9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by LL1 You have done a marvelous job here. In this video you found, you can clearly see the tail of the plane heave up on impact, looking closely you can even see the shape of the tail. Perhaps you have the ability to stop the video, and bring out/up the tail on impact for us?

As detailed by another 911 researcher, 757's do not leave a trail of white smoke. Global hawks do, however. And why would the FBI be at the hotel across the way within minutes of the impact? How'd they know that's where the needed to be? Why would they tell eye witnesses (those that saw the confiscated surveillance tapes) to stay quiet about what they saw on the tapes? Too many unanswered questions. The research presented here is good but it’s not accurate or logical. Giant engines do not disappear.

A 757 that has bounced the engine off of everything in sight (cars, lightpoles, signs) WILL leave a trail of white smoke. And I seriously doubt Global Hawk leaves a trail of any kind. That would be like saying "Look, here's my drone! Shoot it down!"

Originally posted by Zaphod58 A 757 that has bounced the engine off of everything in sight (cars, lightpoles, signs) WILL leave a trail of white smoke. And I seriously doubt Global Hawk leaves a trail of any kind. That would be like saying "Look, here's my drone! Shoot it down!"

You honestly believe that something that is now on fire from "bouncing" off of things is going to leave white smoke? No chance. You're only fooling yourself. An oil fire would leave a trail of black smoke, not white.

I didn't say it was on fire. But you can do a lot of damage to the internal portions of the engine and cause an oil leak, which would leave a beautiful trail of white smoke, and it would take time for it to catch fire.

1 Why dont they show the video of what hapen. 2 Why fbi agents on that day runed all over confiscateing video material.?

Originally posted by SkyChild_5 I to have done hours of research. And "There was NO plane". Just part of the orchatrated events that took place on 9/11. Plus, I don't even think there were any people on the planes that hit the WTC or the crash in Pa. Call me crazy!

Let me rephase that for you. When I said I did not think there were any people on those planes, I meant passengers. Nope, just the "so called" terrorists that were navigation the planes. Oh, and being called "nut's" is a ring to my ears. I love to be called that. The proof is in front of you. I don't need to point it out. I agree with the last poster. At the speed and altitude a 757 would have to be going, makes not sense whatsoever. There should have been a whole heck of alot more damage over a wider area at that straight ground fight path. Give me a break. Read up on some aviation mechanics before you point fingers. You know darn well, that plane would have had to take a complete nose dive in order to aviod the surrounding areas. And if there are any wittness testimony that is credable. Where is it? Some say they saw it fly over the gas station. That is completly discredited if you know anything about aero dynamics. Sorry, I stick to my theories. And that is only my opinion and maybe, just maybe a little bit of flight dynamics.

Zaphod .... Globalhawk technology can be fitted into any plane ... which would explain the military like precision of the plane which hit the Pentagon. And BTW at the speed which the plane approached and the angle of descent ... John Lear (experienced pilot) has stated that the yoke inputs to keep the plane level would be too high for a human pilot to manage. The fact is the government's official story bullcrap and everyone knows it ... the truth is difficult to decipher when you are dealing with a secretive and criminally murderous cabal for a government.

Originally posted by deluded

Originally posted by Zaphod58 A 757 that has bounced the engine off of everything in sight (cars, lightpoles, signs) WILL leave a trail of white smoke. And I seriously doubt Global Hawk leaves a trail of any kind. That would be like saying "Look, here's my drone! Shoot it down!"

You honestly believe that something that is now on fire from "bouncing" off of things is going to leave white smoke? No chance. You're only fooling yourself. An oil fire would leave a trail of black smoke, not white.

Anything that is burning OIL is going to leave white smoke, whether it is your car, a global hawk, a 757, or a tank laying a smoke screen (by dumping oil on the manifold). I believe that is what Zaphod is saying; that the damaged engine is going to allow the oil (skydrol) to be exposed to heat it would not normally be exposed to and thus leave a white trail of smoke behind the engine.

