Pentagon Plane, was it Automated?

After endless debate of what hit the pentagon, maybe lets not worry about what hit the pentagon, but if the plane was automated. If it was then we know which way to look as to who is to blame.

The flight path and the way it hit seems that even the most skilled pilot would be challanged to do that, never mind somebody with a little training.

There is debate about it being a global hawk. Ok maybe it wasn't. But why couldn't have been a specially designed plane with global hawk type technolgy on board, in other words automated. The broken lampstands continue to puzzle me. How could it have been a cruise type missle with those being broken.

Also I have read that, this might have been a test to see how the newly reinforced pentagon walls would hold up under a cruise missle strike.
If they were testing, a regular plane would not have been a proper test, it would have to have explosives on board.

So please offer your opinion, no matter what hit the Pentagon, do you think it was automated.

Im not sure if it was auto or not but I now there are easier ways to test for an impact besides driving a plane in the side.

Well, my thing is it sure looks like a big plane to me. Looks like it flew in, not over. I hear the bodies of passengers were found and ID'd by DNA. I've seen photos of seated bodies, which indicates plane passengers, not ground casualties. So I don't think it was an empty drone. There were phone calls talking about hijackers - from two people (reported so far) of the 59 passengers and crew. One was the wife of a Bush functionary. One some other lady. All else silent? (phone lines were probably jammed by this time). Just two calls to fake and the drone, empty or peopled, looks like a real hijack?

I've heard Hani Hanjour once went to a place and acted like a very poor pilot. Maybe he really wasn't. I've heard the maneuvers pulled were imposssible. They do seem pretty tricky, and if a man couldn't make the plane do this or that, how could a computer? It seems its up to the plane, and it did what it did, flown by...

I dunno. I know who didn't do smack to stop it. And who most clearly benefitted from the whole deal, the attack and its symbolism. They hate our freedoms and so attack the WTC and the Pentagon and a strip-mine in PA. So we defy them, rise and rally, and defend our centrality to World Trade, the military power that projects it, and I guess strip mining.

Can a aluminium plane penetrate a hardened blast resistant wall? A resounding NO. Its truth in plane site. Only a powerful military grade explosion could cause the damage.

"I've seen photos of seated bodies"... and just where did you see these??

No plane crashed at the Pentagon. Niether did any missile. Just like the rest of 9/11, it was a PsyOp operation.

Just look at the photos, there is no plane wreckage in the photos, except the individual pieces that are posed nicely for the camera (planted). A plane does not disintegrate into only a handful of pieces. There should be lots of evidence, or none.. but instead we have none, plus the odd piece of two..

I suggest you watch the "Pentacon" documentary.. not that i believe the conclusion of a fly over, but it kinda proves that the flightpath in question is wrong, due to physical damage not matching up, and witness testimony going against the official flightpath.

Again, IMHO, nothing hit the Pentagon. No planes crashed anywhere on 9/11. It was the biggest mass deception of humankind in our entire history..

[edit on 23-6-2007 by shrunkensimon]

Oh screw it. It just ain't worth it anymore.

[edit on 6/23/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I hear the bodies of passengers were found and ID'd by DNA. I've seen photos of seated bodies, which indicates plane passengers

You've seen the pictures? I have only read that, can you provide any links or sources to these pictures? Perhaps a u2u maybe more appropriate if they are rather graphic, but I am interested in seeing those pictures.

With regards to the topic, those planes maneveurs were pretty spooky and it did seem like they were on remote/automated flight path. Would it be possible to modify a boeing in its hangar or wherever in a really short space of time without people noticing? I guess its a possibility. Whats more is how it penetrated the building so deeply. Perhaps the nose cones fitted with some type of warhead!

After seeing a recent video of the united 175 approach into the south tower which was awesome accuracy in itself (the plane literally dive bombed into position) you can bet the approach the plane took to hit the pentagon would of been just mind blowing.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Can a aluminium plane penetrate a hardened blast resistant wall? A resounding NO. Its truth in plane site. Only a powerful military grade explosion could cause the damage.

