Wow. Your right, They didn't find those items!

Oh. Wait.. They DID.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Yes. Its a lost post on that thread, but pictures clearly show the rim, the strut, and pieces of the engines. They were there, and recovered.

They are also parts that are very well known to be used in a 757.

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

Apparently quite a few in the conspiracy community certainly believe that. See: Their tortured explanation for Rumsfeld's announcement of that "missing" $2.3 trillion. Rummy's really a whistleblower!

Just to save us some time, while waiting for David C to post again, I'll go ahead and change them from "missing" to "planted" now...

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

I think the thread should be locked. David C has no interest what-so-ever in the events, and evidence of 9/11. He's already made up his mind on what happened. Evidence in his favour, or evidence he can 'fix' to fit his ideas are right, and correct. Evidence he cannot twist, or flat-out prooves him wrong, is all planted by liars and con-artists. A person like that will never be convinced that their own reality is wrong, or misplaced.



And he refuses to show any proofs for his ideas beyond 'LOOK AT THE PICTURE! IT IS SO OBVIOUS THAT THE WHITE SMUDGE IS A FIGHTER JET!'

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

Yeah, lock the thread unless David C can address the challenges to his argument with anything besides a "It's Clear" / "No, it's blurry" / "But it's Clear!" roundabout.

A: David C, the photo isn't clear enough to identify what hit the pentagon. It is so blurred and pixelated its not funny. If you're looking at the full picture, I can only see a little white elongated blob. If you zoom in, you get even less detail than that because pixels start making your eyes see right angles.

B: David C, there were engine parts and landing gear parts consistant with commercial airliners found at the scene and documented with photos.

C: One more thing, your theory of a "flyover" and simultaneous "missile strike by a fighter jet" is flawed from start to finish for some obvious reasons:

1. A missile would leave a smoke trail that would linger afterwards.
2. No 757 can fly under radar and not be seen by thousands in broad daylight.
3. You can't land a 757 from 80 ft up, you have to get into a landing pattern to do it.
4. If they were going to kill the passengers anyway, why bother landing the plane in a public place? They could have just smashed it into the pentagon and there'd be no need for a missile, a landing, or execution of men, women, and children by cold-blooded American secret agents who sleep well at night after putting a bullet in little Suzy's brain.
5. A fighter plane can't knock down light posts with its wings and still fly, not to mention be ignored by the people on the major highway that use the light posts.

You're not taking this talk seriously unless you address A, B, and C.

__________________
My son is my universe.

Well david, it's clear to me that either you have your monitor set really, really dark or you're just too set upon finding some dark conspiracy that you can't even think that you might be wrong one one point. As I stated, the blink needs to be viewed side by side with anotated still and the image of the AA 757 approximately the same size as the other two images. Then you can start to pick out details the corrispond with a simlar 757.The problem is the last time I posted like that, a moderator turned the whole thing into mostly useless linkfest so i saved them the trouble this time.

Ofcourse the still image is useless by itself. It shows almost nothing without the blink. But the blink obviously shows that something is there. There is obviously something in the second frame but it seems that you can't bring yourself to admit it. I'm not saying that you should see a AA 757 but surely you can see something. But no, it's all a 'joke' and the blurry thing that looks like a cloud of smoke is a fighter. That, to me is the joke. If this wasn't such a serious matter, I'd laugh at your stubborness.

Now I, as an aircraft mechanic for 20 years and working 757s for the last eight or so, I still can't say for certain that that something is a 757. However, given all the other evidence, evidence that you simply dismiss out of hand on the basis of a few unimformed websites, I say it is most certaintly the AA 757. I don't expect you to agree, but you should be willing to agree that there is something there. Can you at least do that?

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

On one hand, David C is making me sick with his allegations. Yet on the other hand, looking at that blink video, it's so pixelated and blurry that if one just HAS to spot an object, to me it looks like the Pentagon was attacked by a tube of toothpaste.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

It does suck but it's all we have and there is definately something in front of the toothpaste.

here's the original sized one which actually seems to be a bit easier to see the something.

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

Not to side with David C at all but just so you know an F-14 could probably survive hitting street lamps as long as it didn't ingest anything down an intake. Lamp posts are made to break away so as not to kill motorists who smash into them. I know this because I've seen with my own eyes a Tomcat that lost its way during a war game in Arizona, ended up in Mexico, and clipped a telephone pole while following a highway north.

