It is scientifically impossible that a plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11

reply to post by GodIsPissed

Witnesses also said the plane was a commuter plane..

PLENTY of others identified it correctly.

Two witnesses who were obviously mistaken....had brief glimpses (or, in one case, was quite far away. The first video, man on the 12th floor of the building in Rosslyn. At 1600 Wilson Blvd. Google Map that location to see for yourself).

Next, you posted yet another clip from that crap video produced by the "C.I.T." And THEY used and manipulated ONLY the "witnesses" that suited their purposes....and their agenda. Of lying and distortion, nor fact-seeking.

More accurate recollections of witnesses:




AS TO the OP's contentions....well, shown to be merit-less. In any case, another ATS thread was authored some time ago, by member CatHerder...and is quite definitive:

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Next, you posted yet another clip from that crap video produced by the "C.I.T." And THEY used and manipulated ONLY the "witnesses" that suited their purposes....and their agenda. Of lying and distortion, nor fact-seeking.

Not to mention, I'm fairly sure Craig and Aldo promised to eventually release the "Researcher's Edition" of their footage - basically non-edited, full videos of all of their interviews. Been a few years now, and still no sight of that.

reply to post by GodIsPissed


Your "thinking" is quite incorrect. It WAS a Boeing 757, and it WAS the same one that was being operated as American Airlines flight 77. ALL those other nonsense claims come fromt he fevered imaginations of multiple "conspiracy" websites...and, as noted already, they lie and distort in order to spew their agenda-driven baloney.

YOU did it a bit, here too.....mis-using this event (that occurred back in 1984!!!) and calling it something that is most certainly WAS NOT:

They even tested a remote control plane to crash into a target at a low speed and couldn't do it like it shows here.
www.youtube.com...

Do the research on that project. Find your own links.....

reply to post by Facemelter


Jet engines are not 'nearly indestructable' a little ROCK can cause a jet engine come apart. This is a video of a flight deck crewman going down the intake of an A-6, you'll notice the fire shooting from the exhaust. That is the jet engine coming apart. The young man survived.....because his plastic flight deck helmet came off of his head and destroyed the engine.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Who is lying to to further their agenda?

Truthers/people who want to know the truth?

What agenda?Truthers aren't an organization!They are just people who want to know the truth although the government would have you believe they are terrorists!Yep..truthers(people who want to know the truth) want a new investigation into 9/11 because they want the terrorists(themselves) caught for mass murder?That makes total sense!

The government is a huge organization though.They have the power to pull off these "agendas" not people who ask questions or make videos on youtube.

There are so many lies concerning 9/11 told by the government,that they don't even remember which is lie and which is truth they've been caught so many times.But yet there are people like you who protect them like a mother protects her child.

Who has the power to pull off such an attack?..19 Arabs from caves?Please..And why did they even invade Afghanistan and blame Osama Bin Laden when they had no proof Bin Laden was even involved?..and they still have no proof..he's not even wanted for it!!So why invade??

Can you prove 19 Arabs with box cutters pulled off 9/11?Where's the evidence?

reply to post by weedwhacker


I said the plane was tested for remote control crash test into a target and it was.I didn't lie.That was proof that it has been tested before?

There is no way someone could remote control a 757 at 500 mph and hit a target in one shot!Because they would have only had one chance to do it!This is why there was a deception needed.

Do you actually believe a guy who has never flown a 757 before,pulled of the maneuvers that most professionals couldn't do on a simulator?You are sadly mistaken and sorry to say but you would have to be very gullible to believe that.

Originally posted by SKinLaB
They had numerous amounts of people that said they witnessed the plane going by them flying very low.

Eyewitness Accounts

My sister included.

reply to post by mbkennel


What was your sisters name?And where was she at the moment?Did she see it crash?

reply to post by GodIsPissed


It's obvious who the gullible one is, it should be apparent from the video that Sir Weedwhacker II Esq. OBE posted that from MULTIPLE eyewitnesses that it was a plane, the angle it hit caused it to disintegrate.

Blame Microsoft for (unknowingly) supplying the simulation software used to do it!

reply to post by GodIsPissed


You're right.....the American Airlines Boeing 757 was NOT equipped for remote control. In fact, it is very difficult to do (if one were to attempt it) and that NASA demonstration in 1984 was a one-off concept....primarily to test a fuel additive.

