The 757 Hitting the Pentagon

Ever felt the wake turbulence from a landing plane? They come up to almost full power depending on the type of plane, and the runway. If not full, then pretty close in some cases. That's still a LOT of wake turbulence.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You CAN fly it 50 feet or so from the ground, and then skip it off the ground into the building, WHICH several eyewitnesses reported seeing it do. It skipped off the helipad, one engine impacted the generator outside the building, then the plane impacted the building.
[edit on 9/30/2005 by Zaphod58]

How do you counter mockers of the "Pentalawn" phenomenon?

Also, one of the pictures below show the line of attack and one can see it's impossible for it to have skipped off the helipad.






[edit on 30-9-2005 by uknumpty]

Uk, I don't think the top picture, showing the marks in the lawn, is related to crash at all. I think the picture was taken before the event, some think showing evidence of "preparing" for it.

How do people explain the witnesses that saw a plane hit? I belive there are dozens, if not hundreds.

As for the only film being fuzzy, yet the building is clear, that is because the building is not moving. The security camera also is not capable of taking extremly high speed pictures, as the plane was moving very fast.

What the first picture I posted is attempting is to refute the idea that whatever hit the Pentagon bounced or skidded off the Helipad. The angle of attack as highlighted by the black elipse suggests this is not possible.

The second picture also shows little evidence of anything bouncing off the lawn in front of the Pentagon.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by uknumpty]

www.freedomunderground.org...

friend sent me that link, worth a look.

all of this back and forth talk would simply stop if the FBI releases the tapes. i have yet to hear 1 good reason as to why they are withholding this information from the general public.

That good reason your looking for is the fact that it's evidence in a court case, all the info and much more can be found here:

www.flight77.info...

It looks like there have been some recent updates, the guy who does the website is applying for all the info with FOIA requests and it seems there are a number of tapes available, though I'm not sure they all show impacts, if it all.
Anyone can request info, that is a citizen at least, so crack on!

Holy crap when will this disinformation stop? UFOs, missles, phantom planes.
This, the 'pod' theories, windowless planes...its all to discredit the real facts surrounding the 9/11 coverup.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Read EVERYTHING that I said, before you jump all over me, not just the parts you WANT to read.

"The only problem they would have would be with LANDING" and YES anyone that can get a pilots license can become a pilot for an airline, and that's just about anyone.

"...you are correct, "STEERING" (incorrect term, but we'll use this for sake of discussion) is not hard, if all considerd aspects of steering are just banking. Moving about 360 degrees on the X-Y plane is easy.

But when you start steering, taking into account the Z-plane (ie; Altitude/Height.. ie; trying to steer as you descend or ascend), steering is no longer the same (much more difficult). Especially when now you have to take into account, vertical and horizontal velocities, g-forces (at the same time) and have to adjust trim for both. Most proper and stable flight is conducted at a vertical speed between 0 and +/- 50. And adjusting trim at these speeds correctly is NOT what a novice can do (most people don't make their wings because they fail this part).

For a plane to come from above at a certain altitude, to descend at a specific rate from it's current position, to make the target is not something that can be done by "manual" steering (unless he was flying a fighter-jet, mind you commercial airplanes used in WTC are also very slow in response).

A novice could ONLY possibly hit the target (WTC buildings) if at the moment he hit the buildings he REACHED the altitude (of where it hit) and stayed there and stabilized his altitude, and then continued to bank left and right until he reached the target.

Clearly from the videos, one of the planes came from ABOVE. So this indicates the pilot reached an altitude far above the WTC height, and brought the plane down, at the exact altitude and at a very controlled rate of descent as if he was using AP/trim adjustment, because if he didn't (and controlled it manually), he risked the chance of hitting the ground flat too early or offshooting the target. You have to keep in mind, the world trade centre is a THIN and SHORT structure relative to capabilities of these particular aircrafts. It's like playing darts and getting a bullseye, and in this case -- TWICE in a row.

Very few people in my experience can hardly even CRASH on a landing runway with landing gadgets like ILS, let alone land a plane on it properly!

WTC clearly was conducted by professional pilots. Whether it be a conspiracy by the United States or some Middle-Eastern Terrorism plot. The fact is either way, the guys who flew these planes had elite pilot skills."

starting to see the picture?

