Where's the Tail Fin?
posted by Pat @ 12:32 AM
30 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Monday, July 10, 2006
Previous Posts
- Cindy Sheehan: Also In the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
- The "No-Buildings" Theory
- Uncle Fetzer's Top Ten Reasons Why There Were No H...
- Loosers Make Vanity Fair--As Does Screw Loose Change!
- Moonbat of the Day: Deb Frisch
- Uncle Fetzer in LA
- Chomsky: Part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
- Gee, They Are Not Paranoid
- I Can't, I Can't, I Can't Stand This Song....
- Morgan Reynolds, Another "Scholar" for Truth
View My Stats
Allies:
30 Comments:
It's the tall, thin, white structure in the center of the photo. We're looking at it edge-on, so it seems unfamiliar. My theory is that some souvenir-hunter drove off with it.
A few witnesses said they could see the tail sticking out of the building for about one or two seconds before a very heavy explosion engulfed everything in flames. Despite seeing a huge fire ball on the Pentagon videotape, Truthers still seem to believe the tail just broke off.
I found a few hi-res photos from 9/15/01 and I believe they show some obvious scars from either the vertical or horizental stabilizers impact with the limestone(I'm thinking horizental becase the 757 came in left wing low).
The damage is in the areas of the third and fourth floors just outside of the collapse zone. The worst scar is just to the left of the first third story window to the right of the collapse zone.....I dont know what else this damage could be from other than the tail section.
Image1
Image2
Image3
Image4
This will not satisfy Killtown in any way, shape, or form because he doesnt accept evidence that contradicts his claims. For everyone else I think we've found where the tail section struck..
Sorry apathoid, but the damage in that section was most likely caused by the wing. As you said, the aircraft came in left wing low, hwich would put the tip of the right wing tip just outside the collapse zone on the right hand side.
The thing is, you'll never find evidence of the tail section having struck anything because most pre-collapse pictures are blocked by smoke and/or ridiculously high quality, and in all post-collapse photos the section where the tail would have struck is so thoroughly destroyed that any evidence of the tail impact would have been destroyed with it. Which is very convinient for Killtown and his ilk, but, ofcourse, still doesn't prove anything other than the amazing capacity of the human mind to delude itself with irrelevant coincidences.
I thought about that too Alex, but I still think thats a little too high up to be wing damage. You can see the engine damage(remember the engine hit a trailer, so the bank angle couldnt have been greater than 10 degrees or so) just a bit lower and to the left. The scars adjacent to the 3rd story window are at least 40 feet off the ground and 25 feet above the engine. That would put the bank angle at around 45 degrees, which wouldve put the #1 engine into the ground.
I agree that vertical likely followed the fuselage through the Pentagon, thats why I said the damage was likely caused by the horizental, which is quite a bit more elevated than the wing.
Which is very convinient for Killtown and his ilk, but, ofcourse, still doesn't prove anything other than the amazing capacity of the human mind to delude itself with irrelevant coincidences.
I agree 100% here. Its going to take a time machine to convince Killtown that a plane hit the Pentagon(or the Towers for that matter)!!
He'd still probably say it was CGI or some crap..
Something I always find amusing whenever the truthers try to play the "hunt the boeing" game (or fragment thereof) with the pentagon is that they always seem to miss the GIANT BLOODY SMOKING HOLE IN THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING!!!
A civilain airliner is a thin aluminum tube. The Pentagon REINFORCED MILITARY COMMAND FACILITY!
GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS THAT THERE ISN"T GOING TO BE ANYTHING LEFT OF THE PLANE YOU @#$%ING IDIOTS!!!
I agree that vertical likely followed the fuselage through the Pentagon, thats why I said the damage was likely caused by the horizental, which is quite a bit more elevated than the wing.
Yeah, I see where you're going with that. It's deffinitely a possibility. Prett much impossible to really tell just from pictures though. Might be worthwhile seing if we can't track down one of the forensics experts who was on the ground.
Its going to take a time machine to convince Killtown that a plane hit the Pentagon(or the Towers for that matter)!!
He'd still probably say it was CGI or some crap..
If we can ever get the time machine thing working, I say we grab Killtown, book him a seat on the flight, give him a credit card, and sit him down right in front of the airphone. That way we can hear (and record) the "oh, shit" right before he slams into the pentagon.
Might be worthwhile seing if we can't track down one of the forensics experts who was on the ground.
Got this image from 911research, and I think it came from that simulation video. It kinda shows what I'm thinking may have happened. The wing doesn't seem to go above the first floor windows. The scars are way above that. I'm almost thinking its too high up to even be the horizental. The height of a 757 wheels on ground is 44 feet. I'm estimating that scar at close to 45-50 ft.
Image
Like, hey man, you know, its like a magician - everybody is taking pictures, you know of the hole, I mean, would you take a picture, of I mean, a tail of a plane when there was a fire to take a picture of? I mean, a magician distracts you, and like the coin dissappears. but like you know, it doesn't.
I mean, like looking for the tail of the plane, and like looking at a fire, man I mean, I'd be looking at the fire.
There is no tail fin, of course, because a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. It was a cruise missile which just happened to be retrofitted with the exterior, landing gear, engine parts, seats and other parts of a 757. Oh, and it had also been loaded with the bodies of a bunch of people who had boarded a 757 earlier that morning.
