9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by misterQ

Originally posted by piboy There is no explanation of why a window pane that was either struck or almost struck by a wing is intact. The window didn't break, didn't pop out, and didn't melt, even though there are no discernible wing remains anywhere.

I'm assuming this is the photo you are referring to: Considering the angle the photo was taken and the angle the aircraft reportedly struck the building, this overlay is valid. The window wasn't even grazed, and still has very visible hazing. I don't see how the overlay would imply the window would break, since it doesn't show that the plane struck the window. It does show this: The structure the window is recessed in was hit, not the window itself. Why would a near hit be expected to cause a window to fall out or break?

www.azom.com... Viracon were the manufacturers of the blast resistant windows used in the Pentagon. These windows had only recently been installed in the region affected by the airplane impact and have been credited with saving potentially thousands of lives. The windows were being installed as part of a renovation operation which had been partially completed by September 11. At the time of the impact approximately 385 of the blast resistant windows were installed in the Pentagon near the crash site. The glass panel sections consisted of several glass panels bonded together with plastic interlayers similar to automotive windscreens. They differed in that they had a thickness of almost 40mm and weighed over 200kg each. The window frames were manufactured by Masonry Arts Inc to fit in with the existing architecture. Masonry Arts Inc were also responsible for the installation work. Click image for enlargement of this picture

Notice windows still intact even after collapse. Blast-resistant windows at Pentagon credited with saving lives www.dupont.com... Cleveland Company Built Pentagon Windows that Saved Lives www.theglazine.com... . [edit on 7-7-2005 by JUDGECAL]

Originally posted by piboy Now, the fuselage debris... If it is 3.5 to 4 feet as you say, then the rivets are only a few inches apart (maybe 6in?). I am trying to think of where on a American 757 there are rivets 6in apart and alos have some lettering. I am not doubting it (yet) but I can't figure it out. Can you show me where this fits the lettering and riveting on an American 757 jet? [edit on 14-9-2004 by piboy]

77debris.batcave.net... www.pentagonresearch.com... [edit on 7-7-2005 by JUDGECAL]

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by ThePunisher SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 --PRESIDENT BUSH [SENIOR] PRESENTS SPEECH TO CONGRESS, "TOWARD A NEW WORLD ORDER" SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 -- MIGHTY BLOW STRUCK TO BRING ABOUT NEW WORLD ORDER -- PRECISELY 11 YEARS LATER TO THE DAY! BUSH [JUNIOR] PRESIDENT.

that's right. and don't forget the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, eleventh hour peace agreement. it's just a coincidence. go back to sleep. 911 days later, madrid bombings, on 3/11, was it? just a coincidence. anthrax mailings clear certain members out of the house, while the patriot act is passed. no worries. move along. anthrax determined to be US military grade, lab specific. the one death from anthrax mailings was a journalist who reportedly had compromising photos of bush and his gay lover(mayor of knoxville). huh? what were we talking about? i forgot. anthrax? oh yeah! what were we talking about? bin laden video ....faked. captured saddam .....fake. poor scapegoat guy. nick berg ...covert, BRUTAL propoganda. abu gharib ......guilty of war crimes guantanamo bay ....guilty of crimes against humanity downing street memo .....guilty of treason tower collapses and pentagon strike .....debatable, HAHA! a little bit, anyway the $20 paper airplane showing a near perfect illustration of the towers burning ....coincidence it's pretty obvious that thousands of people ARE 'in on it'. the bolsheviks did it with ten percent of the population, i hear. why can't even less do it now, with the incredible mind control powers of popular media, and the awesome, godlike abilities of BIG MONEY. oh right. because, 'we' are supposed to be a bunch of stupid 'chattle'. oh yeah, and to 'stay on topic', it doesn't matter if a plane hit the pentagon, or a missile hit the pentagon. it was the death blow to the once great america. the leader is good. long live the great leader.