Not my words. But a professional pilot's. Me, I have enough trouble with the simulators. Hmm, just like the alleged hijackers did.

Originally posted by Djarums
Howard, I think we can argue facts slightly more civilized than that...

Hey Mr. disco mod guy,

You know, not that I really care about points (how about a gold star?), but I was dinged 500 last week for calling someone a fool. And he actually deserved it. 'Stupid' is much harsher than fool. A fool is someone who might actually have brains but disregards God's gift in favor of acting the fool by refusing to gather the information available to all in order to form a substantive position. Stupid means you're lacking in the gray matter where it counts. Ya know, synapse failure, etc.

You mod's should strive for some consistency here. BTW, what kinds of goodies can I purchase with points? Assuming I ever get back in the black. I know, I know, read all about it in some forum. Hey, just send me the brochure, eh.

Hmmm---I definitely agree that far-out theories such as UFOs and the "pod plane" stuff are intended to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, but I don't see the questions raised by what hit the Pentagon as being in the same category. It seems so patently obvious to me that no 757 hit the Pentagon that it may in fact prove to be the best way to make our case about the truth of 9/11. A couple of the documentary films such as "9-11 In Plane Site" seem to be trying to link the pod plane theories with questions about the Pentagon, and in my opinion this may be a way to discredit the questioners of the Pentagon story by tying it together with the "pod plane" theories, which I frankly find to strain credulity. Let's face it, if a 757 really did hit the Pentagon, the government could either release some of the videotapes they confiscated from the scene, as well as from a nearby gas staion which supposedly caught everything, and if for some reason they cannot show us the whole tape, at least show us a still photo of a plane hitting the Pentagon! The 5 still-frame photos that they have released don't show anything other than an explosion. Until some proof is put forward, it seems to me that questioning the official story of what happened at the Pentagton may be one of the best and easiest ways for the 9/11 Truth Movement to make some progress, since the official story seems to be so blatantly false.
---Ryan

If we are to address the situation at the Pentagon any further, I say we readdress what evidence there is first of all. There's a lot of misconceptions, like the mistaking of holes in various walls for the hole in the facade, for example.

Here's an image of the facade before it began collapsing:

external image

Something about that photo strikes me as odd, to say the least. And the holes that were punched into the inner rings of the Pentagon, I have to admit, look more like explosives-related damages to me than aircraft damage. I have no reason to believe that nothing hit the Pentagon. I believe, because of the multitudes of eyewitness accounts and physical damage to light poles, etc., that something hit the Pentagon, but I have no no idea what it was.

Here's another link worth checking out: ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report: Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?.

[edit on 5-10-2005 by bsbray11]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 5/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

I agree with what you say completely. The early "truck bomb" theories never struck me as being particularly likely, but a cruise missile or smaller drone aircraft sure does seem more likely, in my opinion, than a 757.
---Ryan

Originally posted by uknumpty
Just like to point out that the planes landing in Zaphod's pictures are not flying at full throttle, unlike whatever hit the Pentagon.

When they are taking off they are.

I don't believ that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon. I also don't believe that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. It could have possibly been a drone or a remote controlled aircraft, maybe a something on the order of a 737, not a 757 that was said. It could be possible that whatever it was that hit, it had to have been controlled by one of these

I'd be impressed if it was controlled by an E-767. Considering there are four in the world and they were all bought by the Japanese.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
When they are taking off they are.

That might be true but they look like they're landing to me. The takeoff speed for a 757 is about 160mph.
Link

I was watching one of the more poorly-presented 9/11 truth documentaries last night (in my humble opinion) called "Painful Deceptions" by Eric Hufschmid. I found one fact he pointed out to be quite interesting, however---the Global Hawk drone aircraft, made of over 50 percent carbon fiber, looks like it would be about the right size for the type of impact sustained at the Pentagon, and the wreckage would be lightweight enough for people to be carting off pieces by hand, as many photographs show. It also is quite curious that there were known to be six of these types of planes, but now the Pentagon admits that there are only four since two were lost during "continual operations"---whatever that means.
As I said, the film itself has a lot of flaws in terms of production values and especially the really poorly-done narration, but I found this to be an interesting point, especially since I had been leaning a lot more strongly toward the cruise missile theory.
---Ryan

And there are a few flaws in your theory of it being a Global Hawk.