Thank you sir for the reminder of "plane site," which is a once-prevalent mental illness I've been working on a cure for. I doubt you have any actual math to back up that charge. Anyway, opinions vary.

"I've seen photos of seated bodies"... and just where did you see these??
Moussaoui trial, prosecution exhibits P200042, ...45, ..47, ..48. Two of those show a group of three seated bodies, charred. grisly. Some possibly seat-looking stuff around one of 'em. Here's a link to the page:
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

No plane crashed at the Pentagon. Niether did any missile. Just like the rest of 9/11, it was a PsyOp operation.

Or an inside job terror strike, followed by a psyop in which Rummy "slips" and says a missile hit, the DoD releases none of their security cameras (except the two that have convinced everyone of exacly what they already believed), and possibly paying certain peple to testify te plane flew north of the Citgo. One was mechanical but had MAJOR psyop elements, the other a follow up diversionary tactic and pure disinfo psyops. That's another way of seeing it.

Just look at the photos, there is no plane wreckage in the photos, except the individual pieces that are posed nicely for the camera (planted). A plane does not disintegrate into only a handful of pieces. There should be lots of evidence, or none.. but instead we have none, plus the odd piece of two..

Hmmm... I've been over this one way too many times.
physical evidence

No planes crashed anywhere on 9/11. It was the biggest mass deception of humankind in our entire history..
Biggest, yes, but not the last. Watch your step in these treacherous times. They coud start planting foolish and outlandish theories that insist on arguing the opposiite of every part of the official story in a bizarro-land construct to make us all look mentally ill. If so, I hope you'll spot these coming.

VicRH: See above man!

Zaphod: I feel ya. This is it for me today. Peace all.



[edit on 23-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

thanks CL. I actually have been here before (Prosecution Trial Exhibits) but i was trying to dl the videos. There are links to many videos that simply don't work so I assumed they had removed most of the content. Quite annoying, there seemed to be some high quality content.

I found the pictures tho, very interesting indeed and it backs up that article I read about the bodies being found strapped to their chairs. That's what was under the blue tarp and it seemed to make sense. Definitely passengers on that plane, very sad. Its highly unlikely there was any plane swap, but its still not impossible the plane was modified in some way. The approach and maneuvers seems to point in that direction. hmm.. fascinating.

The 757 is a LOT more maneuverable than people give it credit for. The main reason they don't fly them the way that flight 77 flew on 9/11 is because it's not safe for passengers for them to fly that way. I've seen video of a 757 performing a climb going straight up like a fighter, and I know other members that have personally watched 757s doing maneuvers that made their jaws drop, because they didn't think it could do them.

Aren't the controls restrained more and more automatically, at higher speeds, to prevent maneuvers at high speed that might be dangerous to the passengers or the aircraft?

As in a car with power steering, the faster you're going, the harder it is to turn the 'wheel' - that's my understanding anyway. It's a good thing too, because if you jack the wheel to one side or the other at speed, all kinds of bad things are going to happen to you and your vehicle...

I'm not aware of any off-switch for this automated resistance in the yoke, but something of the sort may very well exist. Anyone know anything more about that?

I sure think a 757 is capable of some wild things - think what you do with an RC aircraft. The only thing that limits what a plane can do is the g limits. The biggest problem is ripping the wings off.

I've see an EMPTY 757 go near-vertical. Incredible! If I find the footage, I'll post it.

THe part I question is the part about the hijackers capabilities. The flying schools say they weren't capable, but was this really the case? Is their definition of "not very good" our definition of "good enough"?

They say the maneuver is tricky, but in realty, the trickiest part is in simply knowing where the building is during the turn. The maneuver itself is actually very easy (as you've seen from the FDR video - they held it in a 30 degree angle of bank or very near to, which is what they would have been taught to do when learning to fly).

As for a 757 being able to do that - easy.