Yes like today. 911 9x11 11 11 11=6 11 11 11=6 11 11 11=6 666 today 777 7/7/2005(2+5=7) bottom line ------------------------ (inside jobs)

Originally posted by CatHerder Shedding tears? lol I have read through it all, there are 4 or 5 people who are unable to discuss rationally or intelligently this topic, for the most part the majority managed to stay on topic. But your posts are just thinly veiled delusional rants and I don’t have the time or compulsion to humor you. I find posts like yours to be a waste of time responding to. You never want to discuss a specific topic and instead you want to randomly generalize about a breadth of topics because you lack the ability to debate on any level and feel the need to hop randomly from topic to topic to hide that fact.

That's great humor, but you're factually wrong on the fact that the post is just thinly veiled delusional rants. Most of my post is full of quotes from Government employees speaking out against the corruption. Are they dillusional? Or is it you? You don't have the time to bother with them, just like every other dissenter because it disproves your entire point that the U.S. Government are full of caring people that love each and every one of us and would never carry out something like 9/11. BTW, you haven't complained about ThePunisher or billybob both in the post right above me, talking about all sorts of other things besides the 757, from 666 to anthrax to GITMO to a $20 paper airplane. Don't be a hypocrite. To get directly on topic, I'm under the assumption the 757 was indeed the "what" that hit the pentagon looking at the facts objectively. But who and why are just as important questions. [edit on 7-7-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by NoJustice BTW, you haven't complained about ThePunisher or billybob both in the post right above me, talking about all sorts of other things besides the 757, from 666 to anthrax to GITMO to a $20 paper airplane. Don't be a hypocrite. To get directly on topic, I'm under the assumption the 757 was indeed the "what" that hit the pentagon looking at the facts objectively. But who and why are just as important questions.

actually, he did. he posted something like, "stop this nonsense, and get back on topic'. 'they' don't like it when you group evidence together. it must be kept in little seperate jars, in ordo to keep people from connecting the dots. you, see, catherder, the issue of what hit the pentagon has been heavily weighed with argument and analysis, here. more to come, i'm sure. even hardcore conspiracies theorists are starting to accept it as a real possibility. the issue of who, how, and why are still relevent to the discussion to most people who are here to discuss it. it is not off topic. if it so happens that this brings us into the illuminati lore, too bad. incidentally, on the backside of the $20 folded into an airplane, there is an illustration of the pentagon burning. funny when life becomes the back page of a mad magazine.

No... the problem here is a 757 did in fact hit the Pentagon and that doesn't fit with your conspiracy theories. That is the issue with you guys. Because I've shown that a 757 hit the Pentagon you have issues with it because it does damage to a dozen of your other theories. For the purpose of this thread, and my original article, I set out to do one thing. Find out what hit the Pentagon. I believe I proved to myself, and any other rational reader, that it was a 757. If you have issues with that fact, please do feel free to "debunk" it and show me otherwise. Ranting and raving about the WTC towers, or building 7, or chemtrails, or the Kennedy assassination, or a faked moon landing does nothing to disprove the fact that a 757 hit the Pentagon. How hard is it for you to stay on topic? Apparently impossible?

So notice the debris. it is obviously there. No? Exact same firefighter and yellow truck, but look NO DEBRIS. Plese Do Explain?? Peace

Originally posted by CatHerder No... the problem here is a 757 did in fact hit the Pentagon and that doesn't fit with your conspiracy theories. That is the issue with you guys. Because I've shown that a 757 hit the Pentagon you have issues with it because it does damage to a dozen of your other theories.

i'm patiently trying to point out that it does no such thing. if it was a disintegrato-ray that hit the pentagon, it does nothing to the trail of bread crumbs that pretty much PROVE that the whole 911 crime was perpetrated by insiders. the fact that you can't handle the fact that it doesn't matter if it was a plane or not speaks volumes. some of us are getting very good at reading between the lines, my fellow 'canadian'. or should i say, 'global citizen'? you have done a fab job of finding info and whatnot. amazing, even. what's even more amazing, is that someone so adept at anaylsis, simply does not want to fit his little pet into the big picture. in fact, he doesn't want anyone to consider the big picture. if he had his way, the pentagon discussion would never leave the grounds of the pentagon. here's one, resident expert.... why did the pentagon have no defense? it's the frickin' pentagon! what was there radar system that specifically looks for aerial threats doing? what were their anti-aircraft missiles for? why did the pentagon parking lot, the hub of american security, have a dime store video system for the parking lot? a system that won't even record in real time. they've spent $100 000 on a hammer, something similiar on a toilet seat design, why couldn't they spring for a decent security system? .....crickets...... because, they are lying. i love when rainman counts matchsticks. it's totally amazing to me. he's also an excellent driver. [edit on 7-7-2005 by billybob]

