Snopes.com's Hilarious Pentagon Debunk Attempt

[killtown]

Snopes' Pentagon debunk attempt still gets posted by some people to try to squash theories that Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon.

Let's revisit Snopes' article real quick:

"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."

So where did Flight 77 "hit the ground first" which "dissipated much of the energy" from the 757 before it supposedly crashed into the Pentagon as Snopes claims???



(Photo source: Our good ol' Military)



For those interested, see my page that refutes Snopes.com's hilarious Pentagon debunk attempt.

[LARED]

1. Snopes may or may not have gotten the lawn impact correct

but, Snopes' possible misstatment is child's play compared to the sophistry of the 9/11 "theorist."

[killtown]

2. May or may not gotten it right???

I think the photo showing NO SKID MARKS on the lawn PROVE Snopes got this one wrong!

[LARED]

4. One photo cannot establish if it happened or not but

lets assume Snopes got it wrong on this particular detail, So what?

[AZCat]

5. So What?!

It's clear from this that Snopes is in bed with the Bush Cabal, and is a traitor to the cause of justice!


Or something... :eyes:

[spooked911]

8. Nope (though they may be)-- mostly it points to the inaccuracy of

their analysis.

[MrSammo1]

23. Snopes............

Where do you think they got their analyzes from?

The government!

I emailed and asked them the question well over a year ago!

[killtown]

16. Snopes getting this point wrong means

they could have made other points wrong (which they did) which then means the debunk attempt fails. You saying "so what?" makes you sound like a Snopes apologist btw.

[LARED]

24. Apparently Snopes got this one right

We now have strong evidence that flight 77 hit the dirt and curb in front of the air ventilation system.



Look at the broken curbing (bottom left corner) with the dirt disturbed in front of it.

Killtown, thank you for your diligent work in this area.

[killtown]

25. LoL

See here.

[killtown]

26. Also

Snopes: "thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building"

Do you think this happened by only the 757's left engine clipping that small wall if that's what happened? It's left engine barely hitting that small low wall "dissipated much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building"?

[LARED]

27. No, I don't think that is accurate

There was far too much energy available to have dissipated much of anything by hitting the ground. Some energy was dissipated but to use the term "much" is well too much.

[killtown]

28. I'm glad we agree on that point

and you can see how punching enough holes in Snopes claim will eventually make their claim have little to no merit. Snopes needs to change their theory since it is contradicted by the same govt's version Snopes is trying to support. Snopes is ruining their own credibility be not correcting their obvious mistake. Wouldn't you agree?

[kerry_s]

41. Those Incredible Cable Spools...

Yes... look at those >> indestructible pentanium cable spools <<.

All the building is burning but those spools haven't got any marks of fire, btw, they are exactly on the way of the boeing, so they should be blown away by the explosion...

[Kevin Fenton]

3. It hit the ground

but this didn't dissipate any/much of the energy.

[philb]

6. What is the basis for your conclusion?

Not many witnesses think so?
Were there signs on the lawn? Gouge? etc.?

The most cogent witness statements that I saw didn't seem to include hitting the ground. Maybe hitting objects though.

Witness statements have been posted before. We could go through them again. Or do you know of other more credible evidence?

The witness statements and evidence are so diverse and lacking in clarity that I'm not sure what to make of them.

The main points I see that are important are "what was the cause of the high radiation levels at the Pentagon?" and
"why the clear major coverup of the West wall and private security videos and the plane parts?"

There also were fires and deaths in places far from the plane impact, strange actions by a helicopter, C130, and perhaps another plane at the site, and witness statements of an explosion at the Pentagon that no one has explained what caused. And seemingly virtually impossible flight path for a 757 flown by anyone other than an extreme expert. And big differences in time of occurance reported by different witnesses, media, 911 Comm., Danish foreign minister, etc.

[Kevin Fenton]

7. ASCE report

After hitting the generator, "The aircraft had rolled slightly to its left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft struck the west wall of the Pentagon."
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

I saw a programme on National Geographic channel that said the same thing, but I can't find a transcript now.

