Can I convince PF's resident no-planers that AAL77 hit the Pentagon - #3

Discussion in '9/11' started by cjnewson88, May 27, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know. How is that relevant? There is abundant evidence that a commercial plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that that plane was Flight 77. You have no other explanation that even remotely makes sense.

    I don't know. How is that relevant? Maybe they're not looking for airplane parts, but something else. It's a very large rescue/recovery operation, trying to find human remains, as well as evidence, some of which will be very small.

    It doesn't change the fact that there is abundant evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and that you have no plausible alternative explanation.

    Nonsense. And especially not when the alternative explanation is just plain ridiculous.
     
  2. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm really not even promoting an alternate explanation, the determination of what really happened is for a later time,
    what I am on about is the fact that the pattern of damage, wreckage and the amount of ( or lack thereof ) wreckage
    on the Pentagon lawn is very much NOT what should be expected if a large commercial airliner had impacted that wall
    as was alleged, the angle was aprox 40 deg off perpendicular and expecting that the aircraft was just going SOOO fast
    so as to cause 99% of the aircraft to enter the building and disappear inside, NO, not happening, the whole crash bit
    is obviously wrong!
     
  3. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "There is abundant evidence that a commercial plane crashed into the Pentagon"

    Given the lack of accounting for physical evidence, there is a huge gap in the alleged evidence supporting the "FLT77" story.
     
  4. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's not how it works.

    ALL the evidence points to Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

    You point at some side details and act as if that makes all the other evidence go away, all without providing an explanation that better fits the evidence.

    That's not persuasive in the least.

    For instance, Truthers like to compare the amount of wreckage from Flight 77 with the wreckage from other plane crashes, and suggest there's something mysterious about the relative lack of wreckage.

    But there's nothing mysterious about that at all. Those other planes did not slam into a building at 600 mph, disintegrate, be engulfed in a huge jet-fuel-driven fireball, then sit in a massive fire for hours. Much of the plane either vaporized or burned up.

    Similarly, not knowing what became of the wreckage of Flight 77 is an interesting side note, but it is not actually evidence of anything. Especially because there is already tons of evidence showing that a 757 hit the Pentagon, including eyewitnesses who saw it happen, and abundant airplane debris at the crash site. That debris existed, and was collected. That is simply a fact. Not knowing what happened to it after that is a detail. It's fun to speculate, but don't pretend it necessarily means anything. And it doesn't cancel out all the other irrefutable evidence of the crash.
     
  5. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Much of the plane either vaporized or burned up." OK, where are the pictures of HUGE clouds of white smoke, Aluminum oxide is WHITE.
    also there would have to be tons of white powder aluminum oxide on the ground, where was that observed? You do not make physical bits
    simply disappear and call it "vaporized" without a VERY good explanation as to how this may have been accomplished.

    Also note that in the case of murder prosecutions, lacking the murder weapon ( where is the gun? )
    really cripples a case because producing the weapon is a critical bit of evidence.
     
  6. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, there's not. As I've already show.

    Multiple people saw the plane hit the building. Indeed, the crew of a C-130 that had just taken off from Reagan Airport was vectored toward the plane as it approached Washington. They identified it as a 757 and attempted to follow it. They watched it hit the Pentagon.

    There was all sorts of debris at the crash site, all of it consistent with a 757.

    They recovered Flight 77's flight-data recorders.

    They recovered the remains of people known to have been on Flight 77.

    We have the radar track of Flight 77 from the time it took off until it turned off its transponder. By that time it had deviated from its flight plan and turned back toward D.C., and was over West Virginia. The timeline and flight track is consistent with being the plane that hit the Pentagon.

    To sum up:
    -- Flight 77 was hijacked and turned around to head toward Washington, at a time and speed consistent with hitting the Pentagon when it did
    -- Multiple witnesses watched a 757 hit the Pentagon. This includes qualified aviators who identified the plane as a 757.
    -- The wreckage recovered from the scene was from a 757
    -- The flight recorders and human remains recovered from the scene were from Flight 77

    Everything points to the conclusion that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

    The only possible alternative explanations are so loopy as to be laughable.

    So unless you have an alternative explanation that isn't ridiculous on its face, there is no rational basis for questioning the conclusion that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There is simply too much evidence pointing to that conclusion -- evidence that cannot be explained away.
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It impact other things before the wall; thus, the wreckage on the lawn.
     
  8. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK, how much of the mass of an airliner was accounted for by the stuff on the Pentagon lawn?
    was it ever weighed, or by any means quantified? or for that matter verified as to having been from the alleged hijacked airliner?
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Start watching this video at the 44:20 time mark.

    Painful Deceptions. 911 analysis by Eric Hufschmid
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=701IvmLCAs0


    The second explanation sounds plausible to me. Why do you think it's implausible?

    There is proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. It's been listed. Start checking it out.
     
  10. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no proof, only conjecture. You don't even appear to understand what constitutes plausibility.
     
  11. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "there is no rational basis for questioning the conclusion that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. "

    I'm sorry ...... Just keep watching TV and don't worry about a thing, your Government has everything under control.......
     
  12. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's an aluminum truck going up in flames:
    http://www.gtcarzone.com/2016-f-series-ford-super-duty-bursts-into-flames-during-test/

    See how the smoke is black? Why is that? Because aluminum isn't the only thing burning.

    In the case of Flight 77, you had everything inside the plane, plus an entire BUILDING, on fire. Black smoke dominated.

