Anyone have a logical explenation

mr-bridger: I saw "loose change"
The documentary was funny, but flawed to the bone.
I cant summerize all the flaws, but the user PhillyPhreak31 has shown all the shortcommings in this forum: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/board/thread/39342618?d=39357635#39357635

Just to be nice to you, and educate you (Cause he did that to me), I have clipped all what PhillyPhreak31 has written here (PhillyPhreak31, if you are reading this: I am only honoring your contribution, i´m not stealing):


Pentagon "No-757" Theories



Since September 11, 2001, many conspiracy theorists have argued that the damaged inflicted upon the Pentagon could not have been caused by a Boeing 757 - American Airlines Flight 77 to be exact - but rather that it must have been caused by a cruise missile sent by the United States Government in a day of attacks on itself. This theory is all too easily debunked, particularly by photographic evidence. Like the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center theory, the cruise missile theory and Global Hawk theory appear to work at the glance of an untrained and uneducated eye, though even casual examination quickly proves these theories incorrect. That said, I will now do just that.

Physical Evidence of a Commercial Airliner



What the cruise missile theory completely fails to explain is the physical evidence of a Boeing 757 found amongst the debris of the Pentagon. None of this physical evidence can be attributed to a missile, Global Hawk, or A3 Skywarior. Now, let's have a look at some of them.

The Wheel

The wheel found in the rubble of the Pentagon: http://i1.tinypic.com/mhshdy.jpg

The wheels of a Boeing 757: http://i1.tinypic.com/mhshva.jpg

-- Note the exact match between the two wheels. Both have the same eight symmetrical elliptical holes, (only six are visible in the Pentagon photo, but through simple geometry we can infer that there are indeed eight) both have two smaller circular holes at the base of each elliptical hole, and both have the same double-rim feature. I've taken the liberty of highlighting these similarities for comparison here:

Pentagon wheel: http://tinypic.com/eb9edz.jpg

Boeing 757 wheel: http://tinypic.com/eb9fe9.jpg

A more detailed comparison here: http://i1.tinypic.com/n4a893.jpg

How could a missile possibly explain this? Missiles do not have wheels, and the wheel at the Pentagon has undergone serious damage, lending credence to the 757 crash theory. Despite the claims of some conspiracy theorists, however, there is nothing to suggest that this or any of the other physical evidence of a 757 was planted before, during, or after the attack.

It has been suggested by some that this wheel is that of a Global Hawk. Take a look for yourself and you will see that the Global Hawk's wheels have far too many elliptical holes to be a match:

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/global-hawk-landing-gear.jpg

Also, it has been suggested that the wheel was that of an A3 Skywarrior. Photographic analysis again proves this untrue.

A3 Skywarrior wheels:
http://i1.tinypic.com/n34uwz.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/n48vsz.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/n49hu0.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/n49iww.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/n49j6v.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/n49kl2.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/n49kw5.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/n49l06.gif

Pentagon wheel: http://i1.tinypic.com/mhshdy.jpg

As one can plainly see, there is no match between the wheels of an A3 Skywarrior and the wheel found amongst the Pentagon rubble. This theory is pure myth. Furthermore, while there is absolutely no match between the wheels of a Global Hawk or an A3 to the wheel found at the Pentagon, there is a direct match between the wheels of a Boeing 757 and the wheel found at the Pentagon. This wheel in and of itself disproves the claims that it was a missile, Global Hawk, or A3, but I will continue nonetheless.

The Landing Gear

Another piece of wreckage found at the Pentagon:

http://i1.tinypic.com/mhsimw.jpg

Looks suspiciously like a Boeing 757 landing gear, right? Have a look:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/debris/jambeTrain.jpg

The Tire

The partial tire found at the Pentagon: http://tinypic.com/efj50j.jpg

Here's a photo of the same tire from a better angle (left) alongside a tire from one of the planes that hit the Twin Towers, which was ejected some two blocks away from the Towers. Note the tire treads on both.

http://i1.tinypic.com/mhslrc.jpg

The Fuselage

The piece of fuselage found near the helipad of the Pentagon: http://i1.tinypic.com/mhsmfo.jpg

The side of an American Airlines 757: http://i1.tinypic.com/mhspaq.jpg

-- Note the same silver coloration, the red lettering with white outline, and the visible piece of either the 'n' or the 'a' in 'American' on the Pentagon debris. (It is possible that the partial letter is also a 'c' or an 'e' but by most accounts it is indeed the top of an 'n') As with the other pieces of physical evidence the chunk of fuselage is clearly damaged, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was planted.

