A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

a reply to: hiddenNZ

The Towers were a tube in a tube. They were essentially hollow shells, that were assembled by putting sections together on the outer wall. When the planes hit, the sections where the panels were joined broke apart where the rivets attached them.

The Pentagon was rebuilt with a wall designed to stand up to a truck bomb in contact with it, and blast proof windows. The wings are hollow and designed to hold the fuel. They're not going to punch through a concrete wall, like they went through the Towers.

Is it just me, or is no one actually going over the OP's info and instead everyone is restating what they've always said without focusing on the topic?

Not to mention, the OP agreed a missile still could have gone undetected during the event.

And the flight which witnessed the Pentagon hit also saw the smoke from PA!

Hello?

a reply to: hiddenNZ

The aluminum used in aircraft has a stronger tensile strength than a lot of steel. And it hit the wall like a battering ram.

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
Interesting theory indeed.

However, holes start to appear in you story when you state:

At 13:38:19 the track on AAL77 stops, it has collided into the pentagon at a speed of 370 knots indicated or 425 MPH.

The average cruising speed "indicated" of a Boeing 757 is 528 mph or 850 kmh or 458 knots. This is cruising speed. Any deviation from that straight and level flight i.e. a descent, with throttles "pushed forward" will increase IAS. To say the pilot put the aircraft into a steep descent to hit the Pentagon without increasing IAS is complete rubbish.

That's not what it says in the transcript. The flight made a right 360 degree turn just west of the airport and the Ground Speed which is calculated by the radar system and displayed on the Data Block, it is showing 370 knots in the last radar hit. I don't think I said anything nor did I hear anything about a steep descent without increasing IAS.

As a matter of fact, the radar doesn't even display the ground speed until the controllers tag it with the S. The flight is three fourths of the way through the turn.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Nope. I think I was stating facts based on my own knowledge opposing the ones stated in the OP?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for explaining zaph.

a reply to: scubagravy

Exit hole. Landing gear and engine. People insist on calling it an entry hole, even when stated in this, and so many other threads on it. Aircraft debris in and outside the building. There is no missile. A 757 hit the Pentagon. People died. Let them, and their loved one's rest.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: CaptainBeno

Except they didn't make the descent at full speed. They increased speed as they approached the building after leveling off.

Yes, the ground speed was initially indicating 260 -280kts. It wasn't until the flight line up northeast bound did the speed increase.

And thanks for earlier ZAPH !

originally posted by: darkstar57
a reply to: DickBrisket

The fool is the one that thinks being there is the same as knowing. a 757 has a tail 60 feet off the ground, yet the second story windows above impact are unbroken. an engine weighs 6 tons, has 6 tons thrust, and 6 tons rotational momentum . about. Yet the windows at the impact of the engines are intact.

Agreed....For the officials of the pentagon story, the laws of physics stopped obeying their laws and the damage you would expect to have happen didn't happen.

(And they had to make up a thousand little pseudo-science alibi's for each anomaly!)

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Nope. I think I was stating facts based on my own knowledge opposing the ones stated in the OP?

Then state your rebuttal to the OP.

Which part of his/her direct knowledge is identifiably false?

a reply to: pale5218

OK, i'll give you that. My apologies.

However, my opinion still remains firm. It was a missile.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
Is it just me, or is no one actually going over the OP's info and instead everyone is restating what they've always said without focusing on the topic?

Not to mention, the OP agreed a missile still could have gone undetected during the event.

And the flight which witnessed the Pentagon hit also saw the smoke from PA!

Hello?

I appreciate that Tarzan, I think there is good data in there. Like I said, it changed my mind. The info is there for people to decide for themselves.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Spot on

again, for your viewing pleasure>

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
a reply to: pale5218

OK, i'll give you that. My apologies.

However, my opinion still remains firm. It was a missile.

I stated in the OP, I am not trying to make you believe anything.
The thread was not to raise the same old arguments nor try to convince anyone by regurgitating the same points that have been raised since 9/12.

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Spot on

again, for your viewing pleasure>

I have seen these pictures. I have seen most of all the information out there.

I do not have answers for those.

But not having answers for those questions doesn't mean what I presented is not factual.

ETA I already stated that I could not prove it wasn't a missile. I can only present what I know and understand. I understand Air Traffic Control and radar presentation. I see normal radar presentations and what I would expect to see on a routine day.

Nothing I could see that contradicts the events that occur in that radar/audio presentation that say it wasn't a B757 or it was a missile.

a reply to: pale5218

Yep, fair enough. However, given the evidence (Lots of threads etc etc) and my own personal knowledge of flying aircraft. This guy with his limited experience must have been a bloody ace if he could hold off straight and level at that speed inches above the ground (Take into account ground effect) and to not scratch the surface one little bit. At least he could be commended on his flying skills. I don't know anyone who could fly that low , score a direct hit, nice and level and not cause any pre damage to his surrounds?

He would have had to been as pictured above to get the hit he did. This is not taking into account the sheer mass and inertia during the hit.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

There are other angles that would have allowed the same impact. A shallow descent that put him just above the ground at impact would have had a similar angle of impact.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Doesn't the amount of ground effect depend on size of the wings,taking into consideration the weight of the plane? I highly doubt ground effect came into play in any significant way that day,whatever the speed of said plane was. And I also doubt alloy I beam would have punched a hole that big,they surely would be designed to offer horizontal rigidity, not "plough through rigidity"

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
He would have had to been as pictured above to get the hit he did. This is not taking into account the sheer mass and inertia during the hit.

I only know as much about Hanjour as whats been reported.

I will say that listening to the pilot of GOFER06 in this tape and the other tape in Cleveland Center, he seems very capable and professional. He gave me no reason to doubt his abilities including identifying the type aircraft and reporting what status.