9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by piboy I do not mean to offend you, but I am curious. You say your brother saw faces in the plane?

Yes. He's still haunted by it. Now... certainly, with a jet flying fast about 200' away, and maybe 40' above you over the highway, faces can't be discerned. But the shapes of faces against the windows are certainly something that can be recognized.... our mind is trained to know a face, even at a distance... we even see them on Mars. In the shock of seeing something unexpected (a jet in the wrong place), the mind remembers the familiar... the shapes of faces. His friend was a fellow professor at Georgetown... no, I'll not give you the name. ignorance embraced

As posted by SkepticOverlord on page 9!!!

We already know that a real plane did infact hit the pentagon. There is no question about this. It's ludicrous that people are still debating over this. Its crazy that people still want to stick with that crazy complex and far fetched theory that it was a bomb, or a drone painted like a 747. People who still beleive it is a drone are like people who refuse to beleive that gravity is what causes objects to fall to the earth. who would rather choose the complex, far fetched theory instead: really powerfull aliens are using an invisible ray gun to cause the objects to fall to the earth, but we cant see or detect these powerful aliens. Both theories explain why objects fall to the earth, only one is way more complex and rediculous. just as its obvious a plane hit the pentagon, evidence is imense. why is this still being debated? Im guessing its becuase some people are in denial that it really is possible for a 747 to hit the pentagon. Really? no way. um, yes way.

Is there any official report on Pentagon attack with proofs ?

How much more proof do you want than what has been posted here?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 How much more proof do you want than what has been posted here?

Easy there, Zaph. New member.... (reg: 9-21)

I apologize if that came across hotly, it really wasn't meant that way. It's been the week from hell, and I'm just a TEENY bit stressed out. Stolarz, I'm truly sorry if it seemed I was snapping or yelling at you. As far as I know there is no official report on the Pentagon, but what more information would you like to know? I'm sure that between us all here we can find out if it exists or not for you.

Originally posted by bob2000 People who still beleive it is a drone are like people who refuse to beleive that gravity is what causes objects to fall to the earth. who would rather choose the complex, far fetched theory instead: really powerfull aliens are using an invisible ray gun to cause the objects to fall to the earth, but we cant see or detect these powerful aliens.

Off topic, but can we actually detect gravity? I mean, measure its existence on instruments?

Well fighters have G meters to determine how many times the force of gravity they pull during manuvers. That's the closest that *I* am aware of, but then I've never really looked into it. [edit on 9/22/2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I apologize if that came across hotly, it really wasn't meant that way. It's been the week from hell, and I'm just a TEENY bit stressed out. Stolarz, I'm truly sorry if it seemed I was snapping or yelling at you. As far as I know there is no official report on the Pentagon, but what more information would you like to know? I'm sure that between us all here we can find out if it exists or not for you.

Thx. I'll read all thread next time before asking questions. You don't have to be sorry. I didn't take your post that way

This one might take awhile. hehe. I think the gist of it is that most of us agreed it was NOT a drone, there's still some argument that it MIGHT have been a missile,and the eyewitness accounts have been pretty much thrown out the window. 100+ pages, in two sentences.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Well fighters have G meters to determine how many times the force of gravity they pull during manuvers. That's the closest that *I* am aware of, but then I've never really looked into it.

Wow, this is off topic, but I believe what you're talking about is the measurement of centrifugal force or acceleration/deceleration, depending on the circumstance. Outside of dry physics, they are both quantified relative to gravity, mainly because they mimic its effects. "G's", or "gravities", is the unit of measurement, not the force being measured. Thus "three Gs" means the force is three times as strong as Earth's gravity at sea level. Centrifugal force is sometimes referred to as "poor man's gravity". [edit on 2005-9-22 by wecomeinpeace]

Yeah, I remember hearing it called that before. I'm really too tired right now to be having any sort of discussion, so I'll leave it for later. It's been a long long week already.

Originally posted by LoganCale 4. The surveillance footage does line up with a Boeing 757. [edit on 15-9-2005 by LoganCale]

No, it contradicts it completely. 757's (apologies on the earlier misquote) don't LEAVE TRAILS OF WHITE SMOKE! Despite the chemtrail propaganda out there, they don't leave contrails as far as I know. Someone please show me otherwise as this is pretty critical for the pentagon scenario. The craft in that tape is also much too small based on those 5 frames to not be seen at all. Bottom line, it doesn't add up. Besides, this is still a smoke screen! (Pun intended) The WTC towers both collapsed the same way that the controlled demolision of WTC building 7 did. It is on the record by Larry Silverstein that builiding 7 was a demolition job on a PBS documentry that hit last year I believe. Lest us forget that this sort of thing takes a couple weeks to wire a building with explosives, and coupled with the Lone Gunman pilot evidence of prior knowledge, should be enough for anyone truly skeptical to realize: WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! WE'VE BEEN HAD! So fuck it, let's just say a plane did hit the pentagon, it's still an inside job! inside job! inside job! inside job! inside job! inside job! I don't care if you disagree anymore, because if you can't see it now, you are really into your own reality tunnel too much to get out of your own biased. In a chemically sedated MKULTRA reality, you can keep going with the script if you want. I would pity anyone like this if they weren't so selfish, but I digress. If any of you disagree with what I have to say, I just want you to know, I do this for the integrity of the human spirit. I do this for future generations that will carry the brunt of our apathy. I do this because I love this planet, despite those who rape it continually. I do this for fresh air and clean water. I am doing this for you, so thank you for your time. [edit on 22-9-2005 by Light Being] [edit on 22-9-2005 by Light Being]

What do you think a jet engine is going to do after smashing lightpoles, cars, and other objects? Jet engines that injest large amounts of metal DO LEAVE TRAILS.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 What do you think a jet engine is going to do after smashing lightpoles, cars, and other objects? Jet engines that injest large amounts of metal DO LEAVE TRAILS.

