757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

johnlear


I have a question on this as well. IF the Pentagon isn't covered on Radar, how exactly were the Pilots able to navigate to the Pentagon? You know a lot more about flying then I, so I am just wondering if it would have been reasonable to assume they could have found the Pentagon?

Thnks.

Originally posted by talisman
Zaphod58


Your not serious are you? Anyone would assume a Military complex would be defended. Its just an assumption most people would make.

Look at the following from from CNN regarding a meeting in July 2001.
Look carefully at what it says.

archives.cnn.com...

About 15,000 police are on duty as part of the $110 million security operation. Surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets and naval ships form part of the security operation, which is also responsible for defending the summit from attacks by terrorists.

Why do you have surface to air missiles for a HIJACKED PLANE??

I think it is ludicrous to argue that the Pentagon wouldn't have been so defended.

The above leads to other questions, such as why wasn't The South Tower evacuated, since in July they had surface to air missiles ready for "TERRORISTS".

So again, there is NO good reason for a hijacker to think his plane would make it, especially it being a passenger plane.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by talisman]

Well let's see, you're talking about the G8 summit which has world leaders from MANY major countries, and comparing it to the Pentagon?? Right, because that's a GREAT comparison. Obviously the G8 summit is going to have incredibly tight security, because if that gets hit, then you just assassinated how many heads of state?

Show me the defenses. Show me ANYTHING at the Pentagon prior to 9/11 that had ANYTHING to do with a SAM site. If they had so many defenses there, why did they have to move Avenger SAM units to the Pentagon AFTER the attack? Does that many ANY sense to you? It sure doesn't to me.

Zaphod58

The question is, why would they have SURFACE TO AIR MISSILES for a hijacked plane?

Originally posted by johnlear
Yeah, I can see it now:


Knock knock.

Who's there.

Hijackers.

Hijackers who?

No we are real hijackers we want in.

Ok just a sec. Don't hurt us though.

Open the door then.

OK, its open what do you want.

We want you to get out of the pilots chairs, both of you and go to the back of the airplane.

OK. But you won't hurt us of will you?

No, just get out.

Do you know how to fly?

Yes, I have 3 and a half hours of dual in a 172 and microsoft flilght simulator.

OK, well I will put it on autopilot just in case. There you go. Where do you want me to sit?

In the aft cabin and don't try anything funny

No sir.

Both pilots go back into the aft cabin and take their seat..

Hijacker shuts door. He reaches in his pocket and pull out sheet of paper which says, "Sites Not Covered By Radar In The U.S". He looks out window. "Hmmmm" he says to himself. "this may not be as easy as I thought".

Oh sorry for having the nerve to post anything going against Mr Aviation himself. I forgot that what you say is taken as gospel around here.

Gee John, tell me how it is that I was able to find where many places only have one Primary radar site to cover a HUGE chunk of airspace in less than an hour if it's so incredibly hard? I even found places where you can find the exact range, frequency, and everything else you could possibly want to know about the radar at that site.

Having read this thread and reviewed all the evidence, I find it unbelievable that a 757 would create such a small hole, with no traces of the wings of the aircraft. The explosion from the impact should have been huge, on par with the explosions on the WTC. As it happened, there are no openings for the wings, and even a sign saying 'parking this direction' is left standing just near the whole. They are pulling our legs, that's what they are doing.

Originally posted by talisman

Zaphod58

The question is, why would they have SURFACE TO AIR MISSILES for a hijacked plane?

BECAUSE IT'S THE G8 CONFERENCE! OF COURSE they're going to have surface to air missiles to protect however many heads of state are there at that conference!!

Gee, do you POSSIBLY think that MAYBE this has something to do with why they have Surface to Air Missiles there?

The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States are scheduled to remain in this seaside town until Sunday to discuss world trade, economic development, disease, debt relief, missile defense, the Kyoto Protocol and other issues.

archives.cnn.com...


