9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Aris You are still rambling generalizations. I want to see some sort of proof of what hit the Pentagon; some clear video footage, identifiable wreckage specific to flight 77, something. All CatHerder did was speculate. I could copy/paste his entire thesis and replace "757" with "737", for example, and it would still be the same. Show some proof and let me further add, not just proof it was a 757 but rather AA's flight 77, to be more specific so as to confirm the gov't's story. Or should I just take CatHerder, the gov't and your word for it? As for what truly hit the Pentagon, I dare say I do not know. There is not enough evidence so as to come to a firm conclusion. It could have been flight 77, it could have been some other 757 with no passengers, it could have been a 737, it could have been something else altogether. With the amount of available info, who knows, the gov't is hiding it all. Only those that want to believe it was the genuine flight 77 find these 108 pages "proof". Anyone who is dispassionately critical finds such claims severely lacking.

Again, what do you classify as "proof" or "evidence"? And what happened to the plane?

Let's get back to the dynmics of flying a plane. For those of you who are not familiar, it takes at least half and airport at the speed of 60 kts or more to even get a cesna off the ground ( nose up). Has anyone ever debated the fact that it takes a 757 a couple of go arounds before final approach. This is called ( the dog leg) and at each stage of the decent the plane goes though very sensitive alititude ploting. OK, Now if indeed it was a 757, making it's "final appoarch" into the Pentagon, IMHO it would have had to be flying so low in order to make the type of hit in the area it did and also at an altitude so low, it would have taken out that highway before hand. Notice in the picture posted how close that highway really is. That plane would have had to take a nose dive in order for no distrution to the ajacent area. And, for a plane that size to take a nose dive is completly unfathumable. It would have went into the top of the building instead of the side. And were are the bodies? Even body parts would have been a better plan for this stupid part of the 9/11 plan. IMHO that part of it, was terrible planned out. I will go with a drone or missile anyday. Or even an internal explosive before I would lower mysef to thinking at was a jumbo jet. The larger the plane, the more room it need to acend and decend. Sorry, I disagree still that it was a 757 if any type passenger plane at all. Sky

Half the airport, for a CESSNA? You're kidding right? It takes like a couple hundred feet of runway. Big airports have 10,000 feet or more of runway. If it took that much runway to get a Cessna airborne, you could never get in and out of those tiny little airports they buzz around at. It's called a step descent. The reason they do it is to ensure they're clear of all traffic and obstacles. There is nothing that requires them to descend, and then level off, and then descend. In fact if it's clear around them, they don't stop. The reason there is a traffic pattern is so that everyone knows where everyone else is going to be at any given time. The Downwind leg is when they are paralleling the runway in the opposite direction. Base is when they are perpendicular to the runway, prior to lining up, and Final is obviously when they are heading in to land. All three legs can be flown in a continuous descent, the reason they aren't when it's busy is so that everyone is aware of where the other planes are going to be, at least the general area, and they aren't going to fly into each other or obstacles around them.

lol, it's absolutely hillarious seeing people who have no idea what they're talking about trying to explain how it wasn't the hijacked plane. 1. They were tracking this plane on radar until a few minutes before it hit. 2. They were VISUALLY tracking the plane with the C-130 3. There were MANY eyewitnesses on the ground (from my vantage point, I couldn't see it but I definately heard it. I do know people who did see it, and uh...there's no reason at all to lie about something like that. If it was a missile then all the eyewitnesses would have said it was a missile...) 4. No one has yet to explain what happened to the hijacked plane if that wasn't it. How did "they" magically make it disappear seconds before it hit despite so many people looking and tracking it and magically replace it with a drone or missile? Missiles that big don't just appear out of the blue. Where did it come from? Also, why go through all the trouble of hijacking a plane if you're just going to use a missile?

Originally posted by SkyChild_5 Has anyone ever debated the fact that it takes a 757 a couple of go arounds before final approach. This is called ( the dog leg) and at each stage of the decent the plane goes though very sensitive alititude ploting.

