The Pentagon, where is the wreckage of the alleged airliner?

[Breker]

Perhaps someone can tell us what the excuse is for lack of airline wreckage that should have been seen at the Pentagon.
Certainly such an immense airplane would not just vaporize upon impact.
B.

[Dresden]

Jamie McIntyre reporting from the Pentagon didn't see any evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon:

[Moderator]

Hekmatyar:
Please address the specific question in the OP rather just posting a bunch of links which accept 'the airliner hit the Pentagon' claim.
See guidelines.
Thanks, M1

[Depth Charge]

Disclaimer: I believe the plane hit the Pentagon, under remote guidance and there was nothing the pilots could do, like the other three planes. I think 'no plane-ism' is poisoning of the well.

Perhaps someone can tell us what the excuse is for lack of airline wreckage that should have been seen at the Pentagon.

There is no excuse. Photographs have been produced.

Certainly such an immense airplane would not just vaporize upon impact.
B.

It happened before our eyes, twice:



Here is the plane from one of the later surveillance gifs (not the shorter infamous one) with barrel distortion corrected:





This is the same plane:



It makes no sense to take the passengers away, in the plane, and kill them somewhere else, or some other nonsense.

[Hannover]

Depth Charge says:

I believe the plane hit the Pentagon, under remote guidance and there was nothing the pilots could do, like the other three planes. I think 'no plane-ism' is poisoning of the well.

Those pictures are 'wreckage' of what? From what? Why aren't they shown in situ? Why didn't the reporter in the video above see the wreckage of an airliner?

Obviously someone involved just took some pictures of wrecked parts with no association to the alleged airliner, nor with the Pentagon and merely said they are from the alleged airliner. Try that in a real court of law.

Your airliner had huge wings, big wide & long fuselage, a massive tail with more wings. And this what we're supposed to believe was it?

And then, where are the alleged human remains that would have been visible? Gruesome as it would have been.

Here's proof that a car is what slammed into the Pentagon. At least we see an actual car.


I sure don't see a huge airliner like this in those parking lot images.

Does anyone seriously think they do?

Remember, the Pentagon was / is surrounded by video cameras and there were 85 video tapes seized by the FBI alone, and this what we get to see.

You also said:

It makes no sense to take the passengers away, in the plane, and kill them somewhere else, or some other nonsense.

Why doesn't it? .... If that is what really happened.
However, doing such a thing would have meant little to those who also killed thousands at the WTC.

Yes, there are tons of questions. That's why we need a truly open, transparent, verifiable, and witnessed investigation.

- Hannover

[Callahan]

This is a very important topic that should have been more thoroughly investigated with transparency being retained throughout all investigations considering the extent of public interest in this topic. The lack of transparency and the lack of any proper investigation is the reason so many people disagree on what happened at the Pentagon and on 9/11 as a whole. Experts in photo analysis and other professional fields have expressed serious doubt that a plane could have hit the Pentagon, and mostly for good reason. Things just haven't added up and the crash site does look suspicious.

That said, I did a lot of reading on the matter and I have to side with Depth Charge on this one. This was the most challenging aspect of 9/11 for me to reconsider because, at face value, it really does appear like the crash site is barren and incapable of containing all parts of a commercial aircraft, and that the impact area or "hole" is too small. I will see if I can find some of the documented discussions which changed my mind.

I absolutely believe the flight path is of great concern and that remote hijacking technology is the most likely explanation. I do not think this was a missile. More to come.

[Hannover]

Callahan said:

I have to side with Depth Charge on this one ....
[yet you said] it really does appear like the crash site is barren and incapable of containing all parts of a commercial aircraft, and that the impact area or "hole" is too small

Then why do you accept DC's claim that the airliner was remotely controlled into the Pentagon when we see no proof that an airliner hit the Pentagon?

- Hannover

[Moderator]

Callahan:
Do not just post a bunch of links, which I deleted, and then not tell us why you find them compelling.
See the guidelines.
AND, do note the topic of this thread.

You so badly wanted a 9/11 Forum, now get to work.
M1

[Depth Charge]

Those pictures are 'wreckage' of what? From what?

Flight 77. This is what I'm offering. The plane existed; where is it? Do you have photos of the real wreckage?

Obviously someone involved just took some pictures of wrecked parts

It's not 'obvious' at all. In fact, if they were going to do this, why not go all in? They were in possession of the actual plane. You are contending that they took the plane somewhere else, and presumably destroyed it. Plenty of time to take verifiable images of the actual plane among some rubble, serial numbers, livery...

