If English is your second language I will ignore any problems you have with your writing.

[AndrewL]

@reef_shark

i would indeed be satisifed is i was shown one of these tapes…

Here you go.

Video from the pentagon security cameras, the Citgo gas station, and the Doubletree hotel was released. None of the videos showed anything conclusive. If you want to see videos that showed more clearly what happened, it is up to you to demonstrate that such videos exist in the first place.

[Razncain]

In reference of Algorithm asking reef shark if it was his contention that a plane did not impact the pentagon on 9/11, He replied:

it is my contention that we, the ordinary civilian public of the united states, do not have the evidence supporting anything. it couldve been a flying pig. the cause of this is what im trying to expose

How much denial does one have to be in, in order to accept that position. Wow!There is an overwhelming amount of evidence at the crash site itself.

Start with the eyewitnesses, there were more than 100 of them, with a few of them clearly pointing out the colors of an American Airline jetliner. This shouldn’t be used as evidence? Why exactly?

Take a good look at the pics of the jetliner debris and this charred body: Emptv.com is for sale | HugeDomains Scroll up and look at the table of contents on that link, there probably isn’t a topic of any of this 9/11 conspiracy business that doesn’t get covered in detail. This isn’t evidence to support anything either?

How do you explain the DNA of all but one passenger (a toddler) on Flight 77 that has been positively identified as the passengers on Flight 77 as not counting as evidence of anything either?

What exactly then, constitutes evidence to you? Look at how much you have to deny, by saying there is “no evidence of a jetliner” crashing into the Pentagon.

Also by reef shark

jesus, bc there were dozens of accounts either way, some saying it was a plane, some sayin it was a missile, some saying it was a commuter jet

Actually that’s not so about the missile at least by eyewitness accounts. I believe even one of your own cites you listed earlier will vouch for that.

reef shark who wrote the post for you on #230? Your syntax, style, and grammar changes completely on this one particular post. Were you quoting verbatim from a cite, or somebody writing all of this for you on this one post?

razncain

[GIGObuster]

@AndrewL

Here you go.

Video from the pentagon security cameras, the Citgo gas station, and the Doubletree hotel was released. None of the videos showed anything conclusive. If you want to see videos that showed more clearly what happened, it is up to you to demonstrate that such videos exist in the first place.

I posted that link early in the thread, but reef shark choose to ignore it.

[tomndebb]

@reef_shark

jesus, bc there were dozens of accounts either way, some saying it was a plane, some sayin it was a missile, some saying it was a commuter jet

Prove it. I never saw any actual witness claim it was a missile and I never saw any witness claim that it was a commuter aircraft, so if you are simply going to quote the fictions that CT people invent to get their pages on the internet, then I feel free to dismiss your claims in the same way that you dismiss all the genuine evidence posted because you do not have the capacity to understand it.

@reef_shark

why do i have to breast feed all of you find it yourselves i really have to go peace fellas

Sorry. That is a cop out. You have repeatedly posted in this thread without providing anything resembling evidence, just claims that you might have read some kook’s site who made a nutty claim.

If you are not gioing to participate in a genuine debate, then go find a conspiracy forum and nod your head with all the other CT fans.

Next you’ll be telling us that Oliver Stone “proved” that there was a major conspiracy to shoot JFK.

[Razncain]

reef shark, I found your quoted material in post #230 with your link, so you can disregard what parts were from you or somebody else. I just couldn’t make out initially what parts you were quoting from, or was from you, with the way quotes were being used and not being used.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Fish

Here’s a thought exercise. Take a pencil and shove it through a potato. Now, throw the potato through a wire-reinforced plate glass window. Does it make a potato-shaped hole or a plane-shaped hole?

It failed to break the window. Now I have chunks of potato all over my floor.

shakes fist

No word yet on whether the potato was pulverized to subatomic tuber dust.

[Czarcasm]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It failed to break the window. Now I have chunks of potato all over my floor.

shakes fist

No word yet on whether the potato was pulverized to subatomic tuber dust.

Raw potato.

[tomndebb]

@GIGObuster

But, are you saying here that we should reply to all or any of the items in Tarpley’s book?

Sorry I missed this earlier.

I don’t care what you actually argue, (as long it does not result in a hijack), but I would like the thread to stick to the topic of the claims of the CT loons regarding the WTC/Pentagon attacks and not wander off into the realm of whether Poster A believes that poster B actually did or did not say, (or mean), a particular statement.

[reef_shark]

@Sage_Rat

It’s the Pentagon. They don’t want people (for instance terrorists) examining data on how much damage the building can take. This isn’t a mystery. It’s not even unexpected. More importantly, why do you give a fuck?