[edit on 4/13/2007 by Zaphod58]

Zaphod58

So your now admitting that they knew the Hijacked planes might have been used as weapons only two months before 9/11??

[edit on 13-4-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It doesn't take long to scramble a fighter, however on 9/11 there were no ARMED fighters in the area. Many bases have fighters, but only 7 had armed fighters waiting to launch on that day. There were between 14 and 21 fighters defending the entire US. One of the NY bases said they could have fighters launched with just bullets in 30-45 minutes, heat seekers in 1 hour, and fully loaded in 1-2 hours.

You really need to learn about Air Force bases. thier are always planes ready to fly. They might not be fully armed but they are ready.

That thing you posted about taking hours to load up a plane is total BS. If a ground crew can not get a plane armed in under 30 minutes they need to be kicked off the flight line.

I worked on recon aircraft, we did not carry wepons but we could refuel an RF-4 and turn it around and get it back into the air in under 30 minutes, the longest thing is refuling an RF-4. We always did well on NATO excercises.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

And you need to talk to the commanders who are saying these things, if you know so much more than they do. I'm only quoting what THE GUYS ON THE SCENE ARE SAYING. I think it's safe to say that the Squadron Commander, the Wing Commander, and the NCOIC of Armaments just MIGHT know what they're talking about. I've seen all three of them quoted as saying 30-45 minutes for bullets, and up to 2 hours for full load out.

Don't you think that MAYBE an EXERCISE UNDER WARTIME CONDITIONS just MIGHT be a LITTLE different than peacetime conditions? Just a little bit? Not to mention that you have to take the weapons out of storage to get them to the flightline. But even if it wasn't an exercise and a routine turn, you were EXPECTING to have to do it, and had everything ready to go. They were taken by surprise, and had to start from scratch.

Talisman, I'm admitting that they were ready for anything to protect the world leaders there. But it's one thing to think they'll slam a plane into that conference to kill all those heads of state, and another to think they'd hit the WTC and Pentagon.

[edit on 4/13/2007 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 4/13/2007 by Zaphod58]

Zaphod58


So let me get this straight. You said there were hardly any planes ready that day. So it just so happened to be the day the hijackers picked.

But you also feel it is perfectly logical to assume that the Pentagon which is the headquarters of the DEPT of DEFENSE should be undefended?

You honestly are saying that it isn't important to defend the DEPT OF DEFENSE?

So, if the Russians or China did something that day, the Pentagon would be destroyed, since according to you it has no defense that could stop a PASSENGER JET, and according to you no-one should think differently on this.

AGAIN, they knew Hijacked planes would be used as weapons by Terrorists.

This then brings up the question.

Why did anyone NOT ASSUME THIS ON THE MORNING OF 9/11????

Why then wasn't the South Tower evacuated??



[edit on 13-4-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've seen all three of them quoted as saying 30-45 minutes for bullets, and up to 2 hours for full load out.

I do not know where they are getting the 2 hours from. Most bases i knew had the weapons close by and can get them there in a matter of minutes.

Plus all you really need is to get a plane up fast with just bullets and the others can get up as soon as they are loaded. A plane with 20MM or 30MM rounds can take down a plane.

I was stationed at a base that had interceptors and all they had was a few hundred round of bullets and 4 missiles, a very light load for an F-4 but you want the light load so they can get to the target faster.

Originally posted by talisman
Zaphod58


So let me get this straight. You said there were hardly any planes ready that day. So it just so happened to be the day the hijackers picked.

But you also feel it is perfectly logical to assume that the Pentagon which is the headquarters of the DEPT of DEFENSE should be undefended?

You honestly are saying that it isn't important to defend the DEPT OF DEFENSE?

So, if the Russians or China did something that day, the Pentagon would be destroyed, since according to you it has no defense that could stop a PASSENGER JET, and according to you no-one should think differently on this.

AGAIN, they knew Hijacked planes would be used as weapons by Terrorists.

