What hit the Pentagon-- is this really a 757 landing gear?

[spooked911]

link: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/084.html

The part found in the Pentagon (top two pictures) is certainly very similar to the 757 landing gear, but the head structure seems quite different to me.

Is this proof that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. It's my understanding

that the part pictured in debris at the Pentagon connects to the big landing gear piece in the lower left picture precisely where the worker is holding the big piece.

Look at the lower right picture - you'll see the part I'm talking about, and it looks to be an exact match to me.

[spooked911]

2. I really don't think that part from the pentagon is the connecting bar

the part in the pentagon is too big, and I don't think it matches particularly well either-- for instance I don't see a "trunion link" in that smaller connecting bar.

[JackRiddler]

3. Thank you so much...

for showing the utter futility of pursuing this barren line of inquiry.

Picture of metal wreckage at an angle, you think you're going to read something definitive into it? What a waste of your precious time. This is not science, it's religion.

I've said for years now (ugh, suppress that thought!) that anyone serious about doubting the Pentagon attack would stop meditating on the fucking hole (which is more than big enough to fit a 757 fuselage) and instead demand the existing video records of the event. Similarly, anyone serious about demolition should be seeking to obtain dust and scraps from Ground Zero (they exist in abundance in private hands as souvenirs) and conduct residue tests for explosives (which the NIST has so far not done, by the way).

Now HERE is someone serious, who has put in an FOIA for the Pentagon attack videos:

http://www.flight77.info

[spooked911]

5. Do you think they match or not? I think it is clear they don't.

If they don't match, it is solid evidence that something besides a normal 757 hit the pentagon.

We use the evidence that we have.

I agree about the hole. But the problem I have with the pentagon is the plane apparently blowing up upon hitting the wall but then still penetrating 300 feet of inside walls and columns to produce the large exit hole in a thick brick wall.

It is the exit hole that doesn't make sense with the idea of a 757 exploding on impact.

[JackRiddler]

6. I think this is a fool's errand

Since it's debatable enough that everyone will go with their preconceived notions.

The exit hole in the third ring could easily have been caused by an engine. In fact that looks like the perfect candidate.

[Frederik]

7. I don't see how

an engine could have gotten there, frankly. Yes, the hole is big enough for the 757 fuselage, but where did the engine enter?

[demodewd]

8. no engine in A-E drive

The exit hole in the third ring could easily have been caused by an engine. In fact that looks like the perfect candidate.

There is no photographic evidence of an engine in the A-E drive.If an engine would have been found there,no doubt it would have consigned the role as the chief suspect in creating the hole. That an engine would have assumed the same path of trajectory as the fuselage is highly suspect.

[spooked911]

10. the engine dfid not create the exit hole-- I suggest that you haven't

really studied the evidence if you think that. There is no trace of an engine near the exit hole.

[demodewd]

11. you misunderstand...

I quoted Jack Riddler and then responded like you.

[spooked911]

12. sorry! I replied to the wrong person...

in any case, there was no trace of an engine near the exit hole, and in fact part of an engine was found in front of the pentagon, implying the at least one of the engines blew up on impact.

For what it is worth, Popular Mechanics says the exit hole was caused by a landing gear-- probably this landing gear, in fact.

But the problem is no landing gear was found next to the exit hole, so I don't see how a landing gear made the exit hole unless it knocked a nice clean hole in the wall then bounced backwards quite a ways-- which would be an interesting feat, but even then doesn't explain how the landing gear would knock out a perfectly round ten foot exit hole from a brick wall.

[JackRiddler]

13. "no trace"

I'll say it again, no one has responded:

Now HERE is someone serious, who has put in an FOIA for the Pentagon attack videos:

http://www.flight77.info

Otherwise, spooked, you are once again illustrating the fallacy of the Pentagon attack obsessives.

Do you have comprehensive attack scene photos? No. Do you have access to the physical evidence? No. Do you have videos of the attack? Nothing except for the useless one with a vague object approaching. You work with randomly taken photos of bystanders (most of them obscured by smoke and foam and generally taken from a distance) and the few photos the Pentagon has released. And you think these fragments suffice to make any definite conclusions.

How the fuck do you know if there's "no trace" of this or that in any given location?

Not trusting the government to ever tell the truth -- a very healthy and logical attitude -- is not a reason to think you can prove anything in this case. And anything less than total proof is also total defeat, in this case.

The hole in the Pentagon is simply too "narrow" for a 9/11 skeptics' case. It has been a black hole for our energies. The circumstantial and personal criminal evidence is what you need to open a case that might one day be able to subpeona the Pentagon and other evidence. The rest is a big waste of our time.

[spooked911]

14. I understand your points completely, but here we have a picture of

a landing gear from the plane that hit the Pentagon.

It's a simple issue really. Does this match a 757 landing gear or not?

If it does, then that is strong evidence for a 757 hitting, and we can all worry about other issues.

If it doesn't match-- well then that easily blows a big hole in the official story.

I say it doesn't match. I say this blows a hole in the official story.

What do you think???

[LARED]

15. I think it is a very good match

Look at the landing gear in the back. The aft trunion link is the object that is sticking straight out to the left. On the pentagon picture you can see what remains of the aft trunion link sticking in what would be the up position. You can see the trunion link is the polished shaft sticking out to the right. In the pentagon image it is pointing down.