1. Material. An aircraft made mostly of cabron fiber, or other lightweight materail simply WILL NOT punch a hole in a kevlar reinforced wall, and proceed to penetrate through to the center courtyard.

2. Engine placement. Some of the damage around the building had to have been caused by a plane with engines under the wing. As Catherder pointed out, there is a very large generator that is secured to the ground that is moced CLOSER to the building. If it was moved in the blast it should have moved AWAY from the building. Eyewitnesses have one engine of the plane impacting it, and spinning it, at teh same time ripping off the engine.

3. Landing Gear. Even if you don't accept that the wheel hub they found was from a 757, which has been shown to match the wheel of a 757, it's too big for the gear of a Global Hawk. They would have had to seriously modify the Hawk to be able to put a wheel that big on it.

4. Speed. The object, and I use this term simply for the sake of argument becaue I believe it WAS a 757, that impacted the building was shown to be moving at approximately 500 mph. The top speed of a Global Hawk is approximately 450mph. There's no way that a plane with a big straight wing like that could reach more than 500mph. That wing is designed for slow speed/high lift.

5. Numbe of airframes. Global Hawk is a UAV designed to loiter over a combat zone. They ARE going to lose some. They're designed to loiter for up to 30 hours of continuous flight time. You can't operate for that many hours without having SOME sort of failure that would cause a loss of airframe. Or stay that long over a combat zone without losing one to fire. Or even FLY a UAV without SOME KIND of accident. They have well over 1000 hours of flight time on the total fleet. UAVs are prone to accidents.

Those all seem like legit points you make, although I had considered the fact that the lightweight plane might not make much of an impact to be the leading weakness in the theory, myself. I guess I should be clear about what I think most likely happened, since I seem to have a lot more questions than answers.
I would like to beleive that it was a 757, since it makes it easier to present my alternative 9/11 theories to those folks I know who still buy into the official story. The more of the "accepted theory" --- and let's face it, the official 9/11 story is in itself a massive "conspiracy theory"---that one can include in their viewpoint that they are present to someone who swallows the official line, the better. However, I just still do not find the damage to be consistent with that I would expect to see from a 757. The lack of any bodies, luggage, etc. doesn't seem to reinforce the 757 story, in my opinion, either.
There is, to be sure, some plane wreckage to be seen, but it has to be said that if it was a 757, it dodn't do too much damage. I tend to think that the still photos that were released are not indicative of a 757 crash, either, although something clearly flew into the building.
If a Global Hawk or some similar drone aircraft were flown at the Pentagon, then fired at with a cruise missile at the point of impact, that would seem to be, in my opinion, the most likely explanation for the witnesses who saw a plane, the lack of real plane damage, the relative lack of damage to the lawn and surrounding freeway area, etc. Again, this is simply my opinion. For one of the better essays I have read on the Pentagon scenario, I would recommend having a look at
www.davesweb.cnchost.com...
and check out the series of articles entitled "September 11th Revisited."
Whichever side you take in the Pentagon debate, I think you will find it worth a look. If there were as much solid documentation presented in favor of the plane theory as these articles present for the "no-plane" theory, then I would certainly reconsider my position, but I have to say, most of the arguments of the "yes, there was a plane" school of thought seem to focus on disproving the no-plane theory, rather than proving the plane theory. Thanks again for your time.
---Ryan

The blast pattern is wrong for a missile impact. The wall that was impacted was designed to have a truck bomb go off almost against it and withstand the blast. It probably would have had to have a Depleted Uranium penetrator to get through the wall, and once inside you are looking at a "soft" target. The blast of a cruise missile would have devestated the inside of the building. There was a survivor from the first floor just ahead of where the plane impacted. With a cruise missile I don't think there is any way he could have survived. And again, what about the generator? The only way that could have moved the way it did would be an external impact moving TOWARDS the building. It would have had to be something heavy, moving fast to move that generator. That thing is huge.

There wasn't a lack of bodies, it was just that they were all carried into the building with the plane, where you wouldn't see them until they were removing them from the building, already in body bags. The momentum caused almost all of the plane to be carried into the building after impact. The debris that was on the lawn were the smaller pieces that were blown back out in the explosion that occured AFTER the main part of the fuselage was penetrating into the building.