    Plus when things disintegrate, there is no smoke.

    Plus, on what do you base your claim that there should be "huge clouds of white smoke"? Does vaporizing aluminum produce billowing clouds of white smoke? When I've seen aluminum being vaporized, it's a thin, wispy cloud. Way less smoke than you get from, say, burning wood. The kind of smoke that would get lost in the larger black smoke cloud.

    This argument makes no sense in this context.
     
  13. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Plus when things disintegrate, there is no smoke."

    You do not simply have physical materials disappear, the stuff must go someplace, and the fact that the
    airliner wreckage wasn't weighed or otherwise measured to know how much of the aircraft was accounted for,
    speaks volumes. The key element here is the physical evidence, eye witnesses can be very unreliable, and
    ALL of the other bits are all too easy to fake, but physical evidence is a key element that would confirm the story
    or not ... depending on the very nature of said evidence.
     
  14. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Flt 77 would have landed at an airport but for hitting the Pentagon. Missiles create an explosion. video shows Jet Fuel burning as well as a fuel fire plume

    Eyewitness saw the airplane crash

    I am surprised the shearing of the light standards that proves there was no missile of any sort failed to help you understand.

    Then there is video of airframe parts of that airplane.
     
  15. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Then there is video of airframe parts of that airplane"

    Pointer to INFORMATION please ....

    Also "Flt 77 would have landed at an airport but for hitting the Pentagon. "
    please do check the map of the area and the alleged flight path of "FLT77"
    and see that the alleged "FLT77" could not possibly have landed at the nearby airport.
    and broken light poles can be faked, that is broken by some other means without an airliner being involved at all.
    Also note that the aprox 300 lb light pole should have done huge damage to a wing, note what happens when a 3 lb bird strikes a wing.
    The whole story is totally fraudulent!
     
  16. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have not yet explained away the weight of evidence pointing to Flight 77.

    You have not yet provided a plausible alternative explanation.

    Your hand-waving -- much of which just repeats already debunked Truther nonsense -- doesn't change that.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There isn't any. All the parts found were plantable. They had total control over the whole area so it would have been easy for them to prepare it.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632&st=0&start=0


    Some witnesses say they saw a 757 but others say they saw a smaller plane.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

    This is consistent with there having been a mixture of real witnesses and planted bogus witnesses who were part of the plan.


    You seem to be trying to sway those viewers who haven't done any research by misrepresenting what's happening. The truth is that there's a mountain of proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon and no proof that a 757 did hit the Pentagon.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pentagon+missile+april+gallop
     
  18. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So explain why they would hit the Pentagon with one plane, but go to great lengths to make it look like it was hit by another plane. Why not just hit it with the first plane?

    Also explain how they managed to get the flight recorders and human remains from Flight 77 to the crash site and "planted" so quickly and convincingly.
     
  19. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Government issued a crash report and the forensics.
    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

    The Flight recorders of 77 were recovered.

    I suppose the doubters can explain how 77's flight recorders managed to get to the pentagon
     
  20. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Then there is video of airframe parts of that airplane"

    Pointer to INFORMATION please ....

    Also "Flt 77 would have landed at an airport but for hitting the Pentagon. "
    please do check the map of the area and the alleged flight path of "FLT77"
    and see that the alleged "FLT77" could not possibly have landed at the nearby airport.
    and broken light poles can be faked, that is broken by some other means without an airliner being involved at all.
    Also note that the aprox 300 lb light pole should have done huge damage to a wing, note what happens when a 3 lb bird strikes a wing.
    The whole story is totally fraudulent!

    Just to let you know, NO it hasn't been debunked, that is the fact that the 300 lb light poles would have caused damage to the wings,
    and also the bit about the alleged airliner having a flight path to take it to the nearby airport, in addition to failure to support a claim
    that is where is that video of air-frame parts from FLT77?

    - - - Updated - - -

    You do not have to explain HOW a trick was done, to KNOW that it was a trick.

    BTW: in exactly what one of those 8 documents listed in that URL you gave, does it specify that
    any aircraft remains were inventoried?
     
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This question doesn't make the proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon go away. You don't seem to be mentally equipped to deal with this issue.

    There are several plausible scenarios. We just don't know which one is the right one but our not knowing that doesn't make the proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon go away.


    Are you saying it was impossible to plant bogus black boxes and human remains inside the Pentagon? It would have been easy to do it inside as it was all out-of sight. Bogus black boxes could have been easily planted. Ditto with burned human body parts.


    It's plausible that the government lied. You're not considering the scenario put forth at the 44:20 time mark of this video that I've already pointed out.

    Painful Deceptions. 911 analysis by Eric Hufschmid
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=701IvmLCAs0


    Please watch it and get back to me.
     
  22. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trying to salvage the topic

    Wings were damaged first by light poles then by building

    I saw video or photos of aircraft parts in the report of the OP

    The National Transportation Safety Board does these investigations and the reports are on the WWW

    Since you allege this is a fraud, why didn't the investigators call this a fraud?
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The NTSB did not do a typical investigation but instead turned over their findings to the FBI since they were lead. It is not like they needed to figure out why they crashed.
     
  24. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the pictures of the crash scene there were no wings.

    Please read this and then answer in a way that shows you've read it.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632&st=0&start=0


    Evidently they were in on it.


    Please start watching this video at the 1:55:25 time mark.

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
     
  25. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Report by police from inside the building there during crash
    http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon-email_20020316.html


     

Share This Page