9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Because until the end of the Cold War there were dozens of bases with fighters waiting to scramble, and a 200 mile Identification Zone out into the Atlantic Ocean that if a plane enters without ID the fighters scramble to intercept it. And in the North the Canadian Air Force would scramble on anything coming over the Pole. Ever hear of the OTH-B radar system that NORAD uses? The'd see anything coming a LONG way out there. The U.S. Air Force's over-the-horizon-backscatter (OTH-B) air defense radar system is by several criteria the largest radar system in the world. Six one-million-watt OTH radars see far beyond the range of conventional microwave radars by bouncing their 5-28-MHz waves off the ionosphere, an ionized layer about 200 km above the earth. It was developed over 25 years at a cost of $1.5 billion to warn against Soviet bomber attacks when the planes were still thousands of miles from US air space. www.globalsecurity.org...

So---why wasn't this plane seen by anyone at all, at least according to reports, from the time it went off the radar screens in Ohio until the time that it reappeared near Washington? And how would this inexperienced pilot , if he really was the hijacker, be able to chart a course from Ohio back to Washington, without some type of air traffic control assistance of some sort? I doubt he was experienced enough, even if he was somehow a better pilot that we have been told, to successfully chart a course through the air in advance from Ohio to Washington, much less to be able to figure out the right course to fly right there on the spur of the moment. So how did this guy, who managed to take over control of a plane with a boxcutter, then manage to get to where he was going, considering his extremely limited flying skills? And why wasn't the plane shot down once he was seen re-entering Washington airspace, since it was confirmed at that point that it was, indeed, a hijacked flight? If there are no ground-to-air defenses near the Pentagon, such as missiles, which I still find very doubtful, and there was no time to scramble fighters in response, which I also find doubtful, then why would the Pentagon not be evacuated in advance, even with minutes to spare, at least as a security precaution, even if they knew they didn't know whether or not they were going to be hit, they knew major American landmarks were under attack, and it seems that it would have made sense to evacuate non-essential personnel at least as a precautionary measure. I work in a government office building (county level, not federal) and we have been evacuated on short notice for far less serious threats than the possibility of a plane being headed in our direction. ---Ryan

By the time they realized the Pentagon might be the target, it was less than five minutes before impact. That's not enough time to even get the phone call that you're a target, and start TRYING to evacuate the building. Navigation with a GPS system isn't that hard. You KNOW the Pentagon is near Dulles airport, so you punch in Dulles as your destination in the nav system and it will tell you what course to fly, and even draw a nice line on the screen to show you if you're on course or not. As for not being seen that's the fault of the ATC radar system. You have two types of radar used by the ATC. Primary and Secondary. Primary covers 0-18,000 feet. It is capable of doing a skin paint, and tracking a plane without a transponder on it. Then you have the Secondary, which tracks 18,000 feet up, and can ONLY track with a transponder. You turn off the transponder, and stay above 18,000 and no more airplane on radar.

Are you certain of that , Zaphod? I don't mean to be doubtful, but I had a co-worker of mine whose husband is a pilot give her husband a call to verify that. According to what he said---or at least to what she related to me---it has been the case for many years that all commercial flights in the US are supposed to have some sort of secondary tracking device so that even if the transponder goes out, they can still be tracked by any radar system. What you say makes sense to me, but according to what I just heard, it's been may years since a plane could disappear from radar even when the transponder went out. I'm not sure what the nature of the secondary tracking device is, I should have asked. Anyway, supposedly this is the law with all commercial flights, it may not apply to smaller private craft and the like. I'll try to find out tomorrow if I can. Now to your point abut the GPS --- I see what you mean, it would be prett yeasy to set a course, but my point still remains , I think, that once that course is set it would be very difficult for a guy of Hani Hanjour's flying skills to even come close to following it. Most in-flight controls are computerized these days, and require security codes to be entered to over-ride the preset course, in many instances. There's no way he could have gotten that information out of the pilot and co-pilot with a boxcutter. They had to know they were all as good as dead anyway,so they probably gave a good fight before they got killed, but I doubt they could have given him a crash-course on how to fly that 757 and keep it on course before he killed them. Anyway, more things for the never-ending round of questions here that I'm sure you'll have a pretty good answer for. My problem is that every time I think I might be ready to accept the official story(about the plane hitting the Pentagon, that is---I will never buy the official overall story from the Bush administration, and I am assuming that you don't either), something comes up that keeps thsoe doubts creeping into my mind. ---Ryan

The tracking system is a computer on the plane that sends a signal back to headquarters every few minutes updating their position. To stop it you simply turn off the computer. There is NO security code required to change course or do anything else. You would be totally screwed if you were in a near miss situation, ATC said "Turn right immediately!" you look out the window and see a 747 flying right at your head, and are trying to input a security code, and get the plane turned. The LAST thing you would do is make it HARDER to turn a plane, in case of a situation like that. Again, as far as following GPS, ALL commercial flights fly 99% or so of the flight on autopilot. Once you have the heading you need, you dial it into the autopilot, and the plane turns you onto the course. All they would have had to do was the last minute line up on the target.

