9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

He wasn't anywhere near the ground. He was coming down from altitude as he made the turn, then leveled off pointed at the building.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that is a completely different story than what they were saying about how the plane came in towards the building for the first couple of years post-9/11. If they have all this confiscated videotape evidence, and there truly is nothing to hide, then you would think they would just show it and shut skeptics like me up. ---Ryan

Somewhere waaaaay back in this thread, there is the flight path. It shows them coming down in altitude, IIRC 5000 feet, and making a big sweeping turn that lines them up. That corrsponds with the research I did looking for eyewitness ATC accounts after reading this thread.

Originally posted by Cade ...is how "something" pierced through the 3 outer rings, and at the same leaves no engine MARKS [even] on the outer?

The plane hit the lower part of the building, this part of this building stretches from the outer to the inner ring, only the top three floors are separated as rings

...is how the hijackers even found the pentagon through 40 min. of flying without the help of ground control and the transponderbox turned off?

How do we know that the pilots weren't flying the plane to washington?

we now have to belive that: • The pentagons anti-aircraft batteries "choose" not to blow down an approaching NON military aircraft [it's ONLY supposed to leave US military aircraft alone, hence the NO FLY ZONE !!!!]

the Pentagon is near a civilian airport, how are the batteries (if there are any, as Zaphod as already stated, there is no evidence that there are any) to differentiate between a plane trying to land and one with terrorists at the controls.

originally posted by uknumpty . If I were doing it I would nose dive into the inner ring and hit the building there.

How do we know he wasn't trying to do that. It's already been established that they weren't brilliant pilots?

originally posted by RyanC . If they have all this confiscated videotape evidence, and there truly is nothing to hide, then you would think they would just show it and shut skeptics like me up. ---Ryan

It has been stated already by CatHerder himslef that the other video footage has not been released because it is being held as evidence in a trial due to start shortly. Of course, there is no guarantee it will be released, but there is hope.

Hello Jidi-master I would respectfully claim that you don't like a "good conspiracy". Unless you feel they are just for entertainment, and in that case the reason that you do NOT like this one, could then actually be the reverse... that you deep down inside actually BELIEVE "this one".

Ohh...wow...we seem to have a resident psychologist on board... You're funny...and yes this board has a certain entertainment value with me...

that you deep down inside actually BELIEVE "this one".

Funny...NO I don't... It's funny that you haven't addrested any of my questions, are they too hard for you ?

Some of you may know that our own SkepitcOverlord's brother witnessed the plane fly over the highway at the Pentagon. Recently SO said that he would answer member questions in his next podcast, so I grabbed the opportunity to ask about the Pentagon:

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace I've never been a proponent of the "no 757 at the Pentagon" theory, but I'd just like to ask a real witness (via proxy as it is): Your brother witnessed the 757 hit the Pentagon. Did it skim just above the lawn with smoke trailing behind it (from an engine perhaps) as it appears to do in the 5 frames released by the feds? Has he noticed any anomalies in those frames that don't match up with what he witnessed? Cheers.

If anyone's interested, here is the podcast: www.podtrac.com... The relevant bit part starts just after the 15:40 mark.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Sure, but if you impact the center courtyard, it's so big the explosion can dissipate somewhat, and you might or might not get a big damage pattern. If you fly it right into the wall you maximize the damage. Sure to just one side, but you ensure more damage that way.

What I'm saying is not crash into the empty courtyard but initially aim for it as it's the middle of the building. Then either go left, right or up a bit and you're sure to hit some part of the main building and cause alot of damage.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace The relevant bit part starts just after the 15:40 mark.

Interesting. He didn't actually witness the impact but he did see the plane fly over the road and the passengers faces in the windows.

