It wasn't hit by anything.


Here's a link to the originals: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html








It's a truck.

You can still see the front end, the hood, the left front tire, the windshield, the place where the window was on the driver's side.

So much for the proof of damage from the engine of a passenger jet.

So now the argument switches to "it wasn't even a generator, it was a truck"?????

It was a large PORTABLE diesel gerator...hence the tires.

Geesh.

But he is right that it wasn't hit by a plane.

Remember this thread?

I didn't say it wasn't a generator.

I thought it was apparent that the 'generator' section was behind the cab section of the truck. Of course, that's assuming it is a 'generator'. I mean the Pentagon wouldn't have a missile defense system that just happens to look like a generator?

So all the witnesses that saw the plane are lying?

Given the contradictions in their individual statements, someone is. <_<

We don't know what people saw, but that is not what this thread is about.

All these pictures prove is that the 'generator' was not damaged by an incoming plane, and that anyone who continues to claim, this is proof a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, is a liar.

I don't think anyone is using the generator as "proof', in and of itself, of what happened on 9/11 at the Pentagon.

Rather, it is only one additional piece of supporting evidence.

A number of people use it as proof of the flight path.

Have Any of you seen this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=57...=911+conspiracy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...=911+conspiracy

I understand what you are saying.. but what you are seeing just isnt there.

Its a trailer. A towable generator.

There's no 'truck' in your pictures.

Although I see what you mean.

It looks like the outline of a truck a 9 year-old would've drawn :)

But he is right that it wasn't hit by a plane.

Remember this thread?

Now instead of looking at the vehicle, go back to the first picture and look at the fence.

The fence is not damaged yet. The opening in the fence is a gate for people to go through. There is still a sign on the ground at the entrance that says 'working'.

Go back and look at both pics next to each other, without all the crayon marks covering everything up.

I take that as a no or i am way behind on my info here. I have just recently got interested in this kind of stuff.

See this thread as well
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...iew=getlastpost


specs on this mobile 40Ft containerized power station
CAT 3516B
V-16, 4-stroke-cycle diesel
Bore — mm (in) .......................170 (6.7)
Stroke — mm (in) .....................190 (7.5)
Displacement — L (cu in) ............69.0 (4210)
Aspiration............Turbocharged-Aftercooled

Approximate Weight (Dry) —
Container with Generator Set and Switchgear
Including Container kg (lb) 32,660 (72,000)
With Undercarriage kg (lb) 40,370 (89,000)

~~~~

And I don't think anyone can make the damage fit an Engine/FlapTrack 757 impact theory.

Give it up. CIT failed to defend their claim of their flyover story or their north side story.

Haha! You crack me up dude. Nice post. :)

I reported the above thread, but I guess it's okay with the mods here.

The child drawing (the Yes! one) paraded by the above posters is incorrect completely.
The area to the left of his dip is not related to the same physical space as the generator. It is behind it, far behind. Which is why he cropped out the ground to remove any spatial reference.

Is that lying? Or deception? Or just troll friendly fun joking?