Your airliner had huge wings, big wide & long fuselage, a massive tail with more wings. And this what we're supposed to believe was it?

I have shown an image above of a huge, blue object approaching the building.

And then, where are the alleged human remains that would have been visible? Gruesome as it would have been.

Exactly how much are you asking for? How much are you expecting from incineration and explosion? And if there are few pictures? This means a 'no plane' hoax? Where are the bodies from the manifest? Because what you're suggesting is even more preposterous with even less proof.

I sure don't see a huge airliner like this in those parking lot images.

I posted it above.

Remember, the Pentagon was / is surrounded by video cameras and there were 85 video tapes seized by the FBI alone, and this what we get to see

Yes, an anomaly. But to suggest that it hides a cruise missile attack, while the real plane was dumped in the Atlantic (as some have suggested, i.e. Loose Change's directors) really doesn't cut it.

Why doesn't it? .... If that is what really happened.

It's inefficient for a start. You're introducing unnecessary moving parts. We know they have no compunction in the mass murder of all passengers. We know they have the technology to take control of the plane and direct it with precision accuracy, to the limits of the airframe at speed. We know they had the balls to do it in New York. It makes no sense to shake things up at the Pentagon.

Big claims require big evidence, otherwise we exposes ourselves to ridicule. I have long suspected the 'no plane' theory is poisoning of the well. Mike Rivero has even gone as far to say that the hidden CCTV footage shows Flight 77 from multiple angles, and will be released at a time that 9/11 revisionism reaches a boiling point, as if to say "See, the truthers were mad all along, let's put this to bed once and for all".

That said, I believe the Shankesville plane was shot down, because the remote link failed. The only theory I'd even begin to entertain is that something similar happened with Flight 77, but I still see the plane in the above .gif, and there are plenty of witnesses who caught it coming in. Unless they are all liars?

[Pia Kahn]

The issue is highly controversial in the truther community and I haven't made up my mind. It is indeed peculiar that most of the vidoes of the impact that must exist are being withheld from the public eye.

The link below argues that the majority of the damaged airplane is within the pentagon and not on the lawn in front of the pentagon. It is claimed that the landing gear and other parts of the airplane have been identified. I withhold judgement on this topic, but please judge for yourself.

https://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

[Hannover]

DC said:

Flight 77. This is what I'm offering. The plane existed; where is it? Do you have photos of the real wreckage?

- You have no proof that the wreckage is from fight 77, and cannot show that proof.
- Who knows where the plane went? Hence the need for a real investigation, as I previously mentioned.
- Of course I don't have photos of the airplane wreckage, it never hit the Pentagon.

DC:

It's not 'obvious' at all. In fact, if they were going to do this, why not go all in? They were in possession of the actual plane. You are contending that they took the plane somewhere else, and presumably destroyed it. Plenty of time to take verifiable images of the actual plane among some rubble, serial numbers, livery...

We do not know that they were in possession of the alleged airliner, it's merely assumed.
- Besides it's much easier to make unproven claims about a few photos, which have no verifiable provenance & association to the alleged site, are part of the airliner rather plopping an entire airplane on the grounds which has already been visited by tons of workers, firemen, & police,
- AND the reporter in the video at the site immediately after the event which I previously mentioned, and you dodged. He said he saw no remains of an airliner, his footage showed not such wreckage.

DC:

I have shown an image above of a huge, blue object approaching the building.

- No you haven't. Compare your claim vs the photo of the airliner that YOU provided. There is no "huge blue object".
- You also dodged the fact that at least 85 videos were handed over to the FBI from cameras which are literally everywhere at the Pentagon site. They have been hidden from the public and this embarrassing parking lot fakery is their best shot. Get serious.

DC:

Yes, an anomaly. But to suggest that it hides a cruise missile attack, while the real plane was dumped in the Atlantic (as some have suggested, i.e. Loose Change's directors) really doesn't cut it.

- "An anomaly"? More like a gigantic gaping hole in your curious claims.
- Why doesn't it "cut it"?
They are hiding something that's for sure or we would be seeing the videos.
- A cruise missile sounds reasonable.
- What was it that Dick Cheney said as it approached? Oops..
- "Dumped in the Atlantic"? Seems possible.
But that is why we need a real legit investigation, as I mentioned, to find out exactly what did happen.

