CNN Reported No Plane Hit The Pentagon

I dont believe that I've ever heard this talked about on here or anywhere else for that matter.
Its a clip showing a CNN reporter and hes saying that there is nothing anywhere near the pentagon, that would give you the impression that a plane had struck the Pentagon.
You can view the clip here

wow thanx for the cli. I esp like the part where he said the floors didnt collapse until 40 min. after whatever hit it.

[edit on 3/28/2007 by ImpliedChaos]

I saw a documentary where, among other things, is explained that it is impossible for a civil airplane flying that low to get pass the street light pillars undamaged...

they showed a crash site of an airplane that struck the pillars on some airport and it was a very different from what happened in Pentagon...



[edit on 28-3-2007 by untilted]

Something that has never been explained, when a large craft moving at a speed so that it will not stall, sustained flight, hits the ground; it tends to bounce. This would cause a ripping up motion, and fragment the walls directly hit into the surrounding areas in a 'V' shape. This phenomenon was widely observed in WWII due to Kamikazes. It became the desired mode of attack due to the wide spread amount of damage attained.

commons.wikimedia.org...:CV09_Essex_USG-80-G-273032-.jpg

There's also some media at:

www.navsource.org...

where the 'V' shape I mentioned is described as a 'dish' area:
www.navsource.org...

A little research in the Kamikaze archives will show what a flight into a reinforced structure looks like, damage wise.

Originally posted by untilted
I saw a documentary where, among other things, is explained that it is impossible for a civil airplane flying that low to get pass the street light pillars undamaged...

they showed a crash site of an airplane that struck the pillars on some airport and it was a very different from what happened in Pentagon...
[edit on 28-3-2007 by untilted]

Flight 255 out of Detroit Metro (DTW)...

www.lasvegassun.com...

...It clipped a light pole in the National Car Rental parking lot, 2,760 feet past the runway, shearing off 18 feet of the left wing, then brushed the roof of the Avis Rent A Car building. The engines stalled.

This is the aftermath...




[edit on 28-3-2007 by Pootie]

I just always found it very odd that these people that didnt even finish flight school were able to keep the plane steady, just 40 feet above the ground, without bouncing or bobbing into the ground. Like the poster above mentioned,to be able to sustain that low of an altitude at a particular speed, you would need to be flying much higher than that.
It even allegedly clipped a light pole over the highway but unlike the plane that clipped the light pole in the above post, it didnt lose any parts much less 18 feet off the left wing.
I know there are many theories on why "they" chose the pentagon as a target but mine is that they figured they would need a strike on a military building to call it an act of war..
Just a thought idk.. you would really think that their first target wouldve been the Whitehouse right?
anyway, interesting video that i had not seen before.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by Kr0n0s]

Pootie, that was a smaller plane, at much lower speed, hitting a much stronger light pole. The poles that the plane at the Pentagon hit were designed to shear off when they had a significant force applied to them.

Kronos, they DID have their pilots license. Contrary to reports Hani Hanjour (sp?) DID receive his commercial pilots license, but he had it revoked for failing to get a physical when it was due.

OH wow, i did not know that. interesting yes but still doubtful he could fly so low without bouncing off the ground..
Anyway, thanks for that bit of information

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Kronos, they DID have their pilots license. Contrary to reports Hani Hanjour (sp?) DID receive his commercial pilots license, but he had it revoked for failing to get a physical when it was due.

It's actually "easier" to fly low, because once you get into ground effect the plane tends to "bounce" and WANT to stay in the air. The air is being forced down and bouncing off the ground and pushing back up at the bottom of the wings and the plane, and keeping it airborne.

Here's a good explanation of ground effect and how it affects a plane in flight.

I have never heard of that before, very interesting to say the least.
Thats one thing I love about this site, always learning something new

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's actually "easier" to fly low, because once you get into ground effect the plane tends to "bounce" and WANT to stay in the air. The air is being forced down and bouncing off the ground and pushing back up at the bottom of the wings and the plane, and keeping it airborne.

Here's a good explanation of ground effect and how it affects a plane in flight.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Pootie, that was a smaller plane, at much lower speed, hitting a much stronger light pole. The poles that the plane at the Pentagon hit were designed to shear off when they had a significant force applied to them.

Problem is the wing was sheared just hitting a single pole at a slow speed. Hitting several poles at 500mph would have severly damaged or sheared off a wing even if the poles were made to break away.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Problem with your theory is that the wing sizes and strengths are different as well. The 757 wing is larger and stronger than the wing in that crash. It would probably still have been damaged, but a lightpole like the ones at the Pentagon probably wouldn't have torn it off.