However, knowing that R/Cing a jet at high velocity is "iffy" at best...being IN the airplane, and with all the sensations and normal hand/eye coordination and motor skills that are learned, and are VERY basic to all fixed-wing flying....

Do you actually believe a guy who has never flown a 757 before,pulled of the maneuvers that most professionals couldn't do on a simulator?

Well....actually they ALL had some simulator time....in commercial jet simulators. The handling "feel" is very similar for all big jets....actually, they are rather easy to control, in terms of just "steering" and aiming.

And, no "most professionals" have no problem reproducing the AAL 77 flight profile. The "maneuvers" as you claim have been well exaggerated in order to bolster this nonsense "conspiracy", for what ever reasons.

Surely by now you've seen the NTSB animation made from the Flight Data Recorder information?

Unfortunately for the "truth", the most common version of it is the one posted up by one of those "geniuses" at P4T (as YouTube username "johndoeXLC") and it has poisoned the well. This one has several text comments inserted....inane ones, aimed at "convincing" the layperson and non-pilots of the "implausibility" (I guess that's his intent). Just makes him look like a fool, to REAL airline pilots.

The video shows nothing but very ordinary "maneuvers" starting as he flew overhead the Pentagon at about 8,000 feet MSL. Then, a wide, normal right-hand turn and descent as he maneuvered to line up for the final attack run. (Using the Columbia Pike roadway as a guide, apparently).

Normal bank angles....sloppy flying, yes...as his bank angles and airspeed control were poor. But, angle of bank not much past about 35 degrees....and 30 is the maximum you normally "see" as an airline passenger. Airspeed fluctuated from about 280-300 knots while in the turn...again, perfectly normal for the descent, pitch attitude, and thrust settings (idle power) in the turn.

It was only as he neared the Pentagon, at that point mostly straight in, that he shoved the thrust up to full....the thrust settings, combined with his continuing descent (until almost levelling just prior to impact) contributed to the rapid airspeed build-up. The excessive (above Vmo) airspeeds only persisted for about 20-25 seconds of flight.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


OMG.This simulation video is laughabale on so many levels.Where to begin?

This video isn't even a good comparison & actually contradicts and discredits the official story.

1)First we'll notice that this plane has a trail of flame shooting out of the back of it.This would prove that Flight 77 would've burned the front lawn up & torched the witnesses on the road.

2)They say that this plane has been bolted down to prevent take off.Obviously planes can't do 500mph a few feet from the ground.This reinforces the claims made by many experts that Flight 77 couldn't possibly have flown a few feet from the ground.

3)If you'll notice,the 'concrete' wall is said to be specially designed to move & absord this impact.The Pentagon walls were obviously not.Not the same.And I know what you'll say,"The Pentagon walls were reinforced".Ok,say lets say this wall & the Pentagon walls were just alike.Well,this wall is completely undamaged.So this would prove that Flight 77 couldn't have penetrated the outer wall of the Pentagon & gone through all FIVE concrete rings,right?But then again,of course we know that a plane can & would in fact destroy a concrete wall.

4)This would also prove that the WTC was also a lie.If reinforced concrete is indestructable,as this video seems to prove,than it shouldn't have burst into powder at the WTC.If reinforced concrete wall can survive the impact of a 30,000+ pound jet (filled with jet fuel) collided with it at 500mph after gaining a few miles of momentum,it surely shouldn't burst into powder at the WTC.If it's invincible over here it should be invincible over there.

Its also worth noting that this video only surfaced (Per release of 9/11 truth debunkers) a few years after 9/11.How convenient?A video that shows that a plane can be atomized at 500mph (The exact speed the planes were supposedly going).What are the odds?Another 9/11 coincidence.Also worth noting is that this clip is part of a 6 minute video.The 6 minute vid that I've found has no sound.It's quite possible that this vid has been edited to support the OS.



In my opinion.This vid is disinfo.I highly doubt this wall could possibly have been concrete,as concrete isn't indestructible.Steel maybe.And this plane doesnt seem to be goin 500mph.I dont think that speed causes flames.

reply to post by youngdrodeau


You do realise that the F-4 Phantom test took place in 1988!