Where did you come up with this CRAP, and I MEAN TOTAL CRAP!!!!! A 757 does not have to make multiple approaches, what fantasy site did this come from? Are the guys that sell those books loosing money and now are coming up with TOTAL BS to make their sale margins? Please show me ONE SINGLE REPUTABLE DOCUMENT to show me otherwise.

Originally posted by Aris defcon5, there are dozens of other Pentagon security cameras that certainly captured the attack. As numerous websites have commented, "the number and positions of security cameras monitoring the Pentagon is not public knowledge, but it is reasonable to assume that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of security cameras ringing the huge building that is the heart of the United States military establishment." - 9-11 Research

As you would say, speculation, pure and simple. Show me one reliable source of the number of active cameras at the pentagon, their field of view, distance to target, and that they were actually rolling tape at the time of impact… You cannot can you? As far as the non-released footage, tell me why they should feel that they have to, especially since it is court evidence? If there is even a single reason why they should, I would like to hear it, if there is a single reason why they should not then, you are talking speculation aren’t you?

Originally posted by Aris Well, I don't know about you, but I've seen them release all kinds of bank robbery videos. Never heard of such footage not being released because it's criminal evidence, as you and others try to claim.

In a bank they usually only release one cameras footage, don’t they? The best one, yet there are usually several cameras rolling inside and outside any bank.

Originally posted by Aris defcon5, defenders of the gov't line such as yourself say that footage is not being released because it's evidence and a matter of national security. So what?

I am not a government defender, I never have been, The fact that you say I am tells me you DID NOT READ THIS ENTIRE THREAD, as you claim to have. I am simply someone that has worked in civil aviation and finds HUGE HOLES in the conspiracy theory that something other then a 757 hit the Pentagon, mainly for the reason that it MAKES NO SENSE whatsoever… What? The US government did not have the resources to make this go down the way they said it did, and felt like risking getting caught doing something else instead? Lets just say that for 2.5 seconds that it was hit by a missile, why not just say that there were terrorists on the ground that did this, then start a man hunt? Seems like it would play into their hands even better since they would have had the opportunity to go on a huge, never-ending man hunt for non-existent, but ever threatening terrorist and take all the citizens rights away in the process, by your theory?

Originally posted by Aris And if you still believe that the Pentagon, the Pentagon for chrissake, doesn't have dozens and dozens of high quality cameras all over the place, it is you, my friend, who are peddling truly whacky ideas.

How about the idea that maybe they do not want to give away the position, and ability of these cameras for security reasons? Would that not be like handing out information on any blind spots in their security systems? Edit to add: You know there is another active thread out here, right now about not being able to take pictures of trains? You think that maybe someone out there has decided that allowing people to find the security holes, capabilities, routes, security patrol times/routes, cargo, etc. is a danger to national security? That there are people out there looking for the right time to hit sensitive targets, like certain regularly picked up train cargos, and knowing when that train is in a certain area at a certain time, and not being observed by security? That regularly observing, or releasing information on such things, photographing them, tracking them, is an issue right at the moment? [edit on 11/15/2005 by defcon5]

Let's all leave the "it's hilarious seeing people who have no idea what they're talking about" comments and discuss more civilly, myself included. Let's be specific without wandering off on logical comparisons: CBS News quotes Dulles ATC indicating that,

"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."

Also, the air traffic controllers at Dulles are on record, stating,

"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.

Those are the facts. Step by step, they are: 1) the plane executes a downward spiral, turning almost 360 degrees. 2) it does this steep turn, dropping the last 7,000 ft in 2.5 mins. That's an average rate of descent of 2,800 ft/min. 3) all this, the almost 360 degree, 2,800 ft/min downard spiral was done "at a very high rate of speed", almost 500 mph 4) the plane then levelled off a few feet above the ground and in less than a minute impacted the Pentagon at 460 mph Furthermore, Dulles ATC describes all this: 1) "so smooth" 2) "complex maneuver" 3) "better flying skills than many investigators first believed" In fact, "all of (those) experienced air traffic controllers...in the radar room", spoke admiringly of that maneuver: "the speed...", "the maneuverability...", "the way that he turned...", to the point that they all believed it was some military jock, eh. They saw that maneuver on their radar and believed it was an experienced pilot pulling off a complex maneuver. Those are the bare bones. Now I don't believe a green Arab commercial graduate can pull that off with a 160 ton 757 for a second. I also recall that his instructors didn't remember him as a Top Gun in their class, if I'm not mistaken. Either way, I don't buy it.