You are burrying yourself for me thanks. Go on, take a closer look Behind the blockade on the parking meridian you should still be able to see a bit of the plane if it was infact a 757. The distance of where this plane is supposedly supposed to be and size of a 757 has been refuted in the documentry "9/11 Painful Deceptions". Go watch it, I won't be bothered to give you the details as you have a lack of respect for the truth. You should still be able to see the plane, but it is hidden completely behind the blockade in these frames. If infact the smoke would have been a grey color if it was from a plane on fire, not white. Check the light poles aswell, they look like they were levelled from their foundation, there is definetly a lack of aesthetic damage done to the light poles as conducive to a plane going ~500mph hitting them from the top. Even so, if it was from hitting poles, a cab and what not, it would leave a huge trail of debris, but if you check the live reporting done on the scene before the establishment could get it's story straight, you can tell this is completely CONTRADICTORY! Go on and read the CNN transcript I posted earlier in the thread if you want. I happened to also see the footage aswell, so I can definetly state there is contradictory reporting. Oh wait a minute, you aren't interested in the truth, agent provactuer, witting or unwitting, your denial is legendary. Go on and completely ignore all the points you can't refute, anyone interested in truth can see right through you and that's what matters for now. Thanks for proving you are full of it.

You're kidding right? This picture was taken of an E-3 AWACS by me, from maybe a quarter mile, fully zoomed in, as it was landing. It's based on a 707 airframe. The 707-320 specs: Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m) Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m) Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2) Gross Weight 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg) Cruising Speed 607 mph (977 km/h) Range 6,160 miles (9,913 km) Service Ceiling 36,000 feet (10,973 m) Power Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each Passenger Cabin 141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy Now look at how small this plane looks. external image Now this is when I was trying to zoom in at a distance. The camera at the Pentagon was pointed to look for objects that are CLOSE to the camera. Now if being zoomed in makes a plane that's 145 feet long, look the size it does, what do you think is going to happen with a smaller camera designed to look for close objects? How big do you think a 757 actually is? It's NOT a huge airplane. It's barely bigger than a 707! If it was going to show up as big as you claim in that picture it would have to be HUGE. Wing span 38.05 m (124 ft 10 in) Wing chord: at root 8.20 m (26 ft 11 in) at tip 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in) Wing aspect ratio 7.8 Length: overall 47.32 m (155 ft 3 in) fuselage 46.96 m (154 ft 10 in) Height overall 13.56 m (44 ft 6 in) Tailplane span 15.21 m (49 ft 11 in) Wheel track 7.32 m (24 ft 0 in) Wheelbase 18.29 m (60 ft 0 in) Passenger doors (two, fwd, port): Height 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in) Width 0.84 m (2 ft 9 in) Passenger door (rear, port): Height 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in) Width 0.76 m (2 ft 6 in) Service door (fwd, stbd): Height 1.65 m (5 ft 5 in) Width 0.76 m (2 ft 6 in) Service door (stbd, opposite second passenger door): Height 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in) Width 0.84 m (2 ft 9 in) Service door (rear, stbd): Height 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in) Width 0.76 m (2 ft 6 in) Emergency exits (four, overwing): Height 0.97 m (3 ft 2 in) Width 0.51 m (1 ft 8 in) Emergency exits, optional (two, aft of wings): Height 1.32 m (4 ft 4 in) Width 0.61 m (2 ft 0 in) As far as the smoke color, the plane WASN'T on fire. The engine was damaged, and probably leaking oil. Oil smoke is a lovely WHITE color as it comes out of the engine. I've seen it hundreds of times. [edit on 9/22/2005 by Zaphod58] [edit on 9/22/2005 by Zaphod58] Mod Edit: Image Size [edit on 26/9/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Light Being Check the light poles aswell, they look like they were levelled from their foundation, there is definetly a lack of aesthetic damage done to the light poles as conducive to a plane going ~500mph hitting them from the top.

As I previously posted. The lamp posts were fitted bases that are designed to break on impact. This is supposed to save lives so that when cars etc crash into them, there is a greater chance of the occupants surviving. There has also numerous links to photos showing jet engines emitting white smoke. Some admittedly, are during cold starts, but there are other clearly showing white smoke.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Zamboni]

Why won't they release the Citgo Gas Station, DOT and nearby Hotel videos ??? Hmm seems like something is being hidden. And why only a handful of frames from the parking lot cam ? What was under the tarp that was carried away on Spet 11 from the crash scene ? Maybe a wing that belonged to a plane different than the official version ? And what about the FEMA pic of the JT8D engine with a diameter of 4 ft. is nowhere even close to a 757's 8 ft. diameter engine as seen below...and matching a factory built pic further below. The most likely scenario involves an A3 Skywarrior (twin engine with JT8D engines) carring a missile and painted in AA colors. This plane would match the parking cam pics exactly. Plus I'd bet a largish A3 Skywarrior piece of debris was inside that tarp above. Where did the real 757 go you ask ? Probaby directed in the 911 mayhem to another location and shot down mid-atlantic.

You realize that the diameter of an engine includes blades, and intake right? OF COURSE the one they pulled out is only 4 feet. The blades were destroyed and ripped off it. You lose the blades, and you lose half the diameter of the engine. And again, if you pack explosives onto an airplane, such as the A-3 and detonate them, you are going to have a much different blast pattern. I seriously doubt you would have had any survivors anywhere near the impact site. The only missile with a big enough warhead to make a difference is something the size of the Tomahawk and that would have decimated the offices around the impact zone, probably blown a hole through the roof, and a much bigger hole in the inner wall, than the engine left when it went through.