757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by plopunisher

How many individuals actually saw the plane that morning near the pentagon? Too many to all be fake?

Actually not. There were a few witnesses. One saw a commuter airplane. One saw a jet. One saw the explosion. But less than 5 said, "I saw an American Airlines Boeing 757 (or, 'large jet') crash into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by johnlear

Actually not. There were a few witnesses. One saw a commuter airplane. One saw a jet. One saw the explosion. But less than 5 said, "I saw an American Airlines Boeing 757 (or, 'large jet') crash into the Pentagon.

I'm not sure your math s quite right there... I don't have the numbers in front of me but I know I've seen more than five accounts that specific. If you can name the "less than five" accounts you know, I bet I can find at least THRICE that many more that.
You make it sound like it happened on an empty sound-stage, but the whole area is a cluster of freeways and morning business, there are hundreds of accounts that have been published. None cite an A3 Skywarrior or a Global Hawk (except that one guy...). A couple imply maybe it was a missile (and maybe there was one on top of the 757?) Steve Patterson saw a commuter jet, but he disappeared then and no one else saw this - Most cite something analogous to Flight 77 - AA paints, a 757, a large airliner, etc...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Most cite something analogous to Flight 77 - AA paints, a 757, a large airliner, etc...

"Most" are about three. Maybe you can provide evidence of more. Remember that when people are driving they are not looking for a Boeing 757 traveling at 400 and hour at 50 ft. off the ground. From the Citgo station to the Pentagon was about 2.3 seconds. Most people wouldn't even register what they saw.

Probably the best anybody could remember, if in fact it was a Boeing 757 which I don't think it was, would be to remember "airplane".

Since all of the news outlets started saying Boeing 757, anybody who saw anything would be likely to say, "Yeah, thats what I saw, a Boeing 757".

But if it was a Boeing 757 there are certainly no photos that have come into the public domain which is very suspicious in itself.

I anxiously await your 3 witnesses and their specific comments. Thanks.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
If you can name the "less than five" accounts you know, I bet I can find at least THRICE that many more that.

I provided Patterson. I need names and quotes, man! Up to five - don't go giving me more than fifteen to find, the field ain't all that big really. True enuff on the official story factor influencing peoples' judgment, but Lagasse for one was sure in his own brain he saw an AA 757 without any prompting. You're not going to go discounting HIS testimony, are you? So okay, it may happen after work but if you can give me 1-5 names and quotes of something other than a 757 - they don't even have to be consistent! I will respond threefold with accounts that match the official story as best as I can find. And we can the wonder about coaching all we want.

Why don't you just name some names, either of you, and we'll go from there. The cop is only one I've seen on record actually say AA 757. Any others off the top of your head Caustic?

[edit on 4/18/2007 by infinityoreilly]

Okay I do realize I amplify these things in my head, I'm really not sure how many there are, but scanning my partial list:

William Lagasse: "I read American Airlines on it"

David Marra: (paraphrased): "he saw an American Airlines jet swooping in, its wings wobbly, looking like it was going to slam right into the Pentagon"

Terry Morin: "I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities"

Steve Storti: (paraphrased) "Then he caught the glint of silver out of the corner of his eye. He looked up to see a passenger plane with the trademark stainless-steel fuselage and stripes of American Airlines."

Joel Sucherman: (paraphrased) saw "an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision"

Tim Timmerman: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.

Numerous reports that it looked as if "coming in for a landing," which indicates it looked like an airliner to them. But anyway that's six so far, consider it a down-payment.

[edit on 18-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

William Lagasse: "I read American Airlines on it"

Don't have time to check them all right now but the first one on your list is one of the witnesses in the 'Pentacon' vid, and he unknowingly contradicts the official story flight path, putting the '757' on the North side of the chit&go gas station. So if he saw an American Airlines 757, it wasn't what caused the pentgoon damage.

So do you believe both statements from this witness? If you do then you have to admit the pentagoon official story is still in question, no?
If you don't believe this second statement then how could you believe his first one?

The Pentacon

Anyway imo no witness, whatever they say, would change my mind that there is no way a Boeing 757 crashed into the pentacon. To much physical evidence to the contrary.

The question here was not the flight path but the plane. I think Mr. Lear would have to agree that this testimony counts.
Apologies too for confusing the challenge - from 1-5 witnesses for a 757, I started asking for 1-5 witnesses for anything but. So Mr Lear, if you'd like, provide 1-5 of either as you see fit, or don't.
Anyway, those were the first six: Here's a few more, alphabetically from a site I'm scanning:
- Richard Benedetto: "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly."
- Mike Dobbs: "an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner."
- Penny Elgas: "I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane."
- Afework Hagos: "saw American Airline insignia."
- Lincoln Liebner: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low"
- Elaine McCusker: "I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane"
It keeps going, that's only up to "M" and I got 12 now ... so clearly something looking like an AA jet flying by is a likely scenario. Most people pretty much agree with that I think.
But...
Was it a 757? How high was it? NOrth or South of the Citgo? Did they see it clip any light poles? Explosion definitely from its impact? The questions could go on and i'm sure they will...