There is almost no doubt that the pentagon landing gear and the one in the back are the same. I'd say it's a match.

[spooked911]

4. One problem I have with these pictures is that I can't match up the

head structure in the first and second pictures for the pentagon part. The "trunion link" is still there but part of the "reaction link" bracket seems to be missing inthe second picture.

But either way, the trunion link sticks quite a ways out on the real 757 part and it simply doesn't stick out from the shaft on the pentagon part. This is clear simply from the top picture.

So either the 757 was made with two very differently engineered types of landing gear (which seems unlikely) or the plane that hit the pentagon was not a 757.

[slaveplanet]

9. I see what you mean...

Doesn't anyone have explosed diagrams of 757 landing gear?...this should be easy to clear up.

[spooked911]

16. Actually, I have changed my mind. I think it is a 757 part.

The reason I was having problems with matching this piece before was that I was looking at the wrong piece. Look at the landing gear in the factory photo BEHIND the gear the man is holding. I just realized that the top structure of the read landing gear is very different from the top structure on the landing gear that the man is holding.

In the part the man is holding, the trunion link is clearly jutting out quite a bit from the head unit. But in the part in the back, the trunion link is much more flush with the main trunk of the landing gear, which is the way the pentagon piece is configured.

Thus, the landing gear in the pentagon does seem to match the landing gear shown in the back of the photo.

Thus, this piece would strongly indicate a 757 hit the pentagon.

Or if one was desperate to cling to the idea that something else hit the pentagon, one could say this piece was planted somehow. I do find that idea very improbable.

[LARED]

17. Congrats n/t

[spooked911]

18. Funny-- we posted this same idea at almost exactly the same time.

I came to the same conclusion as you did without reading your post, which was just one minute before mine.

[spooked911]

19. by the way--

"Man either accepts the idea that the Creator is the endower of rights, or he submits to the idea that the state is the endower of rights. There is no third alternative."

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but it seems that humanity itself could be the endower of rights. I don't see why you need to invoke a deity or the state.

[LARED]

21. From a practical view

humans can only endow rights via the state. Rights endowed by the Creator will reflect the character of the Creator. Rights endowed by the state will reflect the whims of the state.

[demodewd]

20. yes but no?

So what does a landing gear look like for a 747. And by a 757 you don't necessarily mean Flight 77? Right?

[spooked911]

22. No, I don't think it was flight 77. And at the risk of being called a

total conspiracy kook, I am still not convinced a normal or complete 757 hit the pentagon.

[spooked911]

23. This is one reason I am suspicious that parts were planted:

We're expected to believe the nose piece survived going through all these walls:

"Mr. LEE EVEY (Program Manager Pentagon Renovation Project): The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into AE drive.
(World News Tonight Saturday (6:30 PM ET) - ABC September 15, 2001 Saturday)"

"Fire Captain Michael Defina - MWAA: "The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring. The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear." "

"Mr. RUMSFELD: Yeah. And then came in about—between about the first and second floor over here. And it went in through three rings. I’m told the nose is—is still in there , very close to the inner courtyard, about one ring away.
(ABC News SHOW: Good Morning America (6:00 AM ET) - ABC September 13, 2001 Thursday)"


http://www.pentagonresearch.com/exit.html

The nose of a large jet is fairly fragile.



Yet the landing gear, which is a thousand times tougher, is totally mangled?

It makes no sense.

[LARED]

24. I did notice none of your witnesses that say they saw a nose cone

are qualified to make that call. Perhaps what they saw were other conical part of the aircraft?

See here http://members.tripod.com/~aravm98/reference/757RRengindex.htm

[spooked911]

25. your links don't work. And the question is, what did they see that they

thought was part of the nose cone?

[LARED]

26. Engine parts

http://members.tripod.com/~aravm98/reference/757ref08.htm

or

http://members.tripod.com/~aravm98/reference/757ref07.htm

[MrSammo1]

27. the photo

doesn't even suggest where it's from.......or when it was taken!

[LARED]

28. Verses all the validated evidence used

9/11 CT crowd. Pretty high standard your setting for the CT crowd to meet.

[spooked911]

29. Actually, most of our evidence is from the mainstream media.

However we take time to look at all the stories and different evidence and try to make sense of 9/11-- something the MSM is loath to do.

Because the official story doesn't make sense.

[spooked911]

30. True enough. That is a problem as well.

[dbeach]

31. Rummy said on 10/12/01 that a missle hit Pentagon..

..he also told troops in Iraq that the plane was shot down over PA..

Funny hos the "plane " hit the emptier part of the Pentagon far from office of rummy..
He also has piece of plane on his office desk.

"And here's something to kick around. Still answering this question, Rumsfeld goes on to make a strange statement:

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

"Missile"? What missile would that be? Did he let something slip? Or was this just a gaffe? A bad choice of words? A transcription error? Until we know for sure, it deserves scrutiny."

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html


"It is a truth ..."
Scusa me but I was not aware that rummy knew any TRUTHS.

[mhl6277]

32. there are some pictures of the landing gear out there

that match up. i will find that link and post it. i still remain convinced that it was not a plane.