DC:

Exactly how much are you asking for? How much are you expecting from incineration and explosion? And if there are few pictures? This means a 'no plane' hoax? Where are the bodies from the manifest? Because what you're suggesting is even more preposterous with even less proof.

I'm asking to see the human remains that necessarily would exist in ANY form.
- Human remains do not just disappear in plane wrecks, ever. Explosion, fire or what not. Now you come across like one of the 'holocaust' fantasists who claim that corpses just magically disappeared.
- Corpses would have been strewn all around with the wreckage, which magically disappeared as well.
- The manifest is simply a list of those supposedly on the plane, please show it. And indeed, if it is legit and IF that plane hit the Pentagon there would have been bodies everywhere. You're shooting yourself in the foot here with your own arguments.

DC:

It's inefficient for a start. You're introducing unnecessary moving parts. We know they have no compunction in the mass murder of all passengers. We know they have the technology to take control of the plane and direct it with precision accuracy, to the limits of the airframe at speed. We know they had the balls to do it in New York. It makes no sense to shake things up at the Pentagon.

- "Moving parts"? As in your remote controlled airliner with no wreckage & human remains moving parts?

The rest of your text is irrelevant, we know they have no problems killing innocent people, nothing new in that,
- And we are not discussing Shankesville in this thread.

No wreckage, no human remains, no Pentagon airliner.

- Hannover

[Hannover]

The issue is highly controversial in the truther community and I haven't made up my mind. It is indeed peculiar that most of the vidoes of the impact that must exist are being withheld from the public eye.

The link below argues that the majority of the damaged airplane is within the pentagon and not on the lawn in front of the pentagon. It is claimed that the landing gear and other parts of the airplane have been identified. I withhold judgement on this topic, but please judge for yourself.

https://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Your links did not work.
I've seen the landing gear image. It is just a photo with no provenance, it's not in situ, utterly unverifiable. IOW, fakery.

Where are the huge wings, the enormous fuselage, the massive tail section, where are the human remains?
How would such a massive plane manage to leave such scant alleged wreckage? It couldn't. Like the 'holocaust' nonsense, we're talking impossible here.

Like I said"

Here's proof that a car is what slammed into the Pentagon. At least we see an actual car.

- Hannover

[Hekmatyar]

The is actually plenty of evidence showing debris from an airplane, and to answer the question “why it was never shown”:

Most of the debris is inside of the ground floor in the pentagon, heavily destroyed.
Some of the debris came to a halt north of the impact hole, as the plane came in at a 45° angle.
The main reason why such pictures are not wildly known, is probably because there are more proponents of a pentagon-no-plane version pushing for discussion, writing blog post and doing research, etc. than there is effort from the other sides:
The defenders of the official version are content with superficial discussion, just enough to so silence the suspicions of the masses.
Within the Truther community the motivation to prove anything that goes into the direction of relieving the supposed conspirators is naturally not a popular effort... So, plenty of arguments against the airplane - theory have been made - but I need to turn the question around to those that have been persuaded by them: "Have you tried to verify this claims? Have you tried to search for pictures that would refute the claim of non-existing pictures?"

Of course there is some other evidence for insider conspiracy at the pentagon as well:
The plane could have been shot down but there is Norman Manetta’s testimony hinting at a stand-down order, and plenty other stuff... Besides the issue with debris, the main circumstantial evidence against a plane, since the beginning was that the lack of photographic and video evidence of an approaching plane, especially since it is wildly regarded as correct that the FBI confiscated all material from surveillance cameras in question.
Of course it could be that the “debunkers” are right and there is no such material, but there is another reasonable explanation: this is a “honeypot”: Conspiracy theorist should be misguided into disbelieving the airplane version, to discredit the movement as a whole.

Concerning conflicting eyewitness testimony: There are plenty of reports of no airplane sightings, and also some with a wrong approach path. There is also some testimony of eyewitness supporting the airplane version. But you here, in this forum of all people, should know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is…

The presentation I wanted to link to presents forensic evidence that the damage of an airplane impact. This was made in response to the challenges given by the “concensus911” panel (organized by some of the 9/11 veterans like Ray Griffin), the challenges given in the long and detailed movie “A new pearl harbor” and answered practically all the questions raised about this topic in the last 18 years.

http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/
direct playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 5HAGM_eCBA

Finally, please consider, even if official account of the pentagon story would be 100% correct, this does not imply that the rest of the 9/11 saga is not full with anomalies. Anomalies that point to Israel as the prime mover behind it. And I think that hijacking an airplane (either remote or with suicide attackers) is something that the Mossad or Sayeret Matkal can execute on American soil – making a plane disappear and instead using a cruise missile or global hawk seems unnecessary complicated. Or in other words: When the official narrative should be “a plane hit the pentagon”, why not just use an airplane.