[spooked911]

9. oh yeah, I believe that. The generator was able to deflect the plane's

roll angle, but smashing into the generator wasn't able to break off the engine?

The evidence for the port engine hitting the ground is weak, as well. It consists of a large chip taken out of a short concrete wall. Which if you look at it carefully, the damage isn't even circular.

[Kevin Fenton]

10. You seem to be referring to a photo,

but I don't know which photo. Could you give me a link please?

[we can do it]

11. So Where Did the Parts of the Plane Go?

and don't tell me the wings "folded up" or the metal vaporized or some other nonsense.

[LARED]

12. Where most things go traveling a few hundred miles per hour

when they hit sometihng. Inside the Pentagon

[we can do it]

13. Bullshit - the wing would have been sheared off.

Wings don't fold back. Oh yeah and I suppose you believe that the wings folded back and made a perfectly round hole in the wall, and the soft nose pierced through 3 rings of reinforced concrete. Oh yeah and the hijackers ID was found blocks from the WTC - unscathed from the inferno capable of melting steel.

[Kevin Fenton]

14. 3 rings of reinforced concrete?

"3 rings of reinforced concrete"
To what building are you referring?

[we can do it]

15. The Pentagon is Constructed of Reinforced Concrete In Concentric Rings

Pentagon constructed of reinforced concrete
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html

[Kevin Fenton]

21. Gereat buildings says the Pentagon has

"reinforced concrete outer walls"
But even that's not strictly true.

This is more accurate:
"As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.htm
The floors were concrete and there were some concrete pillars, but most of the outer wall was limestone backed with bricks.

[LARED]

20. Even if the wings did shear off, they are

traveling at a few hundred miles per hour. Do you expect them to bounce off the wall at that speed?

Also it is worth noting that there are no images taken close up to the damage, a fact conveniently overlooked by the CT'ers. Zoomed images distort space making actual distances quite difficult to determine. The images that do have some level of detail show lots of debris near the impact area, but still to far away to determine what sort of debris is in the picture.

[killtown]

22. I'm still waiting for someone to show me a pic

of where the left wing supposedly hit the ground first!

[vincent_vega_lives]

31. The tips did shear off

The fuel laden 1/3rd of the wing had a substantial amount of (mass combined with velocity =) momentum, and punched through the facade...nothing folded back.

Oh and "reinforced concrete" ususally refers to concrete with embedded rebar. That is not what the facade of the Pentagon consited of.

The Hijacker's ID would have been in the cockpit...in front of all of the fuel, and is relatively light, open it could act like a wing. A large fuel fireball causes a wall of hot air to expand in front of it, which could have, along with the fact that the passport was already moing at high speed with the aircraft's velocity could mean it was ejected from the WTC along with other aircraft parts and hence did not immolate in the inferno.

[killtown]

36. "The Hijacker's ID would have been in the cockpit"

"...in front of all of the fuel"


NIST report said hijackers were found relatively close to the point of impact. How do you explain your theory now?

[we can do it]

19. Did it also shrink - or vaporize when it went "in the Pentagon"?

The wreckage should be visible, given the size of the plane.

Like This?

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm


and This?

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. Oh gee a new website! Never seen that one before!

/sarcasm off :eyes:

[Wiggles85]

30. A good deal was inside the pentagon

Including parts of the engines, and blue seats (as used by AA)

[MrSammo1]

34. How can you have a jet inside.......

if you don't have the physics of a jet crash outside?

[killtown]

17. Where did the left engine "strike the ground"?

I have not seen ONE PIC to verify ASCE's claim.

[killtown]

18. So Snopes was wrong when they said the 757's

energy was dissipated when it struck the ground? I wonder what else they got wrong!!!

[vincent_vega_lives]

33. You're making the accusation

You tell us.

[killtown]

35. Oh they got a lot wrong...

http://www.geocities.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/snopes.html

[killtown]

29. Come on Sabbat Hunter, I'm calling you out!

Step up to the plate and defend your precious Snopes.com debunk attempt!!!

LARED couldn't even defend it!

:bounce:

[killtown]

37. Come on Sabbat, why ya ducking this???

:shrug:

[sabbat hunter]

38. because

because killtown is being a pain in the ass here we go

snopes is right

killtown is wrong


that good enough for you KT?