Here's another question I have---I guess Hani Hanjour supposedly took control of the plane somewhere in the Ohio vicinity, then turned it around and headed for the Pentagon. By all accounts, the man was an inexperienced pilot, at best. How on Earth would he even know how to head back towards Wasnington, and stay on course? He's above cloud cover, I assume, and flying fairly haphazardly. He's damn lucky he didn't hit another plane. Now ,assuming this totally inexperienced hijacker somehow makes it back to Washington---and in fairly good time---now he's going to head straight for the Pentagon, the most defended structure imaginable? The NORAD and USAF standdown is a topic for another thread, I'm sure, but the total implausibility of this guy even being able to make it to Washington in one piece is one more reason I don't buy the official Pentagon story. Also, I'm not sure how reliable this is, but I have read that a Cincinnati-area television station had initially reported that the flight that later went on to hit the Pentagon had crashed somewhere near the West Virginia border. Can anyone shed more light on that story? ---Ryan

Originally posted by Cade • The pentagons anti-aircraft batteries "choose" not to blow down an approaching NON military aircraft [it's ONLY supposed to leave US military aircraft alone, hence the NO FLY ZONE !!!!]

Originally posted by RyanC ---now he's going to head straight for the Pentagon, the most defended structure imaginable?

I’d like to address the myth that the pentagon was some how ringed with AA batteries or guys with stingers ready to soot down an approaching plane at the drop of a hat. First off, an image from page 10 of this thread: This picture was reportedly taken in August of 2001 from a private Cessna. How come it wasn’t shot down? external image Note the Ronald Regan Airport in the background. That is a key issue, the Pentagon is located just a very short distance from the main airport for the DC area! Here is a map of the airport in relation to the pentagon And here is a map of the landing approach to the main runway. external image (this was also posted before in this thread) As you can see, the approach passes within a quarter mile of the pentagon. A plane going 350 mph would cover that distance in about two and a half seconds. So once again, I would like to ask how can they possibly defend the Pentagon with AA batteries, missiles, etc? Claim: The pentagon was ringed with missiles ready to shoot down any plane approaching it. Reality: This is a myth. The landing and takeoff approach to the main runway at the nearby Ronald Reagan airport passes right alongside the building. Thus many planes approach the Pentagon on a daily basis and are not shot down. Status?: DEEEEEBUNKED! [edit on 5-10-2005 by HowardRoark]

even if they did have SAMS the people onthe ground would hesitate to shoot down civilian aircraft since we are preparing for threats outside of the borders and not within. i guess AL Qaida hope to take advatage of our softness.

The airspace around the Pentagon, like the airspace areound the Capitol and the White House is a no-fly zone. Not just since September 11th---always. My beleif is that it was protected by missiles that emerged from underground if airplanes were in the vicinity that did not emit a "friendly" signal from their transponders. If not missiles---or figher jets---then exactly what is it that defends the Pentagon airspace? I appreciate the efforts of the debunkers of the "no-plane" theory to convince skeptics like myself that a plane did, in fact, hit the Pentagon, but what should have happened is that regardless of what it was that hit the Pentagon, that airspace should have been protected. Why wasn't it? ---Ryan

Originally posted by RyanC The airspace around the Pentagon, like the airspace areound the Capitol and the White House is a no-fly zone. I appreciate the efforts of the debunkers of the "no-plane" theory to convince skeptics like myself that a plane did, in fact, hit the Pentagon, but what should have happened is that regardless of what it was that hit the Pentagon, that airspace should have been protected. Why wasn't it? ---Ryan

why dont u wonder why the plane in wat year was it like 97 orf 98 that a small plane crash into the White House that is considered a no fly zone eh? maybe u wonder about that too?

Yes, there are flight restrictions in and around the pentagon and the capital. Pre 2001 If you violated those restrictions, you could expect to have a nasty time explaining yourself to the FAA et all when you landed. However, the idea thatthere is an automatic defense system is absurd. What would happen if a airliner with a faulty transponder was trying to make an emergency landing at Ronald Regan?

I guess the question that needs to be asked is, did they know at that time that the plane was headed for the Pentagon? Wasn't there a C-130 trailing it? Were other aircraft grounded by that stage? Would they have been able to track it with radar from the Pentagon? Would they have had time to bring anti-aircraft measures to bear?

He did CRASH near the border, he TURNED near the border and headed back east.