[Hannover]

Hekmatyar:

- Your video show us a "composite" of debris supposedly at the Pentagon, and then this cut & paste composite is further pasted over an image of the Pentagon. This faked "wreckage/ debris" is not seen in other verifiable photos.
- And then in the same video we see shots of the Pentagon where we do not see any debris in that location or elsewhere
- Then there's the absurd claim of a huge airliner turning into "confetti", but yet they pasted a few parts which are NOT confetti, thereby contradicting their "confetti" claim.
- Using the absurd "confetti" claim again: if the plane turned into a mass of confetti, why don't we massive amounts of "confetti"?
And note again the reporter stating he saw no airplane wreckage of any kind, his video does not show it either.

said:

The is actually plenty of evidence showing debris from an airplane, and to answer the question “why it was never shown”:

1. Most of the debris is inside of the ground floor in the pentagon, heavily destroyed.
2. Some of the debris came to a halt north of the impact hole, as the plane came in at a 45° angle.
3. The main reason why such pictures are not wildly known, is probably because there are more proponents of a pentagon-no-plane version pushing for discussion, writing blog post and doing research, etc. than there is effort from the other sides:

1. No its not or we would be seeing it. Airplane wreckage doesn't just disappear.
2. Some? Does it look like "confetti"?
3. "Not known"? How about 'they never showed the wreckage photos because they can't, a huge airliner did not hit the Pentagon that is why'.
As I have demonstrated you cannot produce verifiable, in situ wreckage photos, confetti or otherwise.

And where are the necessary human remains? They too cannot be made to disappear. How about even small "confetti" sized pieces? We see nothing. We're talking about an alleged, 64 people on board, including the five hijackers and six crew, as well as 125 PEOPLE INSIDE THE PENTAGON who could NOT have been made into your absurd "confetti".

You asked:

Or in other words: When the official narrative should be “a plane hit the pentagon”, why not just use an airplane.

Because: 1. an airplane, could not have done the damage that was wanted and that we see was done.
2. It's much more dramatic to claim it was an airliner, it jacks up the emotion to think that an airliner filled with people was hijacked by evil Arabs with box cutters, who coincidentally are the very people that "that shitty little country" wanted the US, not Jews, to attack.

Cheers, Hannover

[Depth Charge]

- You have no proof that the wreckage is from fight 77, and cannot show that proof.

We have footage of two other planes hitting two other targets, and disintegrating leaving other elements from the plane (e.g. running gear). Considering that, the onus is not on me to prove it, rather since you do not have video footage of something else hitting the WTC, the onus is on you to prove that (something?) else hit the Pentagon.

- Who knows where the plane went?

Sorry, but this is unbecoming of the standard I'm expecting from this discussion. If you don't know where the plane went then why are you replying?

- Of course I don't have photos of the airplane wreckage, it never hit the Pentagon.

Prove that the wreckage photos shown are fake. Prove that it didn't hit the Pentagon.

We do not know that they were in possession of the alleged airliner, it's merely assumed.

So the U.S. Government hijacked three airliners. But we're only 'assuming' they hijacked the fourth? Where is it?

- Besides it's much easier to make unproven claims about a few photos, which have no verifiable provenance & association.

I submit that a digitally hijacked plane was rammed into the Pentagon. By 'association', I submit proof of two other instances, recorded by scores of independent cameras, hitting the WTC via the exact same method. Already out of the gate I am ahead of you, because you cannot provide even related proof of a missile (or whatever it is you're claiming?), or even a counter claim at all, other than being obtuse.

- No you haven't.

Yes I have. Here is the digitally hijacked Flight 77:



Keep in mind, the object appearing in the above frames is some distance away. It is not a small object close to the camera, filling half the frame, it is a huge object in the distance, yet still imposing itself. It is the plane. And the pilot is not in control of it. It knocked over lamp posts.

I have taken the time to draw this up. Assuming we are discussing in good faith here, and I feel that we are given that it is CODOH, I will be back to reply and add more later. I normally don't waste time on 9/11 debates, usually because you're talking with zealots who aren't for turning, but this is a special thread.

I do feel you have a tendency, Hannover, to be defensive though.