Sigh... Surely you DO realise this right? If a 757 hit the Pentagon, that means your government was one of 2 things:

1. government was to blame for either allowing it to hit the Pentagon (incompetence, lack of foresight, poor defence planning, etc = outrage)
2. government was to blame for participating in making it hit the Pentagon (conspiracy = outrage).

That's the only two possible outcomes. The best thing possible for the government if it was a terrorist plot that managed to crash a 757 into the side of the Pentagon would be for you to conclude that it was something other than a 757 that crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It would cheapen your conspiracy theories and show to the rest of the world that you're a bunch of lunatics and crackpots and nobody would pay any attention to the real issue of the true conspiracy -- the fact that your government was incompetent and responsible for failing your nation. Nobody needs be held accountable. The best thing possible, if the government was an active participant in the attack on the Pentagon, would be for you to choose to develop any number of outrageous schemes in order to "show" the world that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. This would serve to distract from the reality of the situation and put focus on many absurd claims instead of on the conspirators. It would cheapen your conspiracy theories and show to the rest of the world that you're a bunch of lunatics and crackpots and nobody would pay any attention to the real issue of the true conspiracy - that the government was an active participant in crashing a 757 into the side of the Pentagon. Nobody needs be held accountable. A 757 hit the Pentagon. That's the reality of the situation. Now, use your brain and work your theories to accomodate that fact and see where you go. Or, keep adhering to the mass hysteria of the 100 theory per day conspiracy world and see how many brick walls you run into. Why don't you guys get it?

Originally posted by CatHerder Why don't you guys get it?

Please explain why there are COUNTLESS people expose who try to expose this silly "conspiracy theory". Firefighters, journalists, etc. If they really didn't have a clue then why? Say controlled demolition brought down WTC 1, 2, 6 & 7 on 911. Why say flight 77 never hit the pentagon. Expose Bush and Co. You can clearly see in the security tape that there is white smoke before the "thing" hit the pentagon. Planes DO NOT LEAVE SMOKE behind. When have you ever been at an airport and seen smoke coming from the back of a plane?? Unless its on fire. When planes take of they use full thrust, regardless wether it is traveling at 50mph or 350mph jet engines do not produce smoke. This "Proves" that the flight 77 did NOT hit the pentagon. Where are the eyewitness seeing the plane was on fire before hitting the pentagon. Thats right there aren't any. And The Turbo fan engine found at the pentagon site DID NOT MATCH ANY engines that Rolls Royce or Pratt and Witney made. How easy is it to control a 100 ton commercial airliner, even having to use the controls for the GPS system is daunting at best. Could you fly one? I very much doubt it, so how can pilots who are shown NOT to be on the plane in the first place and suposedly could not fly a sesna very well manage to take control of a plane, fly it all the way from Idaho unseen on radar all the way to pentagon do a nearly 360 in a spiral motion then fly literally tree top level right into the side of the pentagon which had fewer people in it because it had recent renovation. Why didn't it dive into the top of the pentagon surely its a 100% more attainable target plus dare I say it. higher death toll . Or If they hit the side "it" was coming from it would have hit Rummy's office. Some eyewitness claiming it came down and turned around, that would take one VERY VERY good pilot to do that kind of banking at 350mph. WHY DON'T YOU GET IT. The US government AT LEAST knew about the attacks but I would not end there, they were behind the first WTC attacks and Oklahoma bombing and "possibly" more, so why should they stop there if people like you keep ignoring the facts. They will continue with the slaughter. Even if they weren't involved in the attacks THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO BOMB AN UNARMED NATION WITH DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS! Peace [edit on 7/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Jet engines do not produce smoke? www.cloud9photography.us... www.whiteplanes.com... img.villagephotos.com... img.villagephotos.com... It's hard to see, but the Hornet on the low end of the ladder is leaving a smoke trail NOT from any sort of smoke generator, as these are active duty Hornets. I've seen F-15s, 737s, an occasional 767, 747s, DC-9s, DC-10s, KC-135s and other airframes based on the 707, occasionally 717s, 727s all leave smoke trails. Those are just a few of the ones I've seen over the years. I work at an airport and every day I see jets come in leaving smoke trails. I've seen white trails, and brown trails depending on why it's leaving a smoke trail.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Jet engines do not produce smoke? www.cloud9photography.us... www.whiteplanes.com... img.villagephotos.com... img.villagephotos.com... It's hard to see, but the Hornet on the low end of the ladder is leaving a smoke trail NOT from any sort of smoke generator, as these are active duty Hornets. I've seen F-15s, 737s, an occasional 767, 747s, DC-9s, DC-10s, KC-135s and other airframes based on the 707, occasionally 717s, 727s all leave smoke trails. Those are just a few of the ones I've seen over the years. I work at an airport and every day I see jets come in leaving smoke trails. I've seen white trails, and brown trails depending on why it's leaving a smoke trail.