[killtown]

39. Wow, that was pathetic

you have even LESS credibility than the little you previously had.


Btw, LARED even admits Snopes got this main point wrong. What do you say about that? Is LARED wrong?

[sabbat hunter]

40. i agree

with LARED

well considering your credibility is zero with your constant links to your vanity site, you shouldnt be talking about that.

[killtown]

42. So you admit that Snopes' theory is FLAWED!

Their MAIN point as to why Flight 77 didn't do as much damage as expected was because "it actually hit the ground first" before hitting the building "thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building."


See, iF Snopes point on this is wrong, then their ENTIRE theory is flawed.


Call my site as many names as you wish, it still won't change the fact that Snopes' debunk attempt is FLAWED.

[sabbat hunter]

43. the word

much is wrong, the rest of the premise is correct. they should have used some.

now go away

[killtown]

44. I bet you would like people who expose Snopes' bad work

to "go away."

Their premise is TOTALLY FLAWED!!! How are they going to explain the reason the plane didn't enter the building very far now after their reason why it didn't is totally flawed???



And another serious flaw in their theory:

"Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH)"

350 mph? Flt 77 was said to have flown in at 530 mph.


Now I know why you wish I would just "go away"!

[greenman2]

45. i have a response to snopes as well

http://911review.org/Wiki/snopespentagonrumor.html

as far as the plane hitting the ground first,
thats PURE B.S.
The cable reels below are 7 ft. tall (for the tallest) which was directly in the path of the Boeing.
For the bottom of the craft to clear these reels it would have had to be over 7 ft. off the ground, which puts the wings at 7 1/2 ft. MORE =14 1/2 ft. (minimum). The right wing would also have had to clear the generator which was over 10 ft. tall
Which puts the right wing at 17 ft. minimum. The plane was said to be traveling at 500 mph+ and witnesses say it "reved up" just before impact.
How did the damage to the bottom of the pentagon, right of the impact point occur?
http://757.batcave.net/

and so the engine hit this wall, but DIDNT knock down these cable reels ???


now, imagine this in 3D in your head...

see the height of the generator ?
see the height of the cable reels ?

now, imagine the right wing striking the generator...





the bottom of the "belly" of the plane, is almost as low as the bottom of the engine.
if the right wing was so low as to hit the generator,
and the left engine hit the ground,
then the belly of the craft would have hit the cable reels.

imagine again if you will, a more than 13ft tall tube, over 155ft long (no tail included)
bouncing off light poles, generators, and concrete retaining walls,
with the wings tilted,
hitting that wall, and going in at such an angle,
so that the tube doesnt tilt left/right. or up/down.

what i mean by that, is the fuselage should have had a vertical, and horizontal change.
and the wings hitting those objects should have forced the nose into the ground,
forcing the rest of the fuselage upward.
these impacts should also have caused the fuselage to change its direction sideways.
not leaving a clean holes as it did, and also leaving a crumpled fuselage behind.

closeups of the pentagon lawn...
http://close.batcave.net/
http://911review.org/brad.com/Pentagon_Closeup_Photos.html
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagonpictures.html

also , what was in the exit "punch out" hole ?




this wasnt part of a 757
http://pentagon.batcave.net/hole.html

soeaking of debris, yes there WAS SOME...

(large photo here...)
http://911review.org/brad.com/noplane.html
but what is it from ?
this is the remains of a contractors trailer...


http://investigate911.bravehost.com/trailer.html

if the plane hit a trailer BEFORE it hit the pentagon,
then HOW THE F** did it leave that round hole?
and can we trust ANY witness that says they saw the plane hit the pentagon ?
wouldnt they say, they saw the plane hit a TRAILER in FRONT of the pentagon ???


why were the columns bent the wrong way ?
http://damage.1accesshost.com/

also see...
http://no757.batcave.net
http://911review.org/

[Kevin Fenton]

46. Numbers

"How are they going to explain the reason the plane didn't enter the building very far?"

How far do you think the plane went into the building?
How far do you think it "should" have gone into the building?