I don't think that's an unreasonable question, wecomeinpeace---very good question, in fact. You would think that the Pentagon itself would have the ability to track the aircraft from somewhere in---or under---the building. At some point they had to know that something was headed their way, whether it was a plane or not. I trust that even the people here who think that it was a plane do not beleive Rumsfeld when he said that the first he knew of the plane was when he heard it hit? Also, on more than one occasion, Rumsfeld has referred to whatever it was that hit the Pentagon as a "missile." He later "clarified" (or retracted) his words by saying that he meant "a plane that was being used as a missile." As for deltaboy's comment---I have wondered very much why that small plane hit the White House in the early 90s, and how it got around the no-fly zone. The standard answers provided by the corporate media on that have never satisfied me. ---Ryan

Originally posted by RyanC You would think that the Pentagon itself would have the ability to track the aircraft from somewhere in---or under---the building. At some point they had to know that something was headed their way,

Why would the Pentagon have radar etc. Essentially the building is a large administration centre. That's like stating an oil corporation based in New York should have an oil well and refinery in their basement.

As for deltaboy's comment---I have wondered very much why that small plane hit the White House in the early 90s, and how it got around the no-fly zone. The standard answers provided by the corporate media on that have never satisfied me. ---Ryan

Regardless of the explanations, the plane still got through. Also the comment made about the c130, that has already been answered previously. Apparently it had just finished delivering goods to some where in the Carribbean and was returning when the ATC asked if it had a visual ID on the 757, they asked the hercules to tail it. This link: www.cooperativeresearch.org...:00am%20Sept%2011%202001&timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=0 also gives further details of the whole event. The events on this day, no matter how much people believe there to be conspiracy (regardless of whether there was or not) show a considerable amount of incompetence that day which didn't help anybody. The main problem woth all 9/11 conspiracies is that people expect the defence and emergency agencies to act in a movie style fashion. Leaping to the rescue with infinite resources etc etc. This is not the case in reality, things don't always work to plan (and then with the intervention of the hero right themselves at the last minute). One thing everyone, and I include myself here, seem to forget is that we are all human, prone to mistakes, prone to hesitate when faced with the horrific reality of the events of that day.

Civilian air traffic radars are separate from NORAD's "fence" of radars focused on external threats, Pennie explained. The rationale for this arrangement was that not only were Sept. 11-style hijackings not expected, but the Cold War mind-set was that "once a bomber got that far [past the NORAD fence] ... things were pretty bad." Unfortunately, Pennie reported, NORAD "simply can't connect all the radars" and create an all-inclusive radar monitoring facility. The technology simply does not exist to do this, and building an all-new radar system from the ground up would be time consuming and prohibitively expensive. www.afa.org... Why should the Pentagon try to track planes, when they can tie into NORAD. NORAD looked OUT however, not into the Continental US. And as was stated, they had no way to connect all the radars to look at the big picture. Not to mention that an underground radar wouldn't work. The ground would absorb all the signal, unless you build a big bubble around it to allow the radar waves to exit, and if you're going to do that why not put it above ground already. As far as underground defenses, again what's the point? By the time you realize you need them, get them manned, get the doors open, get them above ground, get the radars operating so they can track the plane, TRACK the plane, get the missiles ready, and fire them, it's WAY too late. emphasis added. [edit on 10/5/2005 by Zaphod58]

So the truth is that the only defensive measure we have to protect the Pentagon is the ability to scramble fighter jets and hope for the best? It just seems to me that the Pentagon would be a lot better defended than that, and I suspect it is. The Australian parliament building in Canberra has missiles buried underground in secure locations ringing the building that open up above-ground, activate, and fire if approaching aircraft do not have a transponder that emits a constant "friendly" signal. Any plane nearing the airspace is tracked within a few miles of approach and the missiles are prepped and ready if it gets closer without transponding the required signal. If it gets within the direct airspace of the Parliament building, it will get blown out of the sky before it can hit. If the Aussies have such advanced defense of their Parliament, doesn't it stand to reason that key American buildings such as the Pentagon---the largest office building in the world, with over 20,000 employees---would be at least that well-defended? At least? ---Ryan