planes that are lying

Air Force Two's; Two Much of a Coincidence?

So, here goes craniac launching into more uncharted territory. It is truly rewarding for me to have fellow bloggers from this esteemed body tell me things like "I've never seen that photo before" or ""When you put it that way, I guess it makes sense". I became a truther at roughly 2:00 MST on September 11, 2001. I've poured over every facet of research I could find since then. Some of it is outlandish, some is not mainstream, some is glaringly obvious evidence of criminal wrongdoing and flies directly in the face of the Government Fairy Tale. Some of what I found early on has been scrubbed from the Internet for a very long time. It's great to find a venue to share it in.

If destruction of evidence is a plausible indication of a crime . .

Let me start today's blog by echoing a comment from dz posted in my last thread. I am truly pleased at the healthy tone and genuine debate that has accompanied my recent entries. Thank you all. We're all involved in this to bring the truth to the general population, and on that basis alone, we deserve to extend to each other a proper debate forum and no name-calling.

After reviewing Erin S. Meyers terrific blog about the destruction of evidence indicating probable culpability and criminal activity, it brought me back to the blog I wrote yesterday about the airborne object hitting the Pentagon. I admit this is a red hot topic, and one that can quickly divide truthers.

So, what physical evidence, in the public domain, that was found at the Pentagon scene does or does not corroborate with a 757 heavy?

Positively identified items;

A landing gear strut can be proven with reasonable certainty to be that of a 757.
A seperate rim and tire assembly can also be corroborated thusly.

Disputable items:

Several pieces of aluminum fuselage. Much research has been done to discredit these pieces. I won't delve into it any further than to label them "disputed" today.

Conflicting items:

What really happens when a commercial jet liner (DC-9) hits a solid masonry object (bridge).

By manner of introduction, this topic was my original smoking gun into the 9/11 truth movement. On the day of the attacks, I was viewing network news of the events. It was announced that footage of the Pentagon crash scence was to be shown, where "a 757 had just struck the Pentagon".

I viewed this footage and said "Where?".

Many of us in the truth movement feel we have an enormous burden to bear because so many of the events in question "never happened" before. As such, we are left citing Newton's Laws of Physics about how things are supposed to behave, and/or pointing out forensic evidence in video or photographic sources.

However, a modern commercial jet liner HAS hit a solid, earth fixed, masonry structure in recent times. I cite Northwest Airlines Flight 255, Detroit to Phoenix, August, 1987. Although it was a DC-9, and not a 757, and the terminal velocities were different (757 purported at maximum speed, vs. DC-9 at maximum take-off roll), neither event would be in the realm of "vaporized metal", calulated by physicists I trust to be in the neighborhood of 15 times the speed on sound.

So, what was the result of the bridge impact in urban Detroit? Scorched Earth. Massive Debris Fields. Luggage. Corpses. Seats. LARGE Pieces of Fuselage. Just what you'd expect. I knew people on this flight. The vivid images are forever seared in my mind, and not easily dismissed by the Gov't fairy tale about the little hole and the bright green lawn at the Pentagon. Call me a "no brainer", I really don't care. I don't today, nor have I ever, seen remotely credible evidence of a widebody commercial aircraft impact at the Pentagon.