Dude, just like at the end of the Vanity Fair piece!
I'm with you, Avery. I'm watchin' the fire, dude.
Korey Rowe said it could have been a Javelin shoulder-fired anti-tenk missile, with an altered warhead. He was in the army and I think he would know. I don't think it's a stretch to believe that the army has the ability to fit 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into one of those warheads. The fuel just needs to be highly compressed.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/
Like, hey, man, I mean my man Korey would know, he was like in the Army, and like the generals and stuff used to ask him how that stuff worked. I mean, he knows man.
Killtown,
Something just occured to me. If the gummint faked all the WTC 2 impact videos and damage, why didnt they make some fakes for the Pentagon?? Why would they release a single sketchy video where you cant make anything out if they made numerous fakes of the second plane??
It makes no sense, at all !
And why wouldn't they blast a hole that looks more like a Wiley Coyote 757 than a squarish entry hole and a nice missile shaped exit hole....again, if they faked this for the Towers, why not the Pentagon?
I remember with fondness the first time someone sent me a link to "Hunt the Boeing". I was dumbfounded. I saw the picture of the wreckage where they had superimposed a perfect outline of the "missing Boeing". All I could think was: "These people actually believe that we should see a more or less intact plane after THAT?"
I never believed that myth would persist for long- how wrong I was.
So here's the real story: the Pentagon aircraft apparently (http://www.rense.com/general69/hunt911.htm) carried explosives to blow it to bits to coverup actual identification. Then there was a military helicopter (identified here: http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/penthelC.jpg) that remote-controlled the aircraft. So, we have a helicopter remote-controlled empty (substituted) Boeing 737 airliner which crashed into the massive Pentagon masonry wall.
My guess is that they used a two-channel radio transmitter to control the rudder movement and throttle. But of course, it only works from a hovering military helicopter. Logical, isn't it?
Basayev is dead.
"Basayev is dead."
Obviously (with no evidence) a BushNeoConHalliburton fabrication perpetrated on the American people by FAUX-NEWS. It just makes sense.
We're in a war on terrorism. A terrorist is "killed?" I haven't seen any body. Until I do, the "official story" is full of crap.
In other news, I was not actually present when the Declaration of Independence was signed, but somehow, I'm reasonably sure it happened. Maybe.
I joined The Official Story is Screwed by Loose Change's forum, so I'll reply to you there since replying on blogs is a pain.
Ps - no one explained the missing tail very well!
Ps - no one explained the missing tail very well!
No, you just don't have the mental capacity to proccess any information which doesn't start with "9/11 was a conspiracy because....". Hell you don't even seem to understand why physical evidence of a tail section is imaterial. AND you fail to realize that the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders; that simply shouting "THERE'S NO TAIL" is not evidence of anything, and that you must offer an alternate theory which can stand up to scrutiny, even if only superficialy. So far none of the offered explanations make sense. While you may have all sorts of questions about the 757 "theory", it is still the most logical and best supported explanation of the event.
I'm a firm believer in the "No-Brains" theory. I've never seen a 9/11 CT use their brain, therefore they must not have one.
Here is the explanation:
IT WAS DESTROYED IN THE CRASH!!!!
Look at the Valuejet crash in Miami. The plane went in to the swamp, less than a foot of water and then soft mud for a few feet, then coral. Far far far softer than the Penatgon.
Yet there were almost no large pieces of airplane debris, no wings, no tail, nothing. AND there was no massive fire afterwards because the plane was in the swamp.
It was a massive crash.
No suprise that no big pieces remained.
Why it is supposedly a big suprise that a plane hitting reinforced concrete at almost full speed then exploding violently has hardly any large remains?
Anyone thinking that there should have been large pieces of plane debris in ANY of the 9/11 sites is an idiot.
I'm a firm believer in the "No-Brains" theory. I've never seen a 9/11 CT use their brain, therefore they must not have one.
thats because once a CTer begins actively using a his hes no longer a CTer because he relizes theres no C to T about
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I joined The Official Story is Screwed by Loose Change's forum, so I'll reply to you there since replying on blogs is a pain.
Translation: I can't take getting my ass kicked by people who have critical thinking skills and understand logic.
killtown,
so we find engine parts, bodies, fuselage, langing gear...
but the whole thing is suspect because there doesn't seem to be wreckage of this single piece that you chose?
And if we find the tail, then what? "You can't find seat G-4 - therefor there wasn't one!"
That this no-757 theory has persisted so long is among the best pieces of evidence that CTers are completely insane.
I remember this one time I saw the results of two cars coliding head on. I couldn't find the engines, headlights, radiator, etc and the very first thing that popped into my head was:
"I can't find the headlights, this accident was faked!!!!"
;)
16 foot hole?
No, it had to be bigger than that. The engines are about 20 feet away from each other.
It was a 20 foot hole. 24 feet probably.
It was actually a 90 foot hole at the Pentagon.
I'm waaaay late with this, but the distances are:
757 Engine "span" - 52'
Collapse zone - 65'
Damage Zone - 90'
Engine "span" at 55 degrees - 90'
Post a Comment
<< Home