You're going to probably want to either knock me on the head with a hammer, or else make me buy your next bottle of excedrin, but---I have another question based on your answer. How on earth would Hani Hanjour know how to use and program the autopilot system? One of the pilots may have done that for him, but I doubt it. He had to know they were all as good as dead, so why give him the necessary training on using the autopilot? He had to have more than a boxcutter to threaten the pilots with if they were willing to reset the autopilot for the course Hanjour (or whoever it really may have been) had in mind. I am guessing they would put up a struggle and be killed or incapactiated in the fight before they would willingly give up their cockpit to one guy with a razor blade. If you accept that seems logical, then Hanjour would have basically had to know how to use the autopilot function on the plane, and that seems like it was way beyond what we know of his aviation skills. By the way, you are absolutely right that 99 percent of a flight is done on autopilot now, basically the human pilot is most involved with taking off and landing, providing that the rest of the flight goes smoothly, of course. Autopilot can of course be over-ridden and manual control re-established, but I do think you need to enter a security code of some sort to over-ride the autopilot. Nothing too fancy or complicated, just a quick little passcode like most of us have on our computers at work, since you're right, the pilots need to be able to make quick adjustments at a moment's notice, but they also don't want just anyone---like, say a hijacker---to be able to come along and set a new course without disengaging the autopilot, so I believe a security code is required. I might be wrong on that, but I think I've read that from more than one source. If a code is required, then that, again, is not likely to be information the pilot would willingly give up , so that would lead us right back to the scenario I outlined earlier, when Hanjour (or whoever) would need to know how to reset the autopilot to follow the GPS course he fed into it. It's possible, of course, but again, it seems rather unlikely to me. Okay, I promise to quit pestering you with more questions, at least for today. ---Ryan

There are a bunch of dials in the front of the pilots that say "course" "heading" "altitude" etc. with numbers next to them. To change something, you simply turn the knob to the new settings, and the plane changes to what you set it to. There is nothing but a button on the control yoke to disengage the autopilot. You have four switches on the overhead in older planes, with a bar over them so you can turn all four on at once, and on the side of the control column, there's a little red button by the pilots thumb. To turn it off, you push the button, and the bar and switches snap back to the off position.

Hani Hanjour DID have a pilots license. The failed attempt to get his license was in 1996. In 1999 he received his commercial license which was revoked six months later after he failed to do a physical to remain current. Hani Hanjour Obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999 from the Federal Aviation Administration. The license expired six months later because he failed to complete a required medical exam. In 1996, he received flight training for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., but did not finish the course because his instructors thought he was not proficient enough. He listed his address as a post office box in Taife, Saudi Arabia, but he also has been linked to addresses in San Diego and Hollywood, Fla. His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket. www.washingtonpost.com...

wouldn't you naturally attack an area target from above rather than the front? that way you'd do more damage while tremendously simplifying the task of actually hitting the building, flying a jetliner ultra-low doesn't make much sense, making a final full blown turn even less, once you spot it, you fly towards it, max angle to correct

Planes don’t fly straight down that well. You wind up going too fast to control it and you pull too many G’s and pass out.

It's allright buddy he hasn't got to fly a plane so he doesn't know. Sorry lost respect when the serious question turned into:

edit: of course, they were CrAZy now that explains everything

[edit on 10-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

posted this many times before, but to me the issue is not 'what' hit the pentagon. the issue is that there is 100% certainty that there is at least some level of cover up. there are missing videos that have never been released, and one of the videos that has been released is known to be doctored (the date on the tape was changed).

Originally posted by jprophet420 posted this many times before, but to me the issue is not 'what' hit the pentagon. the issue is that there is 100% certainty that there is at least some level of cover up. there are missing videos that have never been released, and one of the videos that has been released is known to be doctored (the date on the tape was changed).

Good point. Whil eI believe the anti plane theory, the missle and pod stuff is all disinfo, it is interesting to note the FBI/CIA have gone out of their way to coverup what actually happened. What is that small plane we see in the 5 frames released? What is under the blue tarp? What do the other security cameras show? At any rate to me it doesnt matter, the bigger picture is who benefited from 9/11 and who truly was behind it and fudned it.