I fail to see what is so spectacular about this pilot… Doing a high risk maneuver and not caring if the airframe fails (since you’re about to purposely make it fail anyway) is not that same as a pilot making a high risk maneuver that is planning on going home that evening, now is it? Can the plane perform the maneuver, well obviously it can. Would a pilot that was worried about his and his passenger’s health try it, most likely not? Does it really make a difference whom was behind the wheel at the point that someone is doing suicidal maneuvers with the intent to crash the plane anyway? Both a fighter pilot and a rookie can be just as reckless, if they wish. It does not take much skill to push the stick 45 degrees one way or the other, and hang on, now does it? As a matter of fact, if it was under government control, why would they do this maneuver anyway? The government would not have to adjust according to the terrain prior to impact, they would have had that all plotted out already and made a smooth approach into the building. Only a lost and inexperienced pilot, using VFR at the end, would have had to make such a drastic change of course at the last minute once he had landmarks in site. [edit on 11/15/2005 by defcon5]

Please post the FULL quote of the Dulles ATC. Especially the part where they say "It's not safe." If you know basic flight, then you can make a manuver look smooth on radar, even when it's not. Radar doesn't show what's going on in vertical increments. He could have been leveling off and dropping for short periods of time, and it wouldn't show up on radar. Especially since they didn't have transponder data to show his altitude. All they would have seen was the circle, but again he could have been wobbling, or having other problems turning, but unless they were BIG manuvers they wouldn't show up on radar. Radar screens can be set from 1 mile, to several HUNDRED miles in scale, with ATC radar screens being locked into larger increments, because of the large airspace they have to cover. If he was wobbling as he made the turn, unless it was a pretty substantial move, it wouldn't have been obvious on radar. The flight instructors that said that were from his FIRST class, which he failed. He later took a second class, which he passed and became a licensed pilot. Where is the 160 tons weight coming from? The extended range max take off weight of a 757 comes in at 127.5 tons. Flight 77, going across country would have come in at well under that weight. Empty weight for a 757 is 63.76 tons. Basic MTOW (short range) is 110 tons. Medium range MTOW is 120 tons. That's the weight at take-off. By the time the plane hit the Pentagon it would have come way down, as they had been flying for awhile before impacting, and some of that flight at high speed which obviously burns more fuel.

Originally posted by defcon5 As you would say, speculation, pure and simple. Show me one reliable source of the number of active cameras at the pentagon, their field of view, distance to target, and that they were actually rolling tape at the time of impact… You cannot can you?

You have to be kidding me, right? The fact that the number and location of Pentagon cameras is classified means that we cannot say with a high degree of confidence that they must be in the dozens, most likely hundreds??? Please don't tell me that this is the extent of your argument on this point...

Originally posted by defcon5 As far as the non-released footage, tell me why they should feel that they have to, especially since it is court evidence? If there is even a single reason why they should, I would like to hear it, if there is a single reason why they should not then, you are talking speculation aren’t you?

Well gee, I dunno, maybe because millions of people are demanding to see it because it was a national tragedy that they want to know about? Maybe because they have loved ones that died and they want to know the truth while the gov't is stonewalling them? The gov't is stonewalling them, isn't it? Shall we discuss that more in depth? Since we're on this point, have you read the ASCE assisted report on the Twin Towers, how they fell, and how they ran the tests? Apparently, when they ran simulations for the report, none of the four models would fall down like they did in real life so you know what they did? They adjusted the parameters of the tests until they fell. Then they turned and said in the report that they weren't releasing the altered parameters to the public. Nice way to run a test; alter the parameters until the models fall and keep it a secret. Apparently, lots of people are pissed off at such BS from all the gov't's actions and are demanding answers to 9/11, yet, you ask "why they should feel that they have to"?!?!?!?! Finally, I'm sure they could release something from the hundreds of rolling cameras that wouldn't undermine their day in court.