Originally posted by pepsi78 1 Why dont they show the video of what hapen. 2 Why fbi agents on that day runed all over confiscateing video material.?

1) They did release video, just not all the video that you would like. On the other hand the other video may not be as good as even that poor video is. 2) They ran around collecting video because its evidence in a crash, hijacking, terrorism case that they now had on their hands. Same as they confiscate all the video from a bank after a robbery. [edit on 11/13/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by SkyChild_5 At the speed and altitude a 757 would have to be going, makes not sense whatsoever. There should have been a whole heck of alot more damage over a wider area at that straight ground fight path. Give me a break. Read up on some aviation mechanics before you point fingers. You know darn well, that plane would have had to take a complete nose dive in order to aviod the surrounding areas. And if there are any wittness testimony that is credable. Where is it? Some say they saw it fly over the gas station. That is completly discredited if you know anything about aero dynamics.

ThatsJustWeird can you say mother nature and a big helping hand from harp now about the plane. The plane traveled near the high way. The turbofans of a 757 would of blowed the cars off the high way. Yet no car was blown f the road. Some people said that the plane passed right above them near their car. This is the oficial explanetion that the fire vaporised the hole plane. Titanium melts at 1688 It is imposible that 12 tons of titanium just melted And for defcon5 No they did not relise video, but if you call 5 frames a video that is okay. They do have video since they confiscated it after all, why not relise it and clear all the blameing. The reason they will not show any confiscated video and pentagon surveilance video is because there was something else. You have confiscated now give it back. (to the people who demand answers). [edit on 14-11-2005 by pepsi78]

I was looking at various pics of 757's and came a across one of DHL's 757-236 fleet and noticed that the rear rim has 8 holes unlike the picture of the rear truck that is floating around the conspiracy sites. So the amount of holes matches the one that is in crash picture. DHL 757 Better yet you can actually zoom in on the actual picture of N644AA see the correct number of holes. N644AA [edit on 14-11-2005 by ss262]

Pepsi, the engines of a 757 would NOT blow cars off the road. I've driven in a truck behind a plane that was doing an engine run at almost full power, and the truck rocks from side to side. This point was brought up already about 50 pages ago. Jet engines are NOT that powerful. I've heard ONE story a car being overturned by a jet engine, and that was because it was caught at just the right angle, at just the right time. SS, there are different wheel hubs available for the 757. If you've read this thread you would see many pictures of 757 wheels that match the rim from the Pentagon exactly.

Yes it would you can see here, and a truck is far heavier than a car. but if it was a jet it would have been to high for this to happen after all the light post where clipped from the top. at lest 25 to 30 feet from the ground. [edit on 14/11/2005 by Sauron]

1) that looks like one of those little luggage carts. How heavy are they? 2) the engine is stationary in that video. On 9/11, the engines were moving away from the cars at over 400 mph.

I've seen Ford Fairlanes driven behind them too Sauron. The USAF uses cars on the flightline too and they drive around the airplanes when the engines are running too. But they don't ever flip upside down when they do.

unless haarp has perfected mind control, i would say that it was most likely that a PLANE, yes, a PLANE, hit the pentagon. which plane, i will not surrender on. was it a different plane, modified with global hawk guidance, and controlled by the AC130? it's possible. "what about the REAL plane and passengers?" blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, ? to recognise that the sky is blue(except at night, or sunrise, or sunset, or during a storm or a starry night, or a moonlit/cirrus night with a smattering of nimbus clouds drifting by, or beams of light breaking through smattered cloud cover, .....you get the idea) does not require a knowledge of light diffraction through various chemical mediums, only eyes. here's one: motive? to put a bunch of treasonous powerful military industrialists into permanent hiding. solution: put on plane. hide plane. destroy dupe plane, and call it real plane, saying everyone died. get military(plants) to 'identify' the 'remains', which no one else will EVER get to analyze. give murderous fascist pigs new identities. there are SOOOO many possibilities. write your own endings.

Originally posted by HowardRoark 1) that looks like one of those little luggage carts. How heavy are they?