The bird came home with the cross trees and two tranformers wedged in the leading edge of the starboard side horizontal stabilizer. The aircrew weren't even aware they had hit it. Air traffic control was the first to see it as they came in to land at Miramar. Asked the aircrew how their flight was. They got in all kinds of trouble. They were doing 400 knots 40 feet above the hard deck. Now thats a well built aircraft. (The flight recorder ratted them out, that and the serial number tag on the crosstree)

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

It must be remembered that the light posts hit by A77 where a little different to most. Within a certain distance of airports they are designed to collapse with very little effort. The idea being the post busts before serious wing damage can occure

But this fighter did not hit one, he hit multiple light posts...
And that while making "very skilled" manouvers to hit them all as his wingsspan was not wide enough...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Well, if it was a fighter, especially an F-16, then the question of penetration becomes very serious. Fighters generally max out well, well below the weight of a fueled up 757, like around 30-55000 pounds. The engines are much smaller and lighter than those on the 757.
A missile launched before impact? What kind? Was it a missile that penetrated into the middle ring? Without explosives?
All sorts of questions come to mind that amplify all the arguments being made against the 757 damage scenario.
Also, can you imagine living in New York City, being an avid CT, and having a fire start in your apartment? Who ya gonna call? In your mind, NYFD are all evil, lying murderers, they show up and say "hey buddy, we're here to help...let us in".
"No!" you scream, "I'll call the cops if you come any closer!!"
...and, with a wry smile, the responding fire Captain says, with a wink, "that's ok, you do that...they're our friends, they'll help you too...". (Fade to black with forboding, ominous background music.)
Being a CT must be a frightening life indeed. (and I really need to quit reading this forum before going to bed!!)
Dave
Oh, BTW, more snow fell the other day, more knocked down light poles from low speed sliding car impacts...

You guys really discredit yourselves when you say this picture is too blurry to make out. It's quite clear and whatever it is, it's not the front of a 757.

No, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it is the smoke trail from one of the engines.

The picture posted by jt-3d at the bottom of page 15 is a joke. The arrows marked "Nose" and "Fuselage" are pointed at empty space.

The space is not empty; the plane is too blurred to make out.

David C, please download and watch the following short animation that quite clearly illustrates that the video, the damage to the Pentagon and its surroundings, and the wreckage are consistent with an impact from a 757.

http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

I have had two semesters of SolidWorks training and regularly use the program in one of my jobs; I have downloaded the models from the animation and verified that they are all correctly scaled.

How do we know that those aren't the bodies of people who were in the building when it was hit? The official version is that the DNA matched. How can this be varified?

It can be verified by talking to the coroner's office employees who performed the tests. Or do you believe they've been intimidated into lying by the Men in Black? Further, as sts60 has pointed out, there are a great many first-hand accounts of rescuers' finding passengers' bodies still strapped into their seats, and crewmembers' bodies wearing AA uniforms.

Also--is it true that the FBI confiscated the video?

As JayUtah has pointed out here, this is an affirmed consequent. Law enforcement officials always attempt to secure potential evidence in criminal investigations--why should this case be any different?

Why wouldn't they show what it recorded if it showed a 757? What is the reason for not showing it for five years?

Also covered in the above-linked thread. Because it was evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation.

If this is the original which was released by the government, why would they make the nose look too pointed to be that of a 757?

Again, that is not the nose; it is dense white smoke trailing from one of the engines.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

His buddies the space aliens will put the fires out! D'uh.

I think it's pretty clear. They didn't want to destroy the Pentagon; they still needed it to coordinate their war efforts. If only the part that was being renovated was destroyed, they didn't lose anything and the still had the scenerio of the government being attacked.
It all fits. Everything they lost was benificial to the ones who allegedly planned and carried out the conspiracy.

Start watching at the 1 hr. 30 sec. mark of this video. It explains why they allegedly destroyed building 7.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=911+mysteries
If the link doesn't work, put these two pieces together.

htt
p://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

If it was the command center for the attacks, all of the evidence was destroyed. There was also a lot of evidence of corporate fraud stored there. That all disappeared.
At the 1 hr. 7 min. mark of the same video they explain that the twin towers were losing a lot of money. Their destruction solved the problem.