The Engine Parts

A piece of 757 found in the wreckage at the Pentagon: http://i1.tinypic.com/mhssao.jpg

A second piece of 757 engine: http://i1.tinypic.com/mht0jk.jpg

A few comparisons with known airliner parts:
http://membres.lycos.fr/applemacintosh/Pentagon/outsidedebris.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/debris3_engine2.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhu0jo.jpg

The Hole in the Facade

A widescreen shot of the Pentagon shortly after the plane impact, showing just how large the damaged area was. Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the damage was simply too small to be from a 757, and that the wings left no damage when they should have done just that. Sorry, that's just not the case. The wings very clearly did leave significant damage to the structure, and photographic evidence supports this.

http://i1.tinypic.com/n30su8.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhu34z.jpg

The Damaged Cars and Light Poles

As Flight 77 approached the Pentagon it knocked down five light poles. Here is a graphic showing their locations (hit poles are highlighted): http://i1.tinypic.com/mhuclf.jpg

As you can plainly see, the poles are simply too far apart for a missile of any sort to have hit them. This next site has determined the distance between the poles that were downed near the Pentagon: http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/

As you can see, it would take a plane with a wingspan of no less than 90 feet to hit all of these light poles on the way into the Pentagon. An A3 Skywarrior has a wingspan of only 72 ft. 6 in. ( http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-3_skywarrior.pl ) Therefore it is impossible for an A3 to have downed the light poles on the highway.

A Global Hawk – with a wingspan of 116.2 feet ( http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/rq-4_global_hawk.pl ) – does have a wingspan wide enough to span the distance between the downed light poles, however it is highly unlikely that this would be possible when one considers the fact that the wings of a Global Hawk are incredibly thin and weak. It comes as no surprise, however, that Flight 77 could very easily have hit all of these poles while still on its trajectory into the Pentagon. The wingspan of a 757 is 124 ft. 10 in. The wings are strong enough to take out the light poles without sustaining severe damage. It may very well be that they were somewhat damaged, however, and that the white trail seen in the Pentagon footage is a result of this.

Photographs of some of the damaged light poles and vehicles on the highway:
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhufrt.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhug6c.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/mhugid.jpg

Note that the poles were very obviously clipped and badly damaged, and eyewitness testimony supports the notion that they were hit by a 757. More on the eyewitness testimony later on.

Case Against the Missile Theory


-- As I have shown above, many pieces of Boeing 757 were found in the rubble of the Pentagon. None of that wreckage can be explained by a missile, in particular the wheel given that missiles do not have wheels. Furthermore, the light poles that were downed (see above) were spaced much too far apart for a missile to have caused the damage to them. Third, the damage to the Pentagon is not at all consistent with a missile strike. A missile cannot explain the 96 foot wide breach to the first floor of the Pentagon, not the visible impact damage from the wings of an aircraft. Lastly, the missile theory completely ignores the testimony of eyewitnesses, none of which reported seeing a missile. There is absolutely no way that a missile was responsible for the Pentagon attack.

Case Against the Global Hawk


-- The Global Hawk theory is – despite what some particularly ignorant conspiracy theorists have said – utterly impossible. As I have shown above, the parts found at the Pentagon clearly belong to a 757, not a Global Hawk. Neither the front nor rear wheels of the Global Hawk match that which was found at the Pentagon, nor does the Global Hawk match any of the other physical evidence found at the Pentagon. The Global Hawk - while its wingspan is sufficient to span the length between downed light poles - has wings that are simply too thin and too flimsy to take out the light poles, and indeed too thin and too flimsy to penetrate the thick, fortified wall of the Pentagon. There breached section of the Pentagon was 96 feet across, and there is simply no way a Global Hawk could create this damage. Physical evidence aside, dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the impact all reported commercial airliners, and absolutely none described anything resembling a Global Hawk. Furthermore, the plane that hit the Pentagon has been calculated to have been going some 530 miles per hour. The top speed of a Global Hawk is only 454 miles per hour ( http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/rq-4_global_hawk.pl ) making it too slow to have possibly been the plane to hit the Pentagon. There's no doubt about it: a Global Hawk could not possibly have been responsible for the Pentagon attack.

Case Against the A3 Skywarrior



-- The case against the A3 is just as damning as with the Global Hawk and the missile. As with those two, the A3 Skywarrior is incapable of producing the physical evidence found at the Pentagon. The wheel, fuselage section, and engines do not at all match what was documented and photographed at the nation's military headquarters. The A3's wingspan is some 20 feet too short to have hit the downed and damaged light poles near the Pentagon, and it is more than 20 feet too short to have caused the first floor breach of the Pentagon - not to mention the impact damage extending beyond this breach. To accept the A3 theory one must completely ignore eyewitness testimony, which points completely towards a commercial airliner. One thing is certain beyond any doubt: it is completely and utterly impossible for an A3 Skywarrior to have been responsible for the Pentagon attack.

The Eyewitness Testimony



Consider the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw Flight 77 – not a missile, Global Hawk, or A3 Skywarrior - impact the Pentagon:

"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"

"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building the next..."

"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view, listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground, screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead. I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."

"USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle—almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"

"I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' 'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said."

***Note: I have bolded the word like to emphasize that the man is forming a simile in his description of the plane, since I know that conspiracy theorists will surely jump on it and go 'see, he said cruise missile!' in a child-like bout of idiocy and denial. At no point did he state “it was a missile” or anything to that effect, and in fact he states in no uncertain terms that it was a “jet, an American Airlines jet”.

"'(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target,' said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA Today near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. 'It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong.'"