Aaand of course, my bad again, the question was 757. As has already been noted, of course, people can't always tell one model from another at such speeds, and so mentions of "757" identified on their own initiative are more rare. Lagasse and Timmerman are the first two - a few others (note - for whatever reason, the credibility factor of these accounts are lower on average):
3 - Alan Wallace: "The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus."
- Scott Cook: "It was a 757 out of Dulles," tho his flight path account is fishy and incorrect, I will not count.
4 - Albert Hemphill (or Lt Gen Ron Kadish? Some confusion): "The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike." This pretty much takes it south of the Citgo and to the light poles BTW...
- James S Robbins: "The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory," but that he actually saw it is doubtful. He was in an office w/right view, but in DC across the river, and says he happened to be looking that way (for no reason) and saw it impact and disappear. Could anyone tell a 757 at that distance? He doesn't count.
5 - Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien: C-130 pilot sent to watch: "I said it was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane." Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir.”
- Joel Sucherman: "an American Airlines jet, probably a 757 [...] This was not a commercial, excuse me, a business jet, right it was not a Learjet, Gulfstream something like that. It was a bigger plane than that.” He's clearly filling in with what he heard, I will not count

Okay, so five. Irrelevant. Many other said airliner, 737, etc. close eough if you ask me. Not everyone's enough of a plane buff to definitively spot a 757 at those speeds. Paint job yes, model, no. This 757-ish AA-painted jet that was either there at the time or somehow seeded remarkably wide within days, hours, even minutes of the "attack." It was there - The questions then remain mostly in the arena of did this same plane hit the building?

OK we can play the witness game all night if you'd like?

Ken Ford - "We were watching the airport through binoculars, he said, referring to Reagan National Airport, a short distance away. The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building."

So is it a 757 or a turbo-prop of some kind?

Sergeant Maurice L. Bease - "Turning around expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards from where he stood."

Firefighter Alan Wallace - "was standing outside his fire station when he looked across the nearby interstate and saw a white airplane with orange and blue trim heading almost straight at him. It slammed into the building just a couple hundred feet from him. "When I felt the fire, I hit the ground," he said."

Steve Patterson - "Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said."

Strange I thought a 757 could hold more than that? And what was the planes colour again?

James S. Robbins - "I was looking directly at it when the aircraft struck. The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory, but at the time, I did not immediately comprehend what I was witnessing. There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building. I froze, gaping for a second until the sound of the detonation, a sharp pop at that distance, shook me out of it."

Levi Stephens - "Two explosions were heard. According to one witness, "what looked like a 747 plowed into the south side of the Pentagon, skipping through a heliport before it hit the building."

David Marra - “It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground.” There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cart wheeled into the building.”

‘Unrecoverable angle’, ‘skipping through the heliport’, ‘caught the edge of his wing on the ground', cart wheeled' into the building? So where is the damage to the lawn and the heliport? How did it cart wheel and go through the building like a missile?
How did it catch the edge of its wing and keep flying a perfect path into the pentagon?
Remember a big plane like a 757 isn’t nimble, it takes time to bank and turn.

Noel Sepulveda - "It seemed like the pilot was scrambling to keep control, and I watched as he dropped lower and lower," Sepulveda said. "Then he dropped his landing gear and started coming down even faster and lower. As it came down, the plane was hitting light poles, the sergeant said. "Then the right wheel hit a light pole and the plane popped into a 45-degree angle"

The landing gear was down at 400MPH? I'll take a guess and bet the onboard computer wouldn't even allow that to happen at that speed. Also lowering the gear at that speed would have caused the plane to be almost uncontrollable. The right wheel hit a light pole? Then 'popped to a 45 degree angle' and the plane kept right on flying a perfect path into the pentagoon causing no damage to the lawn, yeah right...

Phillip Thompson - "cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady. But, strangely, the landing gear was up and the flaps weren’t down."

I wish these witnesses could get their story straight.

OK I’m bored playing the witness game. Your turn…

[edit on 19/4/2007 by ANOK]

I got bored halfway through my last post. Only got un-bored long enough to read your post. I bet someone saw a helicopter too, and a few birds, a truck, a red baloon drifting tragically into the sky. Our list of culprits grows...

Thanks for the Alan Wallace quote - hadn't caught that part before: white w/orange/blue trim - we don't think there really was such a plane, right? could be silver w/red and blue misread in the rush? Anyway, this game can only take you so far...

[edit on 19-4-2007 by Caustic Logic]

^Hey you're right CL, can't argue with that.

But the real point of my post was that you can't prove anything using just eye witness reports. Those reports have to have physical evidence to back them up, and I don't care what you say the physical evidence for a 757 is extremely weak.

Originally posted by ANOK
^Hey you're right CL, can't argue with that.

