The Amazing New PENTA-LAWN !!!!

[theSaiGirl]

With thanks to "The Webfairy".....

Real planes leave debris. Lots of debris. Immediately visable debris.
Like this:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/191
Not like this:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html

[Kevin Fenton]

1. Lawn photo

The photo of the lawn is of an area different to the one that the plane flew over. Given that the plane did not fly over this part of the lawn, why should it be marked? Given that it is a long way from the point of impact why should there be any debris there?

[rman]

6. It's the area right in front of the crash location.

What do you mean "area different to the one that the plane flew over"?

[Kevin Fenton]

7. Exactly

"It's the area right in front of the crash location."
The plane didn't hit the building straight on, but at an angle. This isn't the bit of lawn the plane would have hit if it had hit the lawn.

[rman]

8. It was not a very steep angle

and many images do show a lot more of the lawn then just the "bit" right in front of the crash site. Yet no damage to the lawn is visible.

But then again, you don't seem to be entirely sure that the plane did in fact hit the lawn.

[Kevin Fenton]

9. Lawn

The OP had a link that started with this photo and I commented on it:


I've seen lots of photos and I couldn't definitely say it didn't hit the lawn. Nor could I definitely say it did. The photos from ground level don't really show much and some of the people who say it hit the lawn say it (or rather the left wing) hit right in front of the building, where the lawn is obscured in all the photos by debris from the building and the firetrucks. There is also the question of how much damage the plane (or its left wing) would do to the lawn.

The idea that the lawn is not damaged, so the Pentagon couldn't have been hit by a 757 does not appeal to me one bit.

[hack89]

2. Thanks for the walk down memory lane...

it's good that we discuss this issue every 6 months regardless of the fact that nothing new has been discussed in this forum for at least 2 years.

[petgoat]

3. nothing new... for at least two years

Right. You'd already dissected the 9/11 Commission Report and Dr.
Steven Jones's paper, the NIST report, Osama's 11-04 videotape, Able
Danger, Jack Abramoff and SunCruz, Bob Graham's book, Richard Clarke's
book, "The New Pearl Harbor", Fahrenheit 911, 103 Minutes, the Rowland
Morgan book, Welcome to Terrorland, Crossing the Rubicon, Synthetic
Terror, The War on Truth, 1000 Years for Revenge. Yawn, yawn, yawn.
You've seen it all and there's nothing there. :sarcasm:

[hack89]

4. My point ...

was that this penta-lawn shit(along with every other CT) comes up every 6 months and is always a complete rehash of the previous discussion. Where are the exciting new facts like the names of the plotters or independent forensic evidence of the WTC demolition?

[spooked911]

15. Indeed. Why even bother coming here if it is so boring?

I'm referring to the OCTists here.

[hack89]

16. But it is never boring!

repetitious at times but still highly entertaining.

[AZCat]

18. Because we care.

Don't assume that those of us who are not big on "alternate theories" care any less about the answers to the many questions still remaining. We just have a different approach to them, that's all.

And most of us agree about the important thing - Bush&Co must be held accountable for whatever occurred on that day, and so far have not. The media and those in power aren't going to do the job for us, so we have to do it ourselves.

[mirandapriestly]

5. More photos of crash area

http://close.batcave.net/

you can see the lawn closer to the impact. He also has commentary.

[LARED]

10. The title should read amazing old penta-lawn.

There is nothing new about it.

[piobair]

11. name

SAIC?

[sabbat hunter]

12. go to snopes

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[killtown]

13. Snopes? The Penta-Lawn 2000 makes fun of Snopes!

"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." - Snopes.com

So where did Flight 77 "hit the ground first" as Snopes claims???





I've also written a rebuttal to Snopes' laughable debunk attempt:

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

[vincent_vega_lives]

14. Snopes is wrong

No evidence it hit the ground first. But any stupid "amazing penta-lawn" arguments are just that. All you have to do is look at more pictures and it is clear the fire and debris is quite extensive.

Groundhog day anyone?

[Kevin Fenton]

17. ASCE

The ASCE says it hit the ground right in front of the building - about 30 feet away from it. The left engine/wing would have hit the ground at the same time the nose hit the facade.