Nicely fallen items (placed)? on the grass there! do they even belong to the 757? again some can accept it that they were part of the plane some may argue this:
Additional to the fact that this represents less than 0.1 % of the volume of the alleged plane, what evidence is there that any of this was once part of a Boeing 757 ? It could be from anything. We know that something hit the Pentagon, that there was an explosion, and that where there is an explosion there will be debris of some sort.
To argue that this provides any evidence for either side of the argument is witchcraft trial logic. â You must be a witch, because you wouldn'tât have been accused if you werenât â.
â We know that a 757 was there. That proves that this is debris from a 757. And the fact that this is debris from a 757 proves that it was there... â
This debris is totally unidentifiable, and itâs volume is too insignificant to address the problem of unaccounted for wreckage
Supporters of the 757 theory claim this fragment to be wreckage from AA 77, citing the AA colors as proof.
In truth, it is the alleged AA colors which indicate that this cannot be part of the alleged plane. Has American Airlines invented a new kind of indestructible paint? This fragment has allegedly been violently flung out from an explosion which reduced a giant airliner to the dust and ashes and unidentifiable tiny fragments shown in the above photo. And yet the paint is as shiny and new as the day it was applied. Does it take more energy to peel and blacken paint, than to destroy 100 tons of aircraft? Clearly painted sections survive most crashes, as shown in the crash photos. But in those cases, no one is alleging an explosion catastrophic enough to vaporize 100 tons of plane. They break up and perhaps burn a bit. In really fierce crashes, some of the plane may actually be destroyed, but even in these cases, tons of reasonably intact wreckage remains. So these scenarios are consistent with the recovery of painted sections, even in bad crashes. The allegation that this brightly painted fragment survived is irreconcilable with the claim that 99.99% of the plane was vaporized.
Thereâs a further problem with this piece of wreckage. The colors are wrong anyway. Take a close look at the color scheme used by American Airlines. First, note that the alleged wreckage has a white stripe next to red which is of a larger area than the white stripe. Note the absence of any blue stripe.Now letâs look at some actual AA plane photos and youâll see that that this color scheme isnât used. Except possibly in the American Airlines lettering on the top front part of the fuselage,
The following has some additional views of AA 757 series planes.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?airlinesearch=American Airlines&distinct_entry=true
Note that the striped color scheme which the crude fake has attempted to copy does not appear on the wings or tail fins. The reason I make this point, is that this rules out the possibility that this piece of the plane was sheared off during the approach, before the explosion, by hitting a lightpole. If thereâs any possibility that itâs a genuine AA color scheme, it can only have come from part of the American Airlines lettering, on the top and front part of the fuselage, which means that this piece could not have been sheared off on the way in, and therefore must have been subject to the explosion. And that is impossible, even if we were to pretend that such an explosion was generally possible. Furthermore, the only part of the plane which it could possibly have come from is towards the front. If the explosion occurred in the middle of the plane, debris from the front area would have been flung forwards into the building not away from it. And if the explosion occurred in the front part of the plane, making it possible to blow this piece backwards, then this area of the plane would have been subject to the most powerful part of the blast, so if we were going to see surviving pieces of debris flung backwards, (especially with paintwork still intact ) they should be from the rear of the plane. And if itâs alleged that it was thrown forward with such force that it hit something else and bounced back all this distance, wouldnât the paintwork, be just a little scratched?
Whoever designed and planted this fake, didnât think it through.
Does the above make sense?
Well as the thread notes: Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions!
Josh