There are many, many more eyewitness accounts from the Pentagon, which can be found here: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

The simple fact of it all is that no one has come forth and claimed they actually saw a missile, A3, Global Hawk, etc. hit the Pentagon, and hundreds of people have stated unequivocally that they saw a commercial airliner (several have identified it as American Airlines) hit the Pentagon. Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists alike completely ignore these eyewitnesses.


Once again, PhillyPhreak31, if you are reading this: I am only honoring your contribution, i´m not stealing.

PhillyPhreak31 wrote most of this. I only clipped his answers here to educate you all, and myself.

And this is part number two of PhillyPhreak31´s evidence that "Loose change" is a hoax, made by amatours.


In sum, I will now address many of the arguments that no-757 conspiracy theorists love to use:

1.) How can an entire 757 simply fit into a hole some 16 – 20 ft. in diameter?

A: The answer is simple – it didn’t. That claim is one of many straw man arguments that conspiracy theorists like to formulate, but at no point does the official explanation state that the whole plane simple squeezed into a 16 ft. hole. Not because there never was any 757, but rather because the damage to the Pentagon was far more than simply one 16-20 ft wide hole. The “hole” in the Pentagon was actually 96 feet in length, and is not the small, perfectly circular pinprick that many conspiracy theorists like to claim it was. The “hole” conspiracy theorists speak of is typically the hole punched by the fuselage, but damage from the rest of the plane is very clearly visible in many photographs.


2.) But what about the spools? They weren’t damaged and the plane should have hit them!

A: This myth that the “spools’ on the Pentagon lawn should have somehow presented an obstacle is pure nonsense. It is a myth that has come as a result of several photographs of the Pentagon aftermath in which it appears that the spools are near the building, when in fact the closest one is some 30 feet or more away from the building. Given their distance from the building, the likely bank of the plane, and the fact that we have no idea what shape or position those spools were in before the attack these spools do nothing to disprove the 757 theory.


3.) That’s bull! If it was a 757 there should be debris everywhere! Where is it then?

A: This notion that there was no 757 debris is – like many conspiracy theorist arguments – merely a straw man argument. Witnesses and photographs alike attest to all sorts of plane debris, and I have included photographs of the more notable pieces of debris above. Others claim that it can’t have been a plane because there are no large pieces of debris visible on the lawn. As we can see in the photograph below, this is simply nonsense.

http://i1.tinypic.com/mhsmfo.jpg

The notion that large pieces, such as the wings and tail, would be left as anything but tiny pieces of wreckage has no base in science whatsoever, and is instead based in the misguided notion of many conspiracy theorists that the wings and tail would simply sheer off and sit intact on the lawn. A crash test conducted in 1992 involving an F-4 Phantom hitting a 10-foot thick section of reinforced concrete moving at 480 miles per hour yielded no large pieces of debris, and the plane was, essentially, reduced to confetti.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/crashdebris.html

Not only that, but in late 2005 the crash of a C-130 coming in for landing in Iran into an apartment building produced results very much damaging to conspiracy theories regarding the debris of Flight 77. The plane – traveling far slower than Flight 77 and impacting a wall that was not at all fortified – was reduced to small pieces of debris, which at first glance was not recognizable as plane wreckage. A 757 traveling at higher speeds and impacting a much harder surface would likely have little trouble reproducing this effect.


4.) What about the missile batteries? Someone would have to have ordered them not to shoot down an incoming plane.

A: Incorrect. Many conspiracy sites speak of mysterious missile batteries defending the Pentagon, but there is little truth to this myth. Conspiracy theorists gullible enough to believe this do not at all bother to check on this tale, and instead simply accept it as truth because some conspiracy site told them it was so. Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, this is nothing but disinformation. Commercial airplanes fly near the Pentagon on a daily basis, and have done so for many years now. This myth is covered in Wikipedia’s “9/11 Conspiracy Theories” page, where the following can be found:

“There are claims that anti-missile batteries at the Pentagon should have intercepted Flight 77. although evidence of the existence of such batteries let alone their purpose has yet to be provided. Commercial aircraft still fly in close proximity to the Pentagon on a daily basis. CNN did report in September 2002 that for the "first time since the Cuban missile crisis almost 40 years ago, armed missile launchers will be protecting the nation's capital by day's end Tuesday."”

There are also claims that the plane should have been intercepted by US fighters, and that this is standard or even frequent practice in the United States. This myth is debunked here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y

Conclusion



-- Sorry fantasy-lovers, but there's simply no question about it. American Airlines Flight 77 - a Boeing 757 - hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Not a cruise missile, not a Global Hawk, not an A3 Skywarrior, but a Boeing 757. Physical evidence as well as eyewitness testimony shows beyond any and all reasonable doubt that none of the three most commonly mentioned craft could have caused the damage seen. This is not opinion, this is fact. Many who continue to purvey these myths claim they seek the truth, yet they feel the compulsory need to spread disinformation again and again. Those who truly seek the truth, however, can see this for what it is: a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001

PhillyPhreak Industries
Debunking Conspiracy Theories Since September 2001



PhillyPhreak31 wrote most of this.