Hunt the Boeing!

ok here is something thing else that might be true and it might not be but from the pictures and what they have to say you just never know. tell me what you think…
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

A Boeing 757 really did hit the Pentagon.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

yupe like i said, you never know. there are 2 sides to each story so who knows. dont u think that people who write this stuff piss people off so they write what they want u to read? plus CNN is all bullsh*t lies! i wouldnt belive anything they say at all!

The problem is that in this case, we do know, with zero doubt, that the Boeing did indeed strike the Pentagon. There is no factually correct second side to this story.

shut down eh! haha zero…well i dunno what to say to that but your page was made well after the one i gave out. i could go to the topic then of what really happened 9/11 all the stuff they dont tell you. ther is way more to way it. if u want to get started in a new post

AsherElite,
I sense a trend in your recent posts; they all center on “it might be, but you never know”. Most of the members of this board are focused on the scientific method of thinking to the exclusion of all else, where if there is no clear evidence that something exists then it must be assumed that it does not exist.
You however, it seems wish to “free your mind from the strictures of linear thinking and grasp the essence of the void,” as the Japanese Zen master Joshu (778-897) was able to do. I applaud your tenacity, and on that note pose the traditional question:

“What is the sound of one hand clapping?”

Master Joshu, in his wisdom, provided the following answer: “Mu”
Translated, this roughly means “A question too dumb to be worth answering.”
I hope this answers your question.

We’ve heard it all before, sometimes even with proper spelling and grammar.

Perhaps you should take this to the Baseless Crap forum.

Be sure to tell us about the HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL!!! in your new post.

AsherElite, are you somehow in doubt that a passenger jet was hijacxked and flown into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001?

What happened to all of the people that were on a 757 that actually did take off that morning and was never heard from again?

Haj

What about the people who saw the plane collide with the Pentagon?

Or this guy? If AsherElite can take a look at this with his open and unjudgemental eyes and then offer a plausible alternative explanation, I’d be interested to hear it. It also has a link to the security camera footage, wich seems pretty convincing to me.

From earlier explorations on the SDMB:

Any video footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 911?

9/11 - Questioning the Pentagon Plane hit

I’m just curious where the OP thinks the 4th plane is, assuming it didn’t crash into the pentagon. Or the people who were on the plane. Being able to hide such a thing would be pretty fantastic, almost as amazing as faking the moon landing. :rolleyes:

So, how long til the OP concedes, explodes or runs away whining?

I think it’s much more likely he’ll never post in this thread again, not even attempting to refute the links and info provided here.

Ah, well.

Is this a new catchphrase? Can I get in line for the train that runs over the HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL!!!

For that matter, we’re all pretty sure that airliners did hit the twin towers, right? So, either we “disappeared” the passengers that would have been on those planes, or we had our own people hijack and kamikaze them, right?

So, if we’re going to go through that much trouble already, why fake an attack on one building?

You know the author of that website is wiggy from Question 5, about the wings of the plane. He superimposes a red outline of a 757 on the exterior of the Pentagon and asks us to explain why there is no damage from the wings. What the photograph shows is heavy damage in the middle of the damaged wing of the Pentagon (no doubt caused by the fuselage) and at ground level lighter damage exactly the width of the wings.

When someone is trying that hard to ignore what their own eyes show them, we are not in Kansas anymore.

Hell, I shouldn’t even bother, but hey, this is like shooting exceptionally dumb ducks in a barrel.

As referenced in the OP’s linked site:

Question One: Why no visible damage except for the first ring?

Because we’re looking at early, pre-collapse overhead pictures of a ground level impact to a particularly well-armored building, that had recently undergone hundreds of millions of dollars in renovations designed specifically to help withstand attacks.

Question Two: Why only ground-floor damage when the Plane stands some 45 feet high?

Because the height given includes the landing gear, which adds some fifteen feet to the overall height, and because the plane literally touched down on the ground just outside the building and skidded into the wall. It could not have possibly gotten any lower, and in fact very likely had actually partially collapsed by the point of actual impact with the wall, being even lower than otherwise possible.

Question Three: Where’s the exterior debris?

It all entered the building at over 300 mph. The explosion itself was simply the fuel igniting, and nothing like a true bomb detonation, which would have been required in order to throw debris back out the entry hole.

Additionally, an aircraft is a supremely delicate object. It is made of thin sheetmetal and lightweight alloys. It impacted a building, as already noted, that was heavily armored to withstand external explosions. The airplane was reduced to very small shreds at the moment of impact.

Question Four: Why the sand and gravel on the lawn? What are they hiding?

Nothing. The sand and gravel was put down as a base for the heavy equipment to operate from. The Pentagon lawn, without it, was just dirt and soil. The big trucks, cranes and emergency equipment would have churned it to mud, started sinking, getting stuck, and in the cases of things like ladder trucks and cranes, would have had an unstable- and thus very unsafe- platform to operate from.

Question Five: What happened to the wings?

Again, rather fragile, thin, sheetmetal structures impacting a heavily-armored building comprised mainly of heavy stone, reinforced concrete, and massive amounts of structural steel. You’ll note the “superimposed” photo does show additional damage on either side of the main hole, at ground level.

Question Six: Why didn’t the fire chief know where the plane was?

Because the plane wasn’t. It no longer existed. It was, by that time, scattered fragments that had been pulverized to unrecognizability, and surrounded in ten thousand gallons of burning jet fuel.

Question Seven: Can you find the entry hole?

Yes, it’s right behind the spray and foam, in the photos taken just before the upper floors collapsed. In the upper photo it’s just a bit left of center, and in the lower photo, it’s straight ahead of the yellow fire truck. (Which is, of course, located there so it can spray water and foam into the hole in an effort to help control the fire.)