Originally posted by defcon5 In a bank they usually only release one cameras footage, don’t they? The best one, yet there are usually several cameras rolling inside and outside any bank.

I don't think so. I've seen many a time multiple shots from surveillance cameras on news reports. And when princess Diana died, for example, they found all kinds of surveillance cameras to show us her moves.

Originally posted by defcon5 I am not a government defender, I never have been, The fact that you say I am tells me you DID NOT READ THIS ENTIRE THREAD, as you claim to have.

Now now, don't get angry I simply said that you were defending the gov't's official story, which is what you are doing. As for me not reading this entire thread, my "essays" on page 106 show otherwise. Forgive me for not recalling your specific reservations on other issues within 2000+ posts.

Originally posted by defcon5 I am simply someone that has worked in civil aviation and finds HUGE HOLES in the conspiracy theory that something other then a 757 hit the Pentagon, mainly for the reason that it MAKES NO SENSE whatsoever…

I, personally, found huge holes in CatHerder's thesis, and you can see this in the aforemention page 106. We can debate a specific refutal I make further if you want.

Originally posted by defcon5 What? The US government did not have the resources to make this go down the way they said it did, and felt like risking getting caught doing something else instead? Lets just say that for 2.5 seconds that it was hit by a missile, why not just say that there were terrorists on the ground that did this then start a man hunt?

I honestly don't know what to think and to attempt to do so is an exercise in speculation. CatHerder's claims that some of you sometimes support, or certain other claims of support all range from speculation to errors.

Originally posted by defcon5 Seems like it would play into their hands even better since they would have had the opportunity to go on a huge, never-ending man hunt for non-existent, but ever threatening terrorist and take all the citizens rights away in the process, by your theory?

Why I don't believe that I have stated a theory. What theory is this?

Originally posted by defcon5 How about the idea that maybe they do not want to give away the position, and ability of these cameras for security reasons? Would that not be like handing out information on any blind spots in their security systems?

As I previously mentioned, I'm sure they could, from the dozens, if not hundreds of cameras, show us one or two of their footage. How about from some hotel a mile from the Pentagon? How about that? Would even that footage have to be classified? Pedestrians walk right beside such a camera and have the same line of sight so how about releasing something? We don't need to see a closeup of the war room, how about some faraway footage of a 757 going off to the Pentagon, huh? How about that?

Originally posted by defcon5 Edit to add: You know there is another active thread out here, right now about not being able to take pictures of trains? You think that maybe someone out there has decided that allowing people to find the security holes, capabilities, routes, security patrol times/routes, cargo, etc. is a danger to national security? That there are people out there looking for the right time to hit sensitive targets, like certain regularly picked up train cargos, and knowing when that train is in a certain area at a certain time, and not being observed by security? That regularly observing, or releasing information on such things, photographing them, tracking them, is an issue right at the moment? [edit on 11/15/2005 by defcon5]

Security holes, security shmoles, show me some footage from a public rooftop/utility pole a few miles away that shows a faraway 757 going towards the Pentagon, that's all I want to see. Face it, if there was such footage, they would have shown such footage, just to shut everybody the heck up and show them that they're honest and on top of things.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird Again, what do you classify as "proof" or "evidence"?

Copy/paste: - some clear video footage - identifiable wreckage specific to flight 77,

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird And what happened to the plane?

What plane?

Originally posted by defcon5 I fail to see what is so spectacular about this pilot…

Right. ATC describes it as a high speed, steep, smoothly executed complex maneuver and you don't find it spectacular that an inexperienced Arab pulls it off with a 160 ton 757...