Actually that animation is too fast for me to tell what it is, but it looks pretty flat so I am going to guess that it is a maintenance lift platform or a conveyor belt. Carts are not exactly light, they are made out of steel so they are durable, but a man can lift the side of one pretty easily. The tugs on the other hand are very heavy compared to their size. The front and rear bumper on them is usually about two inch thick solid steel, the fenders about an inch and a half. They have to be fairly heavy to pull the weight of all the freight, baggage, and even push out smaller aircraft, yet remain in contact with the road. That video looks more like a computer animation to me then a real film, where did this come from? I have to second what Zaphod is saying. We used to drive behind running engines all the time (even though your not supposed to, more for fear of FOD hitting someone then tipping a truck over) and about all you get out of it is a good rocking back and forth, even in a bob-tail (like a pickup truck with no bed). At taxi power the jetblast dissipates rapidly within 20 feet behind the tail (on a 737), and certainly not enough force to flip a vehicle. Now at take off speed that cone supposedly expands, but again whatever truck it was would have to be on the same level as, directly behind, and within roughly 100 feet (depending on the aircraft) of the aircraft to have a chance of being damaged. I have only ever heard of one truck getting flipped and that was a cabin service lift truck that was parked way too close while maintenance was running up the engine on a 737, and even then it only got tipped on its side. Most of the blast warnings you see on aircraft schematics are for men traveling on foot, since they weigh substantially less and have less traction holding them to the ground. I have seen what happens to someone that involuntarily travels after walking behind a running engine, and taking that 40 foot head over heal roll down the cement tarmac is tough on the skin, all I can say is that it’s a good thing that the guy did not walk in front of the engine. [edit on 11/15/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

If there's one thing you'll learn anything from this 100+ page thread, it's that people will believe whatever they want to believe. Hey, if you want to believe the government used some magic potion to make the planes suddenly change into missiles (despite thousands of eye witnesses) or whatever, then by all means go ahead and believe that. I can't stop you.

Thousands of eyewitnesses? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? What about the thousands of eyewitnesses that saw something else? That doesn't fit too well with what you maintain, eh.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird And it's a waste of time presenting evidence showing otherwise as you'll believe whatever you want to believe anyway (as evidence by this whole thread).

Evidence?!?!?! What evidence? The only "evidence" I've seen in these 108 pages is nothing but wild speculation that I've already easily refuted. Shall we try again? So, what evidence?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird For some reason, people have a psycological need for the government to be involved with everything bad that happens. That's just the way it is with some people.

For some reason, people have a psychological need for the gov't to tell them what to think. In fact, the Social Identity Theory and Terror Management Theory nicely explains the phenomenon that grips people who make statements like yours: Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986) asserts that a fundamental cognitive tendency leads individuals to categorize groups, and other stimuli, in terms of opposites. Individuals tend to identify with a specific group to the extent that they see themselves as more similar to the members of the group than its salient out-group. Once individuals have identified with a group they engage in social comparison and manifest in-group biases. In-group biases help individuals maintain high self-esteem as members of their group. Social identity researchers have shown that individuals tend to identify with perceived in-groups and manifest significant biases towards them including tendencies to allocate more resources to fellow in-group members (Tajfel 1970). From the perspective of social identity theory, threats of attacks from other groups increase solidarity and in-group identification amongst Americans and support for aspects of the in-group, including its leadership, by increasing the salience of a hated out-group (foreign terrorists). Further, research shows that when an out-group threat carries with it mortal terror, social identity effects will likely be magnified. Terror Management Theory (hereafter TMT: Rosenblatt et. al. 1989, Greenberg et. al. 1990, Greenberg, Solomon, and Pyszczynski 1997) has shown that mortality salience can increase in-group biases, including 1) increased in-group affiliation and biases (Harmon-Jones et. al. 1996), 2) increased hostility and aggression towards out-group members (McGregor et. al. 1998 ), and 3) increased liking of fellow in-group members who conform to cultural expectations (Greenberg et. al. 1990). TMT researchers have also argued that terrorist acts can cause effects analogous to mortality salience (Pyszczynski, Solomon, and Greenberg 2003, Landau et. al. 2004, Study 2). TMT research has shown mortality salience can increase nationalism (Arndt, Greenberg, and Cook 2002). Recently, Landau et. al. found that reminding experimental subjects of 9/11 increased liking for President Bush (2004, Study 3). This research suggests that individuals may respond to reminders of their mortality, like terror warnings, by supporting standing leaders.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeirdAnd despite the wealth of evidence that may suggest otherwise, they'll completely ignore it simply because it doesn't conform to their view.