Please comment on what I said about the sun being reflected off of the top of and the shady area under the object in the top right picture.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...dodvideos.html

htt
p://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html

I still don't see how you people can say it's too blurry to make out with a straight face. It's so clear that the sunny and shady areas on it are visible. They are consistent with the position of the sun judging from the shadow of the Pentagon.
That is the nose of an aircraft and that aircraft is not a 757.

I wish I had two hours a day to devote to this thread. There are about ten of you and only one of me. I know I haven't addressed everything you've put fourth but this is all I had time for today. I think the photo of the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon renders everything else moot anyway.

You know, why bother quoting questions if you aren't going to actually bother answering them?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

And we still don't see how you can say it's totally clear and obvious what it is exactly with a straight face.

You know, we aren't even claiming to know what it is. Heck for all we know it could be an F111 or other military plane. It is YOU who is so sure you can see exactly what it is, so it is YOU who must supply corroborating evidence that supports what you see.

If ALL the other evidence supports a 757, yet to you the image on the video is obviously NOT a 757, then a good investigator would start questioning his interpretation of the video or coming up with VALID corroborating evidence to support other scenarios, NOT stubbornly and blindly stand by his preconceived opinion like a 4 year old child.

So, David, what is it exactly that hit the Pentagon, since you can see it so clearly? F-16? F-111? F-4? F-14? Cruise missile?
How did this fighterplane penetrate so far into the building, if a much larger 757 couldn't? If it fired a missile, when was it fired? Not after, or even at, the frame before impact...the missiles are ejected, ignited, and accellerate away from the launch aircraft and this takes a some seconds.
If a 757 couldn't do the damage seen, a much smaller fighter should be ludicrous by your own logic.

So is that a "yes" or a "no"? Also you forgot to quote the part where I said that none of these would require another link.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

David C,
You still dismiss all the evidence for a 757 with "lies and planted evidence". Well, I dismiss the video you say is proof. Prove to me it was not changed or manipulated by those who disagree with the 757-version of the story. Prove to me it was not created in a computer or filmed on a sound stage. Prove to me that the people who say they saw a fighter jet are not lying.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

That's ok. He also forgot to answer any of your questions. At least he's consistent.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

He also failed to address the fact that peices from a 757 were found INSIDE the pentagon, after the fires were put out. Very large, and heavy peices (The front strut, parts of the engines, and wheels) that would have been too difficult for someone to just nonchalantly 'drop in'.

David C is in his own world. One where the Government is out to kill us all, and he's the only one to uncover it all.

__________________
Don't believe everything you think.

As I said before--it's so clear that the shade area can be seen under the object in the pitcure. The shade area is consistent with the position of the sun judging from the shadow of the Pentagon.
Please comment on this.

Ok. You're wrong.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

I wish you had one hour a day to just READ. Not "Official" papers from the eeevil goverment, not more junk from conspiracy websites, just basic "stuff" that would make you more educated about how the world works. Read up on photography. Read about the technology of the color video camera. Read up on military organization. Use Google Earth to wander around various parts of the globe, especially built-up places (like the area around the Pentagon!) Read basic science, read history, just, plain, READ.

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Oh, come on. Dave's not even wrong. He bypassed wrong and went straight to ludicrous. Sorry Dave, but your assertions don't hack it. You want us to dismiss all of the physical evidence in favor of a misinterpreted smudgy video? Call me back when you have a bridge for sale. That would be more believable. If this sounds dismissive, you're right. You've said nothing that would make me, or anyone else here, take you seriously.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

I hate quoting myself, but David C has yet to address these points.
Though I may be wrong on point 5 (after reading Big Don's post). I was imagning the difference between a car hitting a break-away pole at 50 mph and a plane hitting one at 200 mph.

__________________
My son is my universe.

It ain't clear. It's a handful of pixels that could be a tube of toothpaste for all we know.

All here who think the image is clear enough to rule out the presence of a 757, please say "aye."

__________________
My son is my universe.

And don't forget that the Government is all-powerful, too. Able to teleport in massive chunks of 757 parts and make planes and missiles invisible in clear skies.

__________________
My son is my universe.

I assume everyone has read these:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=6

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

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever....Pentagon.html