Originally posted by 8bitagent What is that small plane we see in the 5 frames released? What is under the blue tarp?

Has that plane been conclusively shown to not match with the proportions of a 757? I should imagine with the height of the building being a known, that it would be relatively easy to check. Altho, the images are rather fuzzy.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by 8bitagent What is that small plane we see in the 5 frames released? What is under the blue tarp?

Has that plane been conclusively shown to not match with the proportions of a 757? I should imagine with the height of the building being a known, that it would be relatively easy to check. Altho, the images are rather fuzzy.

Well scale is the main issue with those that have not been around these types of planes, it is what I have been screaming about on here since day one. I could settle this by posting some personal pictures of one with some ramp guys around it for scale, but have hesitated to do this since the laws on showing those kinds of pictures now are much stricter. I have one in particular that shows a 757 pulling up to the gate right next to a two story building and it is easy to see in that photo that the planes fuselage has no problem with fitting into one story of a building. It’s the oversized landing gear that makes it look as tall as it does. Have any of you been next to a 747, then gone next to a C-5? You know what? The 747 is a much more impressive looking and a larger looking plane because its landing gear at the mains put the plane about an extra 12-15 feet in the air, but in truth the C-5 is really much bigger. The reason for that is that the military uses over-wing aircraft (to give their engines ground clearance) that civilian aviation does not (they use lower-wing aircraft that requires the gear to give the engine ground clearance). The reason for this is that military cargo planes have to be loaded and unloaded by ramp ( they don’t have the loaders that we use sitting out in the field to unload stuff), so they want the body closer to the ground, allowing them to drive their equipment right on and off the plane. Besides they are made to land on rougher runways that would fold a taller thinner civilian airliners gear on landing and take off. Therefore the main issue is that people think this a larger aircraft then it is because it has oversized engines, which means it needs oversized ground clearance and therefore taller then normal landing gear. With that said it is still a NARROW BODY aircraft, not a WIDE BODY like a 767. To give this a bit of scale, a ramp worker that is loading a 757 has to get into the cargo area on his knees and crawl on hands and knees. On a containerized 767 even I, at almost 6’ 4” tall, can walk around just by ducking my head slightly. There is a VERY large difference in the diameter of the fuselage of a wide body vs. a narrow body aircraft, but some of these folks just do not seem to get that. You show me ONE reputable site that shows these dimensions to be off? [edit on 10/22/2005 by defcon5]

double post [edit on 10/22/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5 You show me ONE reputable site that shows these dimensions to be off?

No need to get upset, defcon5, I'm of the opinion that it was indeed a 757 that hit the Pentagon, and I thought that was clear from my wording: "Has that plane been conclusively shown to not match with the proportions of a 757?", the focus of the question being doubt that anyone has actually done so. However your reply didn't really answer my question. You speak of the size of an airliner being deceptive to the naked eye, but I'm talking about actually measuring it to make sure. I figured it would be pretty easy to compare the height of the Pentagon (a known) against the length of the plane in the picture (also a known) and see if the plane's dimensions are as would be expected. I figured that would end the argument fairly quickly. Has no one actually done this, or as I mentioned in my last post, is there still room for debate because the plane is blurry in the photos and because of focal length issues on the camera? Don't tell me no one's bothered to do it. And the issue of a site being "reputable" or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of measurements, it is simply something to take into consideration when checking their research. By the same token, a baloney UFO site which posts one of Einstein's theories does not make that theory bogus by default. The "disreputable site" tactic is often taken far beyond the realms of logical justification by desperate debunkers.

To protect the vista of neighbouring Arlington National Cemetery, the Pentagon's height was strictly limited to 77 feet 3.5 inches (24 metres). www.britannica.com...

And from the Boeing webiste here: www.boeing.com... The length of the 757-200 is: 155ft 3in (47.32m) [edit on 23-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Do I have to do it myself? Come on, I'm sure it's been done, even in this ATS Pentagon thread somewhere amongst those 100+ pages. Link? Anyone...? Bueller...? [edit on 2005-10-23 by wecomeinpeace]

Hello Even if this topic is discussing about what hit the pentagon, i think it's important to remind this to people sometimes, to refresh minds : Even if it happens to be a a Boeing, this will remove 0% of the US governement involvment in 9/11. The main question remains the same : why it was not intercepted ? Who ordered to let it go and find his way to the Pentagon without any problems ? Find the answers RIGHT HERE.