A 757 Made This Tiny Hole???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope. Still a plane.

You haven't explained away those missing people and the missing flight.

There's no way a single missile could have caused that big of an explosion outside, AND penetrated that far into the building. Ordinance like that is not easily observed by a casual observer. A low flying 757 is very noticable, and people who aren't giving accurate eyewitness accounts are not experts at recognizing airplanes.


I also don't think an aircraft nose would have been able to cause that much damage through a building, but two things could:

1) Aircraft engines. Very strong, very dense, very powerful. Still running at full ramming speed. In the violent detachment from the wings, they could have gone anywhere -- even through a building.

2) The explosion could force something else IN THE BUILDING to be blown towards the interior of the Pentagon. It just has to be something sturdy and/or top secret enough for the government not to want to admit it exists or was able to be used that way. Furniture, ordinance, hell, even an oxygen canister can cause that much damage.

I still believe it's an aircraft.
 
From that page:

The two photographs to the left and their enlargements on the right show the location of this hole on the inside wall of the third ring. The condition of the windows and the inscriptions on the right can be compared to the photographs above. High definition enlargements of these images may be downloaded by clicking on the links.
Click to expand...

That 'hole' is what is left after the plane has gone through 3 buildings (each ring counting as a seperate building). I'm surprised the hole was even as big as it was as I'd be sure there wasn't much left by the time it went through the first 2 rings. The whole would have been made by other debris and not a 'plane' as there would have been no plane intact at that point. I agree with Dennis in that it was probably an engine. It is probably the most durable item on a plane (if you've ever touched an airplane on the outside, you'll know what I mean...its a thin shell...makes you wonder how it even stays up).


There were also eyewitness accounts of people who saw it. Others heard a 'squealing' sound and thought they saw something fly into the building.

Not to mention the numerous video accounts of what occured in New York. I still have a copy of the documentary made about the firefighters. They are checking for a gas leak in a storm sewer when the plane flies right overhead and crashes into the WTC.

To give you an idea of a true plane crashing outside of a building...lets look at some pictures. Here are some photos of a Fed-Ex plane that crashed:

Photo 1
The above photo shows what happens when a plane hits the ground. You'll notice no huge crater. People have the misconception that a plane crash is like a nuclear explosion and will leave a 100 foot deep hole. That doesn't happen. Keep in mind that the above plane did not hit the ground head on like at the pentagon. I post the photo to give more perspective on a plane crash and the damage that occurs afterward.

Now, lets look at some more Pentagon photos...Its convenient to show a small hole in the third ring and say 'It was certainly a missle'. The thing, however, is people seem to leave out the rest of the damage.

Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 4
Photo 5
Photo 6
Photo 7
 
Last edited:
Dang, how about that, huh?
;)
 
Glad to be able to entertain you.
But those who take this seriously are legion
:P
 
Beowulf, may I suggest a new avatar? :mrgreen:


untitled.bmp



(No offense, buddy—just some harmless bagging). :lol:
 
Lol, Levonian, any suggestions?
Sticks and stones etcetera, dude!

But seriously, how can anyone look at the total evidence and repeat that tired old refrain that it was a magical 757?
I distinctly get the impression those people do not even BOTHER to look at the evidence.
I have some VERY bright friends, and they invariably lean towards a healthy scepticism of the official version, while the hicks angrily insist on "being patriotic" and believing everything the government tells them.
No offense.
 
Don't forget that there was a massive military exercise going on that day, coincidentally enough. Don't forget that the planes disappeared from the radars for a time before reappearing. I imagine that when the transponders were shut off and they disappeared, drones took their places. Where did the original planes and passengers go? Beats me at this point, but it wouldn't be impossible to dispose of them somehow.
Trust me, time will tell. They cannot hide the truth forever.
 
Beowulf said:
Rumsfeld said it was a missile.
Wanna see a security cam video of it? here it is:
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html
Click to expand...

Beowulf. I'm glad that you posted that video...I was looking for the exact same one. Look at it again and look at the first frame:

pent.gif



No, I don't know how many floors are in the pentagon. Looking at the windows, there are 4 rows of windows (4 floors)...and a top level that is big enough to be an additional floor with no windows. Look at the photo above taken from your video. Whatever 'object' that is inbound is at least 2 stories high and moving in at ground level (as eye witnesses said the plane was). Additionally, you cannot see the entire object so it was long enough to not fill the entire frame...The object would have been large (perhaps the size of a commercial aircraft?)

Now, lets look at frames 2, 3 and 4:

pent2.gif


pent3.gif


pent4.gif


In Frames 3 and 4, you will see some debri flying in the air. Look at the difference between where the debris is in each image. Additionally, look at the size of the fireball, Now, go back to the to Frame 1 (the image prior to impact) and then frame 2. This will give you a reference as to the speed of the object coming in. The 'object' coming in would have to been travelling at a pretty good clip. The video is a broken image that moves in frames. Frame 1 shows the object well off to the right. by Frame 2, it has already impacted and exploded. Compare the difference between those 2 frames and the exploding debris. All of this gives you a time reference as to how fast the object was moving. So, we have an object that is moving the speed of a commercial airliner...and is the size of a commercial airliner.

Moving on ;)

Lets look at a common 'tomahawk' missle. I mention the 'tomahawk' missle because this is a larger missle that is so large it is fired from ships or submarines and is not mounted to a plane. For the missile theory to have any plausibility, it would have to be a missile that is large enough to do that much damage, correct? For that reason, I chose the tomahawk.