This then brings up the question.

Why did anyone NOT ASSUME THIS ON THE MORNING OF 9/11????

Why then wasn't the South Tower evacuated??



[edit on 13-4-2007 by talisman]

Point 1. It wasn't just THAT DAY that there were only 14-21 fighters ready. It was EVERY DAY since about 1995. They started standing down the alert force when Clinton was President.

Point 2. Why have major defenses around the Pentagon when NORAD and airborne controllers would be in command of our responses? The Pentagon is where the plans are made, and weapons are bought, but actual command of our forces is not done from there.

Point 3. No one has shown a SINGLE defense around the building prior to them moving Avengers into the area. Again, WHY would they move defenses to there IF THEY ALREADY HAD THEM IN PLACE?

Zaphod58

It wasn't just THAT DAY that there were only 14-21 fighters ready. It was EVERY DAY since about 1995. They started standing down the alert force when Clinton was President.

So now your saying that the Military tells all its enemies the truth on HOW UNDEFENDED it is? So according to this reasoning, the United States gov has no secrets, they just tell Russia and China, 'hey were wide open for attack'?

Do you honestly believe this?

Point 2. Why have major defenses around the Pentagon when NORAD and airborne controllers would be in command of our responses? The Pentagon is where the plans are made, and weapons are bought, but actual command of our forces is not done from there.

So now the Pentagon is not worth defending? The bottom line in what your saying.

The Pentagon a military complex, has no defense against a passenger jet. That just sounds unbelievable. It really does. I am trying to see some sense or rational in the idea that the Pentagon is totally undefended.

Point 3. No one has shown a SINGLE defense around the building prior to them moving Avengers into the area. Again, WHY would they move defenses to there IF THEY ALREADY HAD THEM IN PLACE?

Your assuming the Military does everything for us to see. That just isn't a good military, if they work like that.

The United States Military is not some second rate confused machine unable to defend itself.

It is logical to assume the Pentagon would be defended from a Passenger Jet.

Furthermore, how long was the flight to the Pentagon?

I would think the hijackers would leave from closer destination points if they really were concerned about hitting their targets.

The routes they took, had them in the air an awfully long time.

This story is not making sense, it can't.

You can't honestly tell me, that people plotting this would have done so this way.

Taking long routes to the targets, thinking they would hit Headquarters of the Dept of Defense.

It seems more and more compelling, that whomever was behind this KNEW they would reach their targets with very few misses.

Now again, they knew in July that Terrorists could use planes as weapons.

They had the Presidential Memo in August. Bin Laden determined to attack in United States.

They had numerous Intel Warnings. I think it incredible that the South Tower was never evacuated.

So when the first Plane struck, and Bush who in July, two months prior had his own being protected against Hijacked Terrorist Planes that could be used as weapons, so Bush just sat in a classroom after he was told the first plane hit??

So now what you seem to be indicating is this.

Had it been the G-8 leaders at the South Tower on the morning of 9/11, the South Tower would have been evacuated!?


Your also indicating that there is No defense that could stop a Passenger Jet hitting the Pentagon.

That the United States openly admitted their weakness to the world telling the world an honest report on how many fighters were at the ready. So if China or Russia decided to attack it would have been game over.

I really find all of what your saying to be unbelievable. I mean, honestly I do.

You seem to have the answers for everything, so why should I bother answering. You're right, everyone else is wrong. The wing commanders and everyone doesn't know nearly as much as Ultima, and none of my sources know as much as John Lear, and the military has ultra secret defenses around all their military installations that no one can see. You win, you're right and I'm wrong.

Zaphod58

This is abut truth, its not about "I'm right" "your wrong". There are things that skeptics have alluded to in the past I thought were good points,

but I mean honestly and say this to yourself and tell me that it doesn't sound ridiculous....

The Pentagon (THE HEADQUARTERS for the Dpt of Defense) has no defense for a Civilian Passenger Jet?