Back to the original topic.

I've seen that reporter asked about that statement in one of the conspiracy segments on CNN. What he is saying is that it's hard to believe a plane hit because he could not see large pieces of a plane at the crash site. He did say that he could see SEVERAL SMALL PIECES of the plane. He's not saying that no plane hit.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by sensfan]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Pootie, that was a smaller plane, at much lower speed, hitting a much stronger light pole. The poles that the plane at the Pentagon hit were designed to shear off when they had a significant force applied to them.

1. An MD-82 is a large commercial airliner that holds 170+ passengers.
2. The speeds for both crashes are in question so figuring the delta is difficult... it was infact moving slower
3. You have NO FRICKING way of knowing what type of light pole Thrifty Rent a Car was using OR it's relative STRENGTH. You are ASSUMING and stating said assumption as FACT. Bad.
4. (Referencing your other post) High speed means no flaps or slats and longer reation times to pilot input which would seem to make precise control MUCH more difficult ground effect or not. Is it easier to maintain AND manuver at 10' off the ground at 500mph or at 200mph with flaps and slats? HONEST ANSWER NOW.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Pootie]

it amazes me how quickly people will latch onto a belief simply because they need closure on a subject.

Yes Planes hit these buildings. There were no bombs going off in buildings no missle that hit the pentagon. And Yes there was Wreckage at the pentagon of a plane,

Anybody with access to Google can see them, type in Pentagon Plane Wreckage. Oh and under Advanced search Exclude sites with the word Conspiracy because there are so many of you retards out there you clog up most of the known World Wide Web. Get off the computer and try Reading about structural support. architectural engineering integrity.

You may just pick up on the simple truth that when fuel is burning out of control bad stuff happens.


What you people are talking about could quite honestly be the Biggest Story the entire WORLD ever saw.

Now let me ask you this. If in fact any of this was plausable, THEN WHY IN GODS NAME ISN'T ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT IT. And and try to keep up morons cause THIS IS WHERE YOU PAY ATTENTION. NO REPORTERS, NO NEWS STATIONS, NO POLITICIANS, ANYBODY CREDIBLE FOR THAT MATTER, NOBODY, NOT EVEN THE LEFTY NEWS STATIONS MENTION A SINGLE WORD ABOUT THIS AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IT ISN'T, ITS ALL THEORY BULL#. THERE IS NO PROOF IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM THAT YOU TYPES HAVE TO SUPPORT ANY OF THE BULL# ALLOGATIONS YOU CLAIM. IF THERE WAS WE WOULD BE SEEING IT ALL DAY AND NIGHT ON EVERY NEWS CHANNEL UNTIL BUSH WAS ASSASINATED. BUT IT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE. AND WHILE ON THE BASTARDS NAME, LET ME ASK YOU THIS TOO, DO YOU REALLY HONESTLY IN YOUR HEART BELIEVE THAT BUSH HAS THE BRAINS TO PULL OFF WHAT COULD BE THE BIGGEST GOVERNMENT SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY?? OF COURSE NOT, HE'S A TEXAS HICK. WITH HIS HEAD UP HIS ASS AND HIS TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS....

YOU MAY BE SAYING "BULL#" "BULL#" I SAW THIS GUY ON CNN SAYING THAT NO PLANE HIT.. --- WRONG --- WRONG HE SAID IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A PLANE HIT, KEY WORDS YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL WITH, AND AT NO POINT DOES ANY OF THEM PIN POINT OUR GOVERNMENT FOR PLANNING THESE ATTACTS.

AND DONT TRY AND PASS IT OFF THAT THE GOVERNMENT OWNS THE NEWS STATIONS, BULL#, THE GOVERNMENT CANT PAY THEM AS MUCH AS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC CAN AND THEY GIVE THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY WANT,

GOVERNMENT COULDN'T STOP PRESS ON WATERGATE, COULDN'T STOP PRESS ON KOREAN FLIGHT 007 COULDNT STOP PRESS ON JONESTOWN, OR THE CLINTON DISSAPPEARING CIGAR ACT FOR THAT MATTER.

IF THERE WAS A STORY WE WOULD BE SEEING IT.

NOW RATHER THEN GETTING YOUR NEWS FROM CYBER WORLD *snip*, TRY TURNING OFF THE COMPUTER AND GETTING WITH IT IN SOCIETY, TRY READING THE PAPER, TRY WATCHING POLITICAL DEBATE, WHERE REAL PEOPLE, (not children) MIGHT BE TELLING YOU THE TRUTH.