Originally posted by defcon5 Doing a high risk maneuver and not caring if the airframe fails (since you’re about to purposely make it fail anyway) is not that same as a pilot making a high risk maneuver that is planning on going home that evening, now is it? Can the plane perform the maneuver, well obviously it can. Would a pilot that was worried about his and his passenger’s health try it, most likely not?

The point is not whether the maneuver can be done, the question is if a poor student can do it with a 757.

Originally posted by defcon5 Does it really make a difference whom was behind the wheel at the point that someone is doing suicidal maneuvers with the intent to crash the plane anyway? Both a fighter pilot and a rookie can be just as reckless, if they wish.

Are you kidding me? You're saying that an inexperined pilot can do a 500 mph, 2800 ft/min spiralling dive, level off a few feet above the ground and seconds later crash into his specific target at 460 mph from miles above it????????

Originally posted by defcon5 It does not take much skill to push the stick 45 degrees one way or the other, and hang on, now does it?

If that's how difficult you feel that maneuver is with a 757, what can I say. The world lost it's finest pilot when you didn't take to the skies. Sorry for that, but your comment is so ridiculous.

Originally posted by defcon5 As a matter of fact, if it was under government control, why would they do this maneuver anyway? The government would not have to adjust according to the terrain prior to impact, they would have had that all plotted out already and made a smooth approach into the building. Only a lost and inexperienced pilot, using VFR at the end, would have had to make such a drastic change of course at the last minute once he had landmarks in site. [edit on 11/15/2005 by defcon5]

Look, say whatever you want, speculating upon speculation seems pointless. You believe that striking a target miles below you, in a controlled 500 mph, 2,800 ft/min spiral that levels off a few feet above the ground is just a matter of "pushing the stick 45 degrees one way or the other, and hanging on", so what can I say.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Please post the FULL quote of the Dulles ATC.

"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."

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Especially the part where they say "It's not safe."

Who said anything about safety? What are you off on a tangent talking about?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 If you know basic flight, then you can make a manuver look smooth on radar, even when it's not. Radar doesn't show what's going on in vertical increments. He could have been leveling off and dropping for short periods of time, and it wouldn't show up on radar. Especially since they didn't have transponder data to show his altitude. All they would have seen was the circle, but again he could have been wobbling, or having other problems turning, but unless they were BIG manuvers they wouldn't show up on radar. Radar screens can be set from 1 mile, to several HUNDRED miles in scale, with ATC radar screens being locked into larger increments, because of the large airspace they have to cover. If he was wobbling as he made the turn, unless it was a pretty substantial move, it wouldn't have been obvious on radar.

Give me a break. Spin this all you want, Dulles ATC is on record stating that the plane dropped the last 7,000 ft in 2.5 minutes while going 500 in a smooth and complex maneuver.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 The flight instructors that said that were from his FIRST class, which he failed. He later took a second class, which he passed and became a licensed pilot.

Gee, what a Top Gun the guy was. He could take a 757 airliner and find a precise target miles below while executing a screaming twister, levelling off for the last minute to boot. LOL

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Where is the 160 tons weight coming from? The extended range max take off weight of a 757 comes in at 127.5 tons. Flight 77, going across country would have come in at well under that weight. Empty weight for a 757 is 63.76 tons. Basic MTOW (short range) is 110 tons. Medium range MTOW is 120 tons. That's the weight at take-off. By the time the plane hit the Pentagon it would have come way down, as they had been flying for awhile before impacting, and some of that flight at high speed which obviously burns more fuel.

You do realize that full passenger/cargo and full tanks would exceed maximum takeoff weight, right? So planes are unlikely to be both full of passengers and cargo and also fuel as well. Furthermore, they will carry only as much fuel as necessary, basically, and you have to know the weight of the cargo load so as to get a good estimate but you simply cannot say "the plane had burned lots of fuel so it was light" and that's it. At any rate, if it's not John, it's Johnny, as we Greeks say so let's say that it's the 110 tons you claim, whether it's in your imperial or my metric tons which are almost the same, and agree for once The point still stands, though. A barely adequate, green Arab, pulling such a maneuver with a 100 ton airliner strains credulity.