Here we go again, "the wealth of evidence". ThatsJustWeird, how about presenting one single shred of evidence; never mind the "wealth", just a single shred. You do know what evidence is, right? Lemme help you out: wild speculation does not count.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Hey, if you want to believe the government used some magic potion to make the planes suddenly change into missiles (despite thousands of eye witnesses)

[sarcasm: on] Now TJW you know the MIB were in on this too, that's the only explantion for the eye witnesses being wrong... The MIB used their flashy thingy to wipe their thoughts, and implanted the thought that it wasn't a missel, but a big plane that they saw... G: y'all didn't see a missel, y'all seen a big plane, got that The eye witnesses: we didn't see a missel, we saw a plane... Simple as that... [/sarcasm: off] [edit on 1-11-2005 by Jedi_Master]

To continue your sarcasm, I suppose the MIB used their flashy thing to wipe the thoughts of many other eyewitnesses and implanted the thought that it wasn't a 757 but rather a missile/737/747/small commuter plane. G: y'all didn't see an AA 757, y'all seen a missel/737/747/small commuter plane, got that The eye witnesses: we didn't see an AA 757, we saw a missel, we saw a 737, we saw a 747, we saw a small commuter plane "'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. "I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield" - Cleveland, Allen "Marine Corps officer Mike Dobbs was standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building. "It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion," he said later Tuesday. "I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running. They evacuated everybody around us." "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?... There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that isn't going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to see footage of the crash. I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there's this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, but I don't think that's going to happen." "The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building." - Ford, Ken "The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said." "Don Wright from the 12th floor, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, in Rosslyn: " .. I watched this ...it looked like a commuter plane, two engined ... come down from the south real low ... "" "This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there. (...) This pile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft whatsoever." - Mitchell, Terry "Jim Sutherland, a mortgage broker, was on his way to the Pentagon when he saw ... a white 737 twin-engine plane with multicolored trim fly 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon.." " It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots." - Morin, Terry "Levi Stephens 23, courier Armed Forces Information Service - According to one witness, "what looked like a 747" plowed into the south side of the Pentagon, possibly skipping through a heliport before it hit the building." At the Dulles tower, O'Brien saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post to help other planes quickly land. "We started moving the planes as quickly as we could," she says. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed ... I had literally a blip and nothing more." O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. "I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling ... 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!'" At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. I could quote you many more eyewitness accounts that don't seem to agree at all with what you maintain, but I think you get my point by now.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 1. The pilot that took over DID know how to fly. He took his commercial exam a second time, and passed it. He had the license revoked after 6 months because he didn't take a required physical for the FAA. 2. It was a 270 degree descending turn. Nothing acrobatic about it, and I'm sure you could find other pilots that can pull it off. 3. Pilots DO NOT NEED ground control to set a course or get to their destination. They use navigation aids, maps, and GPS among other systems. They file a flight plan so that they know where to search if there is an accident, and so that other planes can be routed so that they don't fly into each other.

Nothing acrobatic about it?!?!?!?! "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph." - CBS News So a totally inexperienced pilot managed to smoothly pull off a 7,000 ft. steep downward spiral with a 757 in 2.5 minutes, levelling off a few feet above the ground while subsequently hitting his target dead-on while going 460 mph! Tell you what, the US Air Force must be totally stupid for spending millions to train their pilots; here we have Arab cave-dwellers (sarcasm) that can put them to shame after only a few hours of commercial flight school