*Moderator Edit - Removed unnecessary Text.*
Please don't type in all caps. It's harder to read your post.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by dbates]

1. And a 757 is a LARGER airliner that carries 200+ and uses a much bigger and stronger wing.

2. I REMEMBER when that crash occured, and I remember the accident report from it. Even if the 757 was flying slower than they reported, the MD-82 was at TAKE OFF SPEED, which is less than 200 mph. The 757 was reported anywhere from 350-500 mph.

3. I worked at an airport for over 10 years, and I've traveled through MANY airports in the US. And in every one of them the light poles used in the used car lots were a stronger and different light pole than you see on the streets and roads around the Pentagon.

4. They wouldn't have had to have PRECISE control to hit the Pentagon, and where do you get this 10' crap? That comes up in EVERY SINGLE thread about the 757 at the Pentagon. As far as the manuvers it depends on the type. If you're using the rudder to correct yaw, the that's easy to do either way. If you're trying to make a turn using roll, then obviously it's going to be harder to do in ground effect, since the whole idea is that the vortices are bouncing off the ground from the wings.

Originally posted by LATBPYSF
Oh and under Advanced search Exclude sites with the word Conspiracy because there are so many of you retards out there you clog up most of the known World Wide Web. Get off the computer and try Reading about structural support. architectural engineering integrity.

I don't even know why I'm responding to this as seeing you won't be around much longer calling people retards. Anyway, how much have you studied structural support or "architectural engineering integrity" (whatever that is). Btw, Pootie and I are both engineers. I being a civil with structural emphasis and Pootie I believe is a mechanical.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
1. And a 757 is a LARGER airliner that carries 200+ and uses a much bigger and stronger wing.

It is larger. I can only assume that you know the "wings are stronger" on a 757 because it can carry more weight? What % more weight so we could extrapolate the relative strength of the MD-82 wings.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
2. I REMEMBER when that crash occured, and I remember the accident report from it. Even if the 757 was flying slower than they reported, the MD-82 was at TAKE OFF SPEED, which is less than 200 mph. The 757 was reported anywhere from 350-500 mph.

Me too. I live 20 miles away. 24x7 news coverage. But that is neither here no there. In one case a wing is TOTALLY sheared off... in another it is UNDAMAGED (no parts seem to have been located in photos of the freeway or lawn). Do you find this OPPOSITE behavior odd?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
3. I worked at an airport for over 10 years, and I've traveled through MANY airports in the US. And in every one of them the light poles used in the used car lots were a stronger and different light pole than you see on the streets and roads around the Pentagon.

How do you KNOW they are STRONGER? The are a private company, they probably bought the thinnest cheapest pieces of crap they could get away with. You are making GROSS assumptions and asserting them as fact. Different my be accurate by eyesight... stronger CANNOT be surmised by looking at them.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
4. They wouldn't have had to have PRECISE control to hit the Pentagon, and where do you get this 10' crap?

What was the altitude of the BELLY of the plany when the higher up wings were clipping light poles no taller than TWENTY FEET??? This altitude was MAINTAINED from the freeway to the Pentagon. It seems to me that in order to hit the poles the altitude of the belly was AT MOST the height of the pole but since the wings are HIGHER it would be slightly less than that or IT WOULD NOT HAVE HIT THE POLES.

Uh, the wings ATTACH at the belly. The wingTIPS are higher, because of the dihedral of the wings, but the wings are ATTACHED at the belly. Therefor the height of the belly IS the height of the wing. The only planes that would have a higher wing than belly are ones with top mounted wings, which MOST (not all, but most) commercial planes are NOT. They primarily use those for cargo, because it changes the flight characteristics to have the wings mounted on top. Not to mention that you have the engines that hang down several feet from the wing that could have been clipping the light poles at the Pentagon.

And I know the wings are stronger because I've worked on planes of similar size to BOTH the MD-82 and the 757 and have seen the strength differences in the wings. It's not just that they carry more weight, they're capable of SUPPORTING more weight on the 757. Most of your fuel is stored in the wings in a plane, so the 757 has that much more weight the wings support. Between the engines and the fuel, where the MD-82 only has the fuel, which is a much smaller amount.

[edit on 3/29/2007 by Zaphod58]

Didn't the plane suppossedly clip someone's antenae on an SUV? I'd say that's pretty darn low to the ground?