And which one of those is a 757? Also NONE of those trails are as "light" and dense as the one in the security gate picture. Granted, Planes leave smoke trails but they do not produce ones as dense as the one from the "apparant" flight 77, Why are there no eyewitnesses to the smoke? Yet it is clearly seen in the picture?

I still don't see it. I see lens flare, and I see clouds, but I don't see a smoke trail in that picture.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I still don't see it. I see lens flare, and I see clouds, but I don't see a smoke trail in that picture.

Notice its there, then it moves into the building. Lens flare, lol. Thats a good one Peace

I agree with Zaphod. Looks like the lens is a bit smudged, but I see no smoke.

Originally posted by HydraulicToast I agree with Zaphod. Looks like the lens is a bit smudged, but I see no smoke.

So a smudge just "magically" disperses does it?

I see it now, but it looks like it's on the ground right before impact. Like an engine hit the ground and started smoking because something broke inside, then the plane hit the building. There's no way you could tell what that is from that split second it shows up. I've seen reports that the plane actually hit the helipad before the building, then "skipped" into the building. Or maybe it was just an engine that hit the helipad. That's also AFTER the engine bounced off of lightpoles, and cars, and god knows what else. Hitting things like that would PROBABLY damage something inside it, which could cause it to smoke like that. A broken oil line would leave a nice smoke trail.

Oh Also Zap58 I want to know what do you say about the BBC reporting that 8 of the Highjackers are still alive?

The 5 frames of blurry video is not good supporting evidence for anything. It's not good evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon; it's not good evidence of something other than a 757 hitting the Pentagon. I've always said that, and anyone rational would agree with that assessment. But... since you'd like to discuss it I'll offer some counterpoints to your post(s). -=- So a jet engine that hits 4 or 5 light poles on the way in and takes damage doesn't smoke? A jet engine operating at near full throttle at under 100 feet altitude isn't operating outside of normal parameters and shouldn't smoke? The airliner was going over 500 mph when it hit the building, 757-200s and 300s land at about 130-135 kts (150-155mph) and take off at about 140-145 kts (161-167mph). This aircraft was going over 350mph faster than one normally flys at this altitude! But then I personally don't think its smoke from a jet engine or a missile... Water vapor is what it probably is (and this is just my best "guess"). It's probably moisture from the ground, or sprinkler heads in the lawn, forced into the air by the tremendous air pressure caused by the aircraft (ground effect). That would certainly explain why it is not prominent in any of the frames that follow.

Hunting Veritas, you got my way above award, I think for the second time. Don't expect it to change anyone's mind though, you've backed up your evidence with proof, but they'll just ask for more proof and ignore what you've already given. It's an endless cycle, and I know if you didn't care about these dissenters so much you would have given up long ago. "Lens flare" "Water vapor" ahahaha, some will just go to no end to make excuses to avoid what they don't want to see. [edit on 7-7-2005 by NoJustice]