I see what you are referring to with your "it's not safe" comment. That's not from the radar report, that's from the story of the air traffic controller's recollections. They're not talking just about safety, are they. Aside from the maneuverability they saw, they're talking about their radar recording a smooth, high speed, complex maneuver. Don't be turning this into an issue of whether ATC considered it a military plane more because of its danger or more because of its complexity. I'm sure both apply. Regardless of whether they thought it was unsafe or not, they sure as heck were recognizing a "complex maneuver" as being "complex" when they were seeing one unfold right before their very eyes, right? So, aside from that irrelevancy, the point is that the claim that this specific complex and unsafe maneuver was executed by a totally inexperienced Arab with a 757 really needs a vivid imagination. Like I said, only in Hollywood movies.... So, is that the best "evidence" there is? edit to add: What will the supporters of the official story now say to this, that the maneuver was not complex, as Howard said? Top gov't officials called it a "smooth and complex" maneuver that required "better flying skills than first believed". Better flying skills than first believed my ass, you have to be a damn good pilot to drop a 100+ ton airliner from miles up in a controlled 500 mph, 2,800 ft/min, 360 degree spiral that not only hits the target accurately but also showboats the last 60 seconds by pulling up a few feet off the ground beforehand. And an Arab, you say, that failed the first time 'round, with just about zero experience, got into a 757 cockpit and did just that. I'm sorry but that's not just a stretch, it's totally unbelievable. [edit on 15/11/2005 by Aris]

You do realize that MAXIMUM TAKE OFF WEIGHT means just that right? You don't get airborne if you exeed MTOW, that's why it's called MAXIMUM. If you can take off after exceeding MTOW then what exactly is the point of HAVING and MTOW rating? [edit on 11/15/2005 by Zaphod58]

What's your point? Are you getting at something concrete or are you rambling on about irrelevant details?

I'm trying to figure out how you are getting 160 tons for the airplane weight, and how you figure that they can take off after exceeding their maximum take off weight as you claim. Or are you just rambling after pulling numbers out of your.

Originally posted by Aris Copy/paste: - some clear video footage - identifiable wreckage specific to flight 77

lol, even if there were clear video footage, do you honestly think that will persuade anyone. Anyway, planes aren't people. Meaning all of them are basically built the same. Meaning there wouldn't be anything to distinguish on airplane from the other, so be more specific... And how about this, how about you provide any credible evidence that the hijacked plane didn't crash into the Pentagon and something else did.

What plane?

Was this an attempt at humor?

What is it? Are 100 tons still too much for you? Are 90 OK? Hell, let's just say it had no fuel, weightless passengers, no cargo, just empty weight of 64 tons. So, now that that green Arab is maneuvering a 64 ton instead of 164 ton 757 through that 500 mph, 2,800 ft/min spiral, levelling off a few feet above the ground for the last minute before hitting the target from miles above, it sounds much more plausible Boy, Zaphod68, you really made a point there....the hijacker didn't need to manhandle 160 tons steeply spiralling miles downward in a controlled high speed dive and levelling off, he only had to manhandle 80-90 tons while pulling that off

Um, have you ever flown? The weight of an airplane makes a HUGE difference when you are manuvering.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I'm trying to figure out how you are getting 160 tons for the airplane weight, and how you figure that they can take off after exceeding their maximum take off weight as you claim. Or are you just rambling after pulling numbers out of your.

Nope. I conceded "if it's not John, it's Johnny, as we Greeks say so let's say that it's the 110 tons you claim", lightening up the conversation with a nice smiley to boot. With me having agreed that it's 110 and not 160, you then continue "You do realize that MAXIMUM TAKE OFF WEIGHT...." and "how you figure that they can take off after exceeding their maximum take off weight". Let me say this the third time: It's not a 160 ton airliner, it's a 100 ton airliner, what's your point? Do you have a point?