I can't see how anyone planning an attack would actually believe this.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You seem to have the answers for everything, so why should I bother answering.

You're right, everyone else is wrong. The wing commanders and everyone doesn't know nearly as much as Ultima, and none of my sources know as much as John Lear, and the military has ultra secret defenses around all their military installations that no one can see.

You win, you're right and I'm wrong.

Ok just settle down. I have provided personal evidence of what happens on bases i knew. Do you need me to post base operations so you can understand what goes on ?

You seem to be the 1 who is always right and and will not listen to other peoples evidence. You know i can post evidence to support what i post.

SPECIAL NOTE: Why wasn't flight 77 shot down when it passed over the Capital and White House ? They do have defenses.


[edit on 13-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You really need to learn about Air Force bases. thier are always planes ready to fly. They might not be fully armed but they are ready.

That thing you posted about taking hours to load up a plane is total BS. If a ground crew can not get a plane armed in under 30 minutes they need to be kicked off the flight line.

1. Fog of War, everyone has heard of it. Some have experienced it, some have not. If you haven't you cannot truly understand it.

In the 1950's and 60's the US Air Force, under the command of NORAD, operated up to 85 bases with Strategic Bomb Wings and/or Fighter Interceptor Squadrons to deter Strategic attacks on North America. This number dwindled year by year until 2001 when only 14 interceptors were on ready alert. During those times (50's thru 60's) fighters sat at the end of runways...engines running....waiting for incursion alerts. Average time to intercept was 15-20 minutes.

9/11 happened in 2001, with a castrated defense budget, with 14 ready alert inteceptors available for all of CONUS defense, with thousands of airliners in flight, without anyone knowing for sure which ones had bad guys on board. The total time from WTC impact to Pentagon impact was about 60 minutes.

Where do we go? Who do we shoot? Are we allowed to shoot them?

Think about it.




[edit on 4/13/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky

1. Fog of War, everyone has heard of it. Some have experienced it, some have not. If you haven't you cannot truly understand it.

I think the "Fog of Darkbluesky" is thicker and more confusing.

Originally posted by masterp
Having read this thread and reviewed all the evidence, I find it unbelievable that a 757 would create such a small hole, with no traces of the wings of the aircraft. The explosion from the impact should have been huge, on par with the explosions on the WTC. As it happened, there are no openings for the wings, and even a sign saying 'parking this direction' is left standing just near the whole. They are pulling our legs, that's what they are doing.

You read the whole thread and that's your main question? Which tiny hole is it you mean? This one?

The explosion also should NOT look the same - the famous WTC second strike had all the jet fuel exploding out the other side, at the Pentagon most went deep inside and was invisible from outside. So you're pretty sure this explosion could not be from a 757's jet fuel?


What else could it be? Any positive ID or just anything but what the gov. says?

Originally posted by talisman
The Pentagon a military complex, has no defense against a passenger jet. That just sounds unbelievable. It really does. I am trying to see some sense or rational in the idea that the Pentagon is totally undefended.

Yes, we've all heard about the missile batteries and that this is the PENTAGON! They deal in missiles, so they must keep them all there! And yet we have no hard facts on this, just a gut feeling that there should've been missiles there.
But...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No one has shown a SINGLE defense around the building prior to them moving Avengers into the area. Again, WHY would they move defenses to there IF THEY ALREADY HAD THEM IN PLACE?

Possibly to make it appear they had no defenses when they atually did? That is the appearance thus imbued, is it not? Just a thought.

But there were mobile missiles, available for use on fighter jets - yet even of the meager 14 fighters avaiable, the nearest two were stalled to prep a mystery third jet and then took off the wrong way and, like the Otis Pilots, never given ANY useful intelligence or auth. to fire. This is a hole in the defenses, like the radar hole, again sheer coincidence? Fog of war? In a fog you fumble, do some things right, some wrong. To be this wrong, it seems someone was seeing clearly. But I can't prove that...

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]