But again, the question you always seem to not want to answer is what your explanation is for all the people who saw an airplane crash into the building if a place didn’t crash into the building?

this is a good point (btw how bout them cardinals?)

how about the miles-long approach to the pentagon? couldnt that be surveilled somehow, especially when the plane was flying so close to land? for the 14th time, the mystery is why the fbi would confiscate route 27 tapes, marriot tapes, all NOT showing the actual impact. nobody seems to care about this, i care bc i get pissed when authoritative figures lie to me. if a man aint got his word, hes a cock-a-roach

the last part of your post, why dont i care about the people who saw an airplane crash into the pentagon, is bc i see accounts (made less public of course) of people hearing a “whoosh” and thinking its something else. even some accounts of a commuter jet. maybe both ( i think i posted this late last night)

anyways im really not trying to piss you guys off, enjoy the day and be ready for a pitt- zona championship

im just trying to use this site as a resource bc ive heard good things about it

[reef_shark]

@Loach

We have lots of evidence. Pieces of wreckage. ATC logs. Eyewitness accounts. It all supports the truth of planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon. What you have is what you perceive as a missing piece that you have no evidence of ever existing.

You can only be a Charter Member if you were here in the beginning when it went pay to post. That is what charter means. Another thing you are wrong about.

I am a police officer. I have dealt with businesses and security cameras for the last 11 years. I see how crappy most of them are. I see what they want to show. Most have no need to show the exterior of the business because it is by definition outside of their business and they don’t care. They care about people stealing their shit which is inside.

I don’t know why you keep harping on the one point. All you have is lack of something. You have no reports that anything is on the tapes. I’ll play your game and agree that tapes were confiscated. Would you be satified if they showed them to you with nothing on it or would you just assume they were fake? How do you refute the evidence that we do have? The wreckage and plane parts. The eyewitness accounts. Anything.

so you are a police officer in iraq? and not required to keep rounds in your gun half the time? even army police officers have division numbers

im not asking for your SS# it just seems like youre contradicting yourself.

‘pieces of wreckage’ : basically weve seen a charred rim and a shred of aluminum on the lawn. if this is evidence of anything its the lack thereof

‘atc logs’ : if you have listened to more than one air traffic controller, they might say that even their tapes were confiscated. but who would believe them? i can give you references for this if you care (even while watching a football game)

[Garfield226]

@reef_shark

for the 14th time, the mystery is why the fbi would confiscate route 27 tapes, marriot tapes, all NOT showing the actual impact.

Note: I am assuming for this post that the FBI did, indeed “confiscate” tapes. I don’t know whether this is true or not, and you haven’t show that to be the case, but let’s just say they did.

How would the FBI know they didn’t show the impact if they hadn’t “confiscated” them to watch them? They were investigating a crime. I saw a documentary once which showed police or the FBI (I don’t recall which) “confiscating” truckloads of material from Richard Jewell’s home. Since he was later exonerated, why would they need to confiscate all that material from his home?

[Bryan_Ekers]

I have to figure the pop-culture references mark reef as an American, so English not being his first language is not an excuse for his nonsense.

[AndrewL]

@reef_shark

for the 14th time, the mystery is why the fbi would confiscate route 27 tapes, marriot tapes, all NOT showing the actual impact.

They were gathering evidence. They didn’t know whether any of those tapes showed the plane or the impact until after they’d confiscated and viewed them. The vast majority of them showed nothing useful, since security cameras tend to be pointed at the building they are securing rather than into the sky or at a completely different building off in the distance. And the few tapes they found which did show something relevant (such as the pentagon videos, or the Doubletree hotel video) have been released.

In order to claim that something mysterious or suspicious is going on, you need to claim that there were other videos in existence that did show something incriminating that have not been revealed. The existence of such videos is an unproven claim on your part. The fact that the FBI seized dozens of videos from around the crash site does not automatically imply that those videos contained information that the FBI wanted to conceal.

[reef_shark]

@Bryan_Ekers

Maybe there is a conspiracy to hold onto the tapes. The FAA and FBI can grab such tapes pretty much at will when there’s a plane crash, but the FAA has to work closely with the airlines (some say close enough to be in their pockets) and the airlines certainly don’t want footage of lethal plane crashes circulating on youTube as it’s bad for business, which was already taking a major hit from the aftermath of the hijackings. Subsequently, there’s a tacit agreement that footage of planes crashing will not be returned.

There, I’ve proven it was a plane.

how many times, since hoover made it the “federal” bureau, have they confiscated tapes of a plane crash into civilian or military structures?

here you are assuming the airlines (additionally assuming it was an airline) have a choice in what footage gets released to the public. what they want is irrelevant.

one thing ive been wrong about is zona. they are choking this second half.

[Garfield226]

@reef_shark

‘pieces of wreckage’ : basically weve seen a charred rim and a shred of aluminum on the lawn. if this is evidence of anything its the lack thereof

This link was posted earlier, perhaps you missed it: Emptv.com is for sale | HugeDomains (note: there is a rather disturbing image of a burnt person there)

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@reef_shark

how many times, since hoover made it the “federal” bureau, have they confiscated tapes of a plane crash into civilian or military structures?

here you are assuming the airlines (additionally assuming it was an airline) have a choice in what footage gets released to the public. what they want is irrelevant.

one thing ive been wrong about is zona. they are choking this second half.

I sincerely wish that you’re wrong about Pittsburgh, too. And your conspiracy theory.