Now, two photos of the tomahawk in action:
tom1.jpg


tom2.jpg


Ok, so now we have a super missle. The building it is hitting is nowhere near the size of the pentagon...not even close. It is hitting a structure that is 2 stories in height (less than 1 half the height of the pentagon).
Now, look at the image after the impact. That impact is nothing compared to what occured at the pentagon. Look back up at Frames 3 and 4 at the Pentagon. In frame 3 alone, the ensuing explosion is almost double the height of the building itself...and this is right after impact. In Frame 4, the explosion is so big that it is off of the camera. Compare that to the strike of the large tomahawk missle....its comparing a pea shooter to a cannon.

Additionally, please note the lack of black smoke in the tomahawk strike. When jet fuel burns, it burns extremely hot and extremely black.

Now, lets look at a commercial aircraft that has missed the runway and crashes. Please note that level the plane is flying at...It is coming in even with the ground (as the plane at the pentagon was). While you cannot see the impact itself because of the trees, please note the size of the following explosion, and the amount of black smoke. Compare that to the explosion of what took place at the pentagon:

The video is here


Moving on again ;)

The term 'missile' doesn't necessarily mean something fired from an aircraft or a ship or a sub. In the dictionary,
An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.
Click to expand...

Note 'object' that is 'projected at a target'. A plane that is used to crash into a building is a missile, and it is common for people of the military (including Rumsfeld). In fact, many of the officers I work with who have military training even refer to bullets as missiles. I found it odd the first time I was at the firing range with one and he talked of where my 'missiles' struck the target. We also have another weapon called a less lethal. Basically its a big rubber rod that will knock you on your ass but won't kill you (except for maybe a head or chest shot within a few feet). The projectile that it fires is called a missile. Anything that is used to strike a target, whether its a bullet or a plane, can be referred to as a missile.
 
He said "missile" because it was a missile.
Look at the hole. It is consistent with a missile strike, not a huge 757.
If it was an airliner he would have said airliner.
If it was an airliner, it would would have left a HELL of a lot of debris, wing parts, fuselage parts, etc.
And a lot bigger hole.
Not a hole two and a half yards across.
Two and a half yards is slightly under eight feet.
Look how big the 757 is.

Look how small the hole is.
Look at the debris consistent with bits of the building being blown out by a missile.
Look at the video.
That is sure as HELL not a 757.
It was a missile like Rumsfeld said.
Nice try though.
 
Beowulf said:
He said "missile" because it was a missile.
Look at the hole. It is consistent with a missile strike, not a huge 757.
If it was an airliner he would have said airliner.
If it was an airliner, it would would have left a HELL of a lot of debris, wing parts, fuselage parts, etc.
And a lot bigger hole.
Not a hole two and a half yards across.
Two and a half yards is slightly under eight feet.
Look how big the 757 is.

Look how small the hole is.
Look at the debris consistent with bits of the building being blown out by a missile.
Look at the video.
That is sure as HELL not a 757.
It was a missile like Rumsfeld said.
Nice try though.
Click to expand...

Uh...it wasn't a nice try. Lets break it down:

You say:
If it was an airliner he would have said airliner.
Click to expand...
Lets look at the entire quote from Rumsfeld:

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
Click to expand...

He didn't say 'airliner' but he said American Airlines flight filled with our citizens...what is the difference?

You say:
If it was an airliner, it would would have left a HELL of a lot of debris, wing parts, fuselage parts, etc.
And a lot bigger hole.
Not a hole two and a half yards across.
Two and a half yards is slightly under eight feet.
Look how big the 757 is.
Click to expand...

The 'hole' you mention was in the THIRD ring of the building...not the site of impact...The THIRD ring....

As for debris, what do you expect to be intact after that? Planes that crash into the ocean..just the ocean, the debris is not large at all...Rarely do they find the large pieces of the plane intact.

What exactly is you expect to find left over when a plane hits a building at hundreds of miles per hour and explodes in a fireball that burns for days? How much of the fuselodge would you expect to be intact.

You also have to consider everything else that took place that day. Why weren't missiles used to attack the other buildings?
 
Well, Taylor, I see you are studiously avoiding any mention of that security cam video. Can you explain that? Don't tell me you think that is a 757.
Rather recently I submitted a link showing the OUTSIDE of the Pentagon, and it was pretty obvious that there was hardly any damage to the Pentagon wall. It was still standing intact, and a CNN reporter was attesting that he could not find more than small pieces of debris on the lawn. The video was not closed captioned, so it was difficult to knw what he was saying. Perhaps you could listen for me and tell me what he really says, i could be wrong.
http://www.total911.info/2005/02/video-cnn-reported-no-plane-hit.html

And as for the question of why no other missiles were involved...who says there aren't? Look at the flash in the following link.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/index.htm

We could argue over this till we're blue in the face, and I will take a sabbath from this subject for a little while. But I am most assuredly not letting it go. I notice more people are discussing this 911 matter and not being so timid in asking questions.
The movement for the truth will keep going to its inevitable conclusion.
 
deaflibrarian said:
:squint: Beware! The FBI is lurking around on this web site identifying pro-and anti-conspiracy supporters per 9/11 theories.
Click to expand...
:rofl:
 
Don’t laugh, Reba—I think it’s really true. :mrgreen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top