Was it Flight 77 that hit - we'll never know for sure. The fact they're hiding so much footage that has the answer - I'm guessing not.

Flight 93 did a perfect disappearing act, after UA confirmed it landed at Cleveland. Where are its passengers? That is for another thread.

The point? Some of it will be truth, some of it lies, and others just pure ommission. The point is that whilst they release two videos of Flight 77, and neither showing much, they keep us guessing. That allows them to spread dis-info and getting us to talk about crazy ideas and then they can make us all look like idiots. If they show us now what hit the Pentagon, they lose the edge in the psychological war. If they're lying - they blew their own story.

Step carefully people.

VicRH:
Videos? I know of one video that shows the photos at that site… anyway
The Blue tarp thing is funny – nothing under it but space for rescue/cleanup workers to decontaminate. The famous photo of it being carried away? Taken on the morning of 9/11, carried towards the Pgon to set up. The bodies weren't even started coming out at the time.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
And I’m not convinced on the bodies, but it’s compelling … and I’m glad you’re open-minded.

Zaphod: good points. A 757 could do all this, and if a computer could, why not a crazed Muslim guy who might’ve actually been a great pilot for all we know? What about ground effect tho? How does that make sense?

WyredOne: Good questions, that I have no idea how to answer.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
The point? Some of it will be truth, some of it lies, and others just pure ommission. The point is that whilst they release two videos of Flight 77, and neither showing much, they keep us guessing. That allows them to spread dis-info and getting us to talk about crazy ideas and then they can make us all look like idiots. If they show us now what hit the Pentagon, they lose the edge in the psychological war. If they're lying - they blew their own story.

Step carefully people.

No need for that! We know there was no 757! If there was, they would show us the video! We know for a fact this is the only possible explanation!

Right?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
VicRH:
Videos? I know of one video that shows the photos at that site… anyway
The Blue tarp thing is funny – nothing under it but space for rescue/cleanup workers to decontaminate. The famous photo of it being carried away? Taken on the morning of 9/11, carried towards the Pgon to set up. The bodies weren't even started coming out at the time.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
And I’m not convinced on the bodies, but it’s compelling … and I’m glad you’re open-minded.

Yeah it seems the first video still doesn't work, but I am able to download the others now.

What do you mean about the blue tarp having nothing under it? Now thats conflicting with what I read. The guy who worked on the pentagon autopsies said that under the blue tarp were corpses still strapped into their seats, hence the tarp.

Originally posted by VicRH
What do you mean about the blue tarp having nothing under it? Now thats conflicting with what I read. The guy who worked on the pentagon autopsies said that under the blue tarp were corpses still strapped into their seats, hence the tarp.

There may've been more than one blue tarp involved, but mostly people are referring to this one photo when they talk about it, a big box being carried away when it's actually a blue tarp decontamination tent being set up on the grounds. Perhaps this doesn't bear on the story you've heard, perhaps so, in which case it's based on faulty analysis. I'm not familiar with an autopsy guy talking about a tarp box, so maybe it's a different case. If you have a link that would help... otherwise, probably not a big deal. Read that linked story tho, it's kinda funny and helps one start seeing how DUMB much of the "Truth" movement has allowed itself to become.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
If you have a link that would help... otherwise, probably not a big deal.

Wish I had the link actually I would of shared it already. It was sometime last year I read about the autopsies infact it was probably via a topic on this forum. Yea its no big deal either way. I don't have much doubt a plane did crash into the pentagon (regardless of its flight path) but there are definitely issues with the whole scenario or else there wouldn't be any controversy, it would just be another plane crash.

Rumsfield sums it up pretty well..




[edit on 25-6-2007 by VicRH]

WHAT IF IT WAS A TECHINAL FAULT NOT AN ATTACK?

reply to post by Zaphod58


I believe this is the one you speak of!

uk.youtube.com...

Here is an even lower pass by an Airbus A310, roughly similar in size to a 757.

uk.youtube.com...

[edit on 12/27/2008 by GenRadek]