See report.

www.iasmirt.org...

www.sandia.gov...

TJ

reply to post by youngdrodeau


You are not making any sense with this.

First we'll notice that this plane has a trail of flame shooting out of the back of it.This would prove that Flight 77 would've burned the front lawn up & torched the witnesses on the road.

The F-4 Phantom pusher sled was powered by Zuni and Nike rockets hence all the flames.

The Boeing 757 isn't equipped with afterburners/reheat. The engines on airliners are extremely powerful though even without afterburner/reheat.

Look at these people. Are they being burned?

The very first aircraft in the video is a Boeing 757 (American Airlines). People also ride the fence during take-offs.

www.youtube.com...



Add an afterburner/reheat and things do get very dangerous indeed. You won't get many people surfing a fence when reheat is involved.

B-1B Lancer.



Back in 2002 a Swedish Viggen display pilot burned a group of spectators by flying too low over them and climbing with afterburner/reheat.

www.pprune.org...

So no, Flight 77's engines would not have burned people on its flight path into the Pentagon.

TJ

The very first aircraft in the video is a Boeing 757 (American Airlines). People also ride the fence during take-offs.

www.youtube.com...

I've been there. I didn't "ride the fence" but we did sit there and watch the planes land and take off for a while. Pretty cool seeing them practically close enough to touch.

reply to post by GodIsPissed

Who is lying to to further their agenda?

Folks that are "just asking questions" and then systematically ignoring answers.

Truthers/people who want to know the truth?

Yep. Agenda - "LISTEN TO ME"!

What agenda?

Striving for unwarranted attention, selling crap to gullible people.

Truthers aren't an organization!

Boy, you said a mouthful!

They are just people who want to know the truth although the government would have you believe they are terrorists!

Nope - the government doesn't care. However, if you go online, for whatever reason, and talk about hanging people for treason and throwing out the government, sometimes you may get some attention.

Yep..truthers(people who want to know the truth)....

Or who want people to listen to them talk about wanting the truth.

....want a new investigation into 9/11 because they want the terrorists(themselves) caught for mass murder?That makes total sense!

No one is accusing truthers of making sense.

The government is a huge organization though.

Though what?

They have the power to pull off these "agendas" not people who ask questions or make videos on youtube.

If your agenda is to get people who otherwise would never pay you any attention to not ignore you, then you really don't need the power of a government. In fact, probably the last thing you want is to have to compete with the government for the limited attention that is out there.

There are so many lies concerning 9/11 told by the government,that they don't even remember which is lie and which is truth they've been caught so many times.But yet there are people like you who protect them like a mother protects her child.

How many lies?

Who has the power to pull off such an attack?..19 Arabs from caves?

If the attack includes 19 men, then yes all you need is 19 men.

Please..And why did they even invade Afghanistan and blame Osama Bin Laden when they had no proof Bin Laden was even involved?

Yes they do - this falls under the category of asking questions and ignoring answers.

..and they still have no proof..he's not even wanted for it!!So why invade??

Yes he is wanted. We invaded to get him and the rest.

Can you prove 19 Arabs with box cutters pulled off 9/11?Where's the evidence?

Yes, and they did. Where's the evidence? C'mon - its been 10 years now, if you don't know where the stuff is then you really need to start your own investigation.

reply to post by GodIsPissed


How do you explain the martyrdom tapes? American Airlines Flight Attendant T. Carter mentions that Hani Hanjour and other hijackers filmed and cased routes prior to 9/11.

Watch from point 03:45.

Google Video Link

Al Qaeda has released the martyrdom tapes of some of the hijackers over the years. Even they don't dispute who they were! None of their families have come forward to dispute the fact.

Abdulaziz al-Omari



Ahmed al-Haznawi



Ahmed al-Ghamdi



Saeed al-Ghamdi



Ziad Jarrah filmed making his martyrdom tape and being prompted during mistakes.



Hamza al-Ghamdi and Waleed al-Shehri can be seen in the following giving their martyrdom speeches.



Walid al-Shehri





The usual truther response to these videos is that the hijackers have been found alive! That is one of reasons why many of these internet discussions go round and round in circles. They find such things as the 'Hijackers are still alive' videos and the ignorance continues. They were debunked years ago, but still people use them as evidence and post lots of smilies.

