Four questions about the Pentagon hit

[spooked911]

1) Does this impact area look more like it was made by a Boeing 757 or by a bomb? (Note: the plane is supposed to have gone into the building here)(the crosses are supposed to indicate where the left engine, fuselage and right engine, front left to right, went in)



2) What made the hole in the fence?
3) What caused the damage to the generator?
4) If it was a 757 engine that made the ground-level hole in the fence, would it have been able to smash just the top of the generator?

(note, satellite photos showed the generator was right next to the fence before the attack)

Also, Killtown has much much more on the generator:
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/generator.html

[Kevin Fenton]

1. Boeing 757

"1) Does this impact area look more like it was made by a Boeing 757 or by a bomb?"
A Boeing 757. The plane shape is a dead giveaway.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

"2) What made the hole in the fence?"
Very probably a bit of the plane.

"3) What caused the damage to the generator?"
The starboard engine and the flap canoe.

Something really big hit the left side of the generator and something
else, probably attached, scratched the top of the generator. A 757
wing is a good fit.

"4) If it was a 757 engine that made the ground-level hole in the
fence, would it have been able to smash just the top of the
generator?"
Yes.

This is about as pointless as anything can be. What is the
alternative? That a bomb was set off in the generator and then right
after (or before) somebody came and pushed the fence down? Are you
seriously suggesting that?

[spooked911]

2. It's the details that are important here and your replies are missing

the point.

1) I asked about that picture. Did that look like where a plane had impacted. Yes or no? It looks to me more like a bomb went off.

2) a bit of the plane? What "bit" might that be?

3) damage to the generator DOES NOT fit a 757 engine and the flap canoe. See Killtown's excellent analysis of this. This is a very important point that shows a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

4) You need to explain this a little better than "yes". This is not pointless at all. This damage pattern strongly indicates that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

"That a bomb was set off in the generator and then right
after (or before) somebody came and pushed the fence down? Are you
seriously suggesting that?"

Yes, except I think a missile came in through the fence, not "somebody".

[Kevin Fenton]

4. It looks exactly like a plane hit it

"1) Does this impact area look more like it was made by a Boeing 757 or by a bomb?"
You can't tell anything from the photo you posted. However, if you looked at the more detailed analysis in the link I provided, you would see that the damage to the Pentagon looks like it was made by a twin-engined jetliner.

"2) What made the hole in the fence?"
A bit of the plane. I don't know which bit, so I can't be more specific.

"3) What caused the damage to the generator?"
The starboard engine and flap canoe fits very nicely. Are you seriously suggesting it is impossible that the plane was flying level? You previously called the eyewitnesses delusional, now you think they're giving us the gospel truth.

"4) If it was a 757 engine that made the ground-level hole in the fence, would it have been able to smash just the top of the generator?"
As easily as any missile, quite probably more so.

So you think there was a bomb in the generator that went off when the missile came through the fence? I have 5 questions:
(1) If the missile came through the fence, how come it missed the generator?
(2) How did the bomb turn the generator 45 degress?
(3) What caused the scratch on the right-hand side of the generator's top? It can't have been the missile, because it was flying too low.
(4) How come the bomb didn't damage the missile?
(5) How come the generator looks like it was hit by a plane engine, not by a bomb?

[spooked911]

8. Heh! Glad to see you thinking about this a little---

1) I think you can tell quite a bit from that photo

2) I'm surprised you are so vague about what hit the fence-- there is only one possible thing on a 757 that size that could have made that hole-- the engine

3) it doesn't fit nicely at all-- see the Killtown link in the OP

4) Good questions except for the last one-- how do you know what it would like if it was hit by a 757 engine? But in fact, the generator damage raises many questions that don't comport with the OCT.

[Kevin Fenton]

11. Photo

(1) What do you think you can tell from that photo?

(2) OK, it's the engine.

(3) Which part of the Killtown link are you refering to?

(4) It knocked the top off. You didn't answer the questions. It comports just fine with the OCT.

It's (3) I'm really interested in.

btw, Is John Doe banned?

[spooked911]

17. The photo sure doesn't look like where a plane smashed through. Also--

This whole link nicely debunks the idea that the wing flap track fairing made the groove on the top of the generator:

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/generator.html



The thing is, either the plane engine hit the generator smack at ground level, like where the fence was knocked down, or it hit the generator at the top.

If it was the former, it seems to me the impact would knock off the engine and it certainly wouldn't just cave in the top of the generator.

If it was the latter, what knocked the ground level hole in the fence? Also, if it was the latter, it is impossible for the wing flap track fairing to make the groove on the top of the generator, as Killtown shows.

The point is, something is not adding up here. I don't KNOW what happened, exactly, but I do know the OCT with a 757 doesn't add up-- particularly when you add in other Pentagon evidence.

[Kevin Fenton]

20. More photo

Why, specifically, do you think the photo "sure doesn't look like where a plane smashed through"?

Here's a graphic from the killtown site:

Why do you think this graphic (or alternatively another part of the site) nicely debunks the idea? How do you think it would be easier for a missile to cause the damage?

Given that the fence was probably more than six inches high, why do you refer to the hole in the fence as being "ground level"? Which part of the killtown site specifically, in your opinion, shows that the engine can't have hit the fence and the flap canoe made the groove in the generator - the bit where he claims the plane can't have been flying level?

It all adds up perfectly.

[Make7]

21. RE: John Doe II

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=145963

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=57477&mesg_id=57710

-Make7

[sabbat hunter]

3. see this link

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

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

7. self delete

self delete

[sabbat hunter]

9. vanity site

when you stop using your own website as proof ill consider your evidence

[killtown]

14. Your true colors are showing

I didn't use my own site as proof, I used Snopes' own site and a photo from the military's site. My link is of my rebuttal of Snopes' joke of a debunk attempt for further reading.

You should apologize and correct yourself before you have no credibility anymore on DU.

[sabbat hunter]

18. geez

what true colors are you speaking of?

i didnt know trying to rebut your evidence that you posted on your own site with an independent site is a joke. just because you took the photos from snopes doesnt make your site an independent source.

in proper investigation and research you cannot site your own work.

so you have no apology coming from me. i am citing independent sources to contradict you. you have yet to show an independent source to back up your interpretation.

i come to this forum with an open mind as possible.

[killtown]

19. Answer my Snopes question then

You've avoided answering it twice now. Here's the link if you missed it.

[killtown]

12. My first banned post

Yeah!

(hey sabbat, did ya hit the alert button?)

[spooked911]

6. Sorry, but Snopes is disinfo, in this case

[sabbat hunter]

10. either snopes

is a good site for 'urban myth dispersion' or it isnt, you cant pick and choose which things you like on the site and which you dont because it doesnt fit your opinion.

[rman]

15. "...mixing truth and lies -

perhaps the blackest of all lies..."
-- Bill Moyers.

I suppose it creates 'plausible believability'.

[spooked911]

16. Of course you can pick and choose. It's called thinking.

Look-- the point is, the planners MADE IT LOOK LIKE a plane hit there. They wanted people to think that. But it was easier for them to rig up the damage with bombs, planted plane parts and a missile rather than actually slam a 757 in there. Trying to make a real flying 757 hit the pentagon was too risky for them. IMHO.

[killtown]

13. Snopes Pentagon page is a laughing stock!

Here's what Snopes says about Flight 77 and why it didn't cause as much damage as one would might expect:

"As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building." - Snopes.com

So where did Flight 77 "hit the ground first" as Snopes claims???



(Photo source: Our good ol' Military)