But the real point of my post was that you can't prove anything using just eye witness reports. Those reports have to have physical evidence to back them up, and I don't care what you say the physical evidence for a 757 is extremely weak.

The only real physical evidence available to the public that indicates a 757 hit the Pentagon is the pictures of 757 parts. And they have been proven beyond any resonable doubt they are 757 parts. I know...I know...too few parts (opinion and speculation). I also conceed thet its theoretically possible they were planted or secretly brought in. Other forms of "non physical evidence" cited by "no 757 beleivers" Hole is too small.....(speculation), no burnt grass (speculation). Other aircraft seen (hearsay - no pics in air or in pieces) You get my point.

You're absolutely correct when you say nothing can be proved or disproved based on eyewitness accounts. You're also correct that the availabe physical evidence for a 757 is weak. However, the physical evidence for anything other than AA 77 is non existent. The entire "no 757 theory" is based on hearsay, speculation, extrapolation, and no small amount of simple misinformed opinion. At least we 757 believers have a few snapshots.

[edit on 4/19/2007 by darkbluesky]

I think everyone is forgetting this 2 Star Army General who spent his life observing footage like this every day, then was in charge of the entire program himself.

What did he say about the 757 and the Pentagon? See the Vid.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Retired 2 Star Army General (Gen. Stubblebine) Questions Pentagon Strike he is making astounding claims! " A Plane does not fit in that hole, so what did hit the Pentagon?"

This General was in charge of armies imagery intelligence experts that measured scientific and technical on photos during the cold war.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by Realtruth]

Originally posted by Realtruth
I think everyone is forgetting this 2 Star Army General who spent his life observing footage like this every day, then was in charge of the entire program himself.

What did he say about the 757 and the Pentagon? See the Vid.
[edit on 16-4-2007 by Realtruth]

Real, This is testimony and opinion, not physical evidence. Also, he said "one of his jobs" was to determine the dimensions of Soviet equipment from aerial or satellite imagery. He said nothing about evaluating impact damage and destruction patterns caused by high speed collisions of aircraft and buildings. His statements, credentials, and opinions do not constitute proof of anything.

Anyone interested in what some structural engineers from Purdue University think, and would be interested in a very compelling computer derived model and visual simulation of teh crash should view the video on this webpage:

www.itap.purdue.edu...

This might help those who cannot understand or believe the breakup up dynamics of the aircraft gain a better appreciation.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
This might help those who cannot understand or believe the breakup up dynamics of the aircraft gain a better appreciation.

No, sorry darkbluesky. Purdue has always been under government control and bidding.

The suggestion that "liquification" is responsible for making the Boeing 757 disappear is without engineering precedent or substance. It is a complete and total fraud in fact. That "this might help those who cannot understand or believe the breakup dynamics of the aircraft gain better appreciation" is a misrepresentation of known engineering principles and that principle is that you cannot make something into nothing by flying it through the Pentagon. You may change its shape. You may change its form. You may change its size. But you cannot make it completely disintegrate into nothing.

My friend is an airline pilot, and he said NO WAY, NO HOW could he pull that off, much less some terrorist who has no hands on airliner flying skills.

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by darkbluesky
This might help those who cannot understand or believe the breakup up dynamics of the aircraft gain a better appreciation.

No, sorry darkbluesky. Purdue has always been under government control and bidding.

I would have expected no other response from you.

Originally posted by johnlear The suggestion that "liquification" is responsible for making the Boeing 757 disappear is without engineering precedent or substance.

Sorry Johnlear, You might want to look up "liquificaction". Liquification does not in any way equate to elimination. Your claim is a not so deft attempt to discredit the work of real engineers, mathmeticians and computing experts by substituting factual concepts with your own misleading and untrue statements.

Originally posted by johnlear It is a complete and total fraud in fact. That "this might help those who cannot understand or believe the breakup dynamics of the aircraft gain better appreciation" is a misrepresentation of known engineering principles and that principle is that you cannot make something into nothing by flying it through the Pentagon.

Neither I nor the Purdue researchers stated, alluded, intimated or even remotely suggested that "something was made into nothing". This is your second futile attempt to change the meaning of what I and others are saying. The Purdue model illustrated how one big thing made of many small pieces was turned into many many more small pieces when it hit steel reinforced conctrete at about 500 mph.

Originally posted by johnlear You may change its shape. You may change its form. You may change its size. But you cannot make it completely disintegrate into nothing.

Bingo, on your third try you finally hit it.

[edit on 4/19/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
The Purdue model illustrated how one big thing made of many small pieces was turned into many many more small pieces when it hit steel reinforced conctrete at about 500 mph.

Darkbluesky were you enlisted and now retired?

John, As I politely told you on a previous occaision, I have no intention of publicizing my background or current situation. I will disclose however that I was never enlisted (or a ground pounder as you recently suggested)

doubt if this will have any effect on the uninformed ground pounders in our midst. Some of them have spent a lifetime of taking orders and learning how to like it. They were told a story, they believed the story, and they are sticking to it.