TJ

reply to post by tommyjo


HAHA.Yes I know that normal planes don't shoot flames & why this one does.Just wanted to see who'd be petty & attack this piece of misinfo instead of addressing the valid points I made.Congrats.

Anyway,you do realize that the company that provided this video has a major conflict of interest,don't you?Sandia is a major government contractor,making huge profits from 9/11 throught the War on Terror.It is owned by defense contractor Lockheed Martin.Ya know,Lockheed Martin thats making billions from the War on Terror.Alot of these guys were/are literally on Govt payroll and/or are Bush's buddies:
.
Robert J.Stevens:Served on President Bush's Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry.

Edward C.Aldridge-
Was confirmed as the Pentagon's top weapons buyer on May 8, 2001.
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
Senior management associate in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
Deputy assistant defense secretary for strategic programs

James Loy-
In May, 2002, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation Norman Mineta appointed Loy to become the Deputy Undersecretary for the newly-formed Transportation Security Administration. Loy led the agency through its creation and subsequent incorporation into the Department of Homeland Security.
On October 23, 2003, Loy was nominated as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security by President George W. Bush, and sworn in on December 4, 2003.

Joseph Ralston-
Ralston became Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1996 . He was favorite to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1997, however following revelations of a secret affair he remained Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until May 2000. He then became Supreme Allied Commander for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Europe until January 2003.

In September 2006, he was assigned as Special Envoy for Countering the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) by the President of the United States George W. Bush.The PKK is a Kurdish separatist group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Turkey and the European Union.

Ralston was one of at least three retired four star generals asked by Bush administration to oversee both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Ralston and the two other generals, however, all declined this position.

Ralston holds various senior positions in defense and security-related corporations, simultaneously with his diplomatic role as "anti PKK coordinator". Critics allege Ralston is using his influence as special envoy to secure large governmental weapons contracts for the corporations he has directorship over. The Boston Globe described him as "an arms merchant in diplomat's clothing."

On 26 October 2006, the Kurdish National Congress of North America issued a press release demanding “the immediate resignation” of General Joseph Ralston:

Ralston’s appointment came at a time when Turkey was finalizing the sale of 30 new Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft (approx. $3 billion) and as Turkey was due to make a decision on the $10 billion purchase of the new Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF aircraft. The sale for the F-16’s was approved by the United States Congress in mid-October and Turkey’s decision in favor of the F-35 JSF was announced on October 25, shortly after Ralston’s recent stay in Ankara, ostensibly to counter the PKK.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're taking the word of people who have alot to lose if 9/11 turns out to be a false flag.

And you mention that this test/video is from 1988.First let me point out that that could easily be a lie.If it was made in 2005,how would we know?But besides that,you do real that we're not saying that 9/11 was planned overnight,right?This was in the works since the end of the Cold War.They've been doing what is called PRIMING eversince the early 80s.They've been developing & propagating the image of the new & improved "Arab boogieman" eversince the American population stopped fearing "the Red Scare".They set up the 1993 WTC bombing (And this is confirmable info) just so they could plant the idea of the WTC being a target for terrorism,so that when 9/11 happened,people would say "Well,they tried it 1993,so makes sense they'd try to do it again"So it wouldn't be surprising if they made this video back in 1988 just to be used as propaganda later.

"When the plane went into the field in Pennsylvania, were there any big pieces left? No. That's what happens when an aircraft hits ground at high speed."


You're comparing it to another example of staged plane crashsite.No plane crashed in Pennsylvania either.You can't use 9/11 to support itself.Thats like someone saying "Why would a robber break into a house and only take pillow cases?" and you answering "Hey.They took empty shoe boxes too,so...".HAHA.Seriously,if you're gonna compare this to somethin,it should be something unrelated.Show me another case of a plane completely atomizing besides on 9/11.And not a test video from a defense contractor,who needs the 9/11 OS to be true.

reply to post by youngdrodeau

Show me another case of a plane completely atomizing besides on 9/11.And not a test video from a defense contractor,who needs the 9/11 OS to be true.

If all the planes on 9/11 atomized then how do you explain all the plane wreckage? Photos of plane wreckage of all the planes involved on 9/11 are on record. So what atomized besides the fuel?

Photographic evidence of the plane:










Source