9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

The actual eyewitness acount, as reported by witness Allen Cleveland, which I found at the 9/11 Research Site:

Soon after the crash (Within 30 seconds of the crash) 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. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.

www.spooky8.com/reviews.htm Steven P. Cook reported the following:

As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don't go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.

www.clothmonkey.com/91101.htm Kenneth McClellan:

A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington 'at an unusual angle,' said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman. Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane 'to let us know where it's going,' McClellan said. The C-130 pilot 'followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,' he said.

dailypress.com... I've read this official line, of the C-130 following the Pentagon to see where it was going. I'm sure someone here is familiar with it. But didn't the pilot of the C-130 report surprise as he came upon where the plane had crashed? That would suggest he didn't actually see where the plane had crashed when it crashed, so he couldn't have been much above it. Then you have these reports of the C-130 following directly behind the alleged 757, which would put it pretty low. [edit on 26-11-2005 by bsbray11]

The smoke column that day was HUGE. He can circle it from altitude, without having to come down. There was no REASON for him to drop down low, he could see everything from altitude, and they carry binoculars in the cockpit with them, so if he couldn't see with the naked eye, they could be using them. Not to mention, what would be the purpose of them coming down if it WAS Compass Call. All he'd have to do is see the smoke column and tell he had hit the target. There's no logical reason for him to come down, and give away that it wasn't a standard C-130. Callsigns with many units are static. They use the same callsign for certain types of planes, and they don't change very often. There were certain callsigns when I saw them listed on the incoming board, I could tell what type of plane was coming in. No this doesn't mean that an EC-130 COULDN'T use a different callsign, just that it's UNLIKELY that it would use a different callsign. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but there are a lot of callsigns on here. members.tripod.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58 The smoke column that day was HUGE.

Only seconds after impact? Smoke doesn't rise too awfully fast, and this plane was reported as flying not very far behind the impacting plane.

He can circle it from altitude, without having to come down. There was no REASON for him to drop down low, he could see everything from altitude, and they carry binoculars in the cockpit with them, so if he couldn't see with the naked eye, they could be using them. Not to mention, what would be the purpose of them coming down if it WAS Compass Call. All he'd have to do is see the smoke column and tell he had hit the target. There's no logical reason for him to come down, and give away that it wasn't a standard C-130.

Admittedly, if there was a reason behind it, I wouldn't know it, but nonetheless we have the following testimony from Steven Cook, as mentioned above: "Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don't go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House."

No offense Bsbray, but we also have a lot of testimony of people saying that they saw a Boeing 757, owned by American Airlines fly into the Pentagon. And it's been disregarded. If eyewitness reports are discounted from one side, then they should be discounted from both. If someone comes forward and says they worked on C-130s and they KNOW how low it was flying, and that it was a Compass Call, I'll believe them. Or if you can show proof in another way that it was Compass Call, then I'll believe it. But saying that it was Compass Call because it came down low to investigate the crash site, or that it was painted grey, when EVERY USAF C-130 is painted grey ain't gonna cut it. There are any number of explanations as to why they descended to look at the crash site. And we know they were following the plane because they were asked to by ATC. [edit on 11/26/2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by LaBTop ... I don't understand why people in the USA want to make money on such important information, ...

(OT alert) money won't buy them a new life, won't buy us a new world and is a construct by terrans, for terrans, unfortunately, deep in our cultures, there is a tendency not only to worship gods but also create them or become them. i think 9-11 easily classifies as 'playing god' related comment: playing god is (present tense is intentional), imho, the true motivation behind colonialism, which, if you think about it, procreates much like 'domestic violence', by turning the victims into agressors later in their lives. only difference being we're talking about societies, instead of individuals. that's what's so saddeneing, the collectivist nature of the nazis, commies and so on managed to infect practically entire world. PS: you know the difference between a) 'democratic' (current reading) b) communist and c) fascist movements? if you've got something they want, the 'democrats' will stress the importance of cooperation, referral of power, accountability, 'freedom' (again newspeak) perhaps solidarity and nationalism (sorry, meant to say 'patriotism'), the communists will simply state that your property, including life, belongs to 'the people' - ie. them, while the fascists will ask you to join them. make no mistake, if you say 'No' in either case they will kill you or die trying. that is, in my view, the true nature of collectivsm.

Check this link. engine crosswinds It isn't exact plane but... this should happen to cars or whatever what was on that flight's path. And what happend ? Only two light poles were down ? Was that plane flying 20 feet high or not ?

I may be wrong but as the 757 had just finished a descent then I would have thought the engine would not have been up to full power. Also the engines in the video were giving out 58,000 pounds of thrust (apparantly) and the 757 only gives out up to 41,000 pounds of thrust - though I imagine the 757 would still have an affect on full power - I'm just not sure it was. Is there any information that conclusively says one way or another what power they were set at? www.boeing.com...

Originally posted by STolarZ Check this link. engine crosswinds It isn't exact plane but... this should happen to cars or whatever what was on that flight's path. And what happend ? Only two light poles were down ? Was that plane flying 20 feet high or not ?

COMPLETELY different circumstnaces. IF the 757 was sitting on the ground, with engines running at full power, and you drove a car directly behind the tail, under the right conditions you MIGHT get the same result. For a 757 flying at any kind of altitufe, even with the engines at full power, that's not going to happen. First off, you're lookinat at 116,000 pounds of thrust in that video, as compared to about 82,000 in a 757. That extra thrust makes all the difference in the worls.

Yes quite, I'm sure there are fancy physics terms for it but surely there is a big difference between when the engine is staionary and when it is moving. I imagine the majority of the thrust will be used in pushing the aircraft along and will hence not have such an adverse effect on other objects. In the example given the aircraft was kept stationary. With my basic knowledge the way I see it is that no matter the conditions a fixed amount of energy will be produced, when it is used in pushing the aircraft along there is less energy available to do anything else. Maybe this is wrong - if so I'm sure someone will be quick in pointing this out.

Originally posted by AgentSmith Yes quite, I'm sure there are fancy physics terms for it but surely there is a big difference between when the engine is staionary and when it is moving. I imagine the majority of the thrust will be used in pushing the aircraft along and will hence not have such an adverse effect on other objects. In the example given the aircraft was kept stationary.

that's right, as far as i know. however, there is a wake behind an aircraft, similiar to the wake behind a boat(or, submarine, as a better analogy). the moving aircraft displaces air behind it, creating an area of violent turbulence behind it. i know this from common sense. the exact behaviour of this area of disturbed air will be affected by the proximity of the ground.. anyone who's seen 'pushing tin' will know that even though an aircraft is not on the ground, it is pushing DOWN with an immense force. steve mqueen was quite surprised by the extreme crushing force he experienced in the making of 'bullit'. he actually went and lay down on the tarmac while a passenger jet taxied over top of him. so, in short, an aircraft flying NEAR the ground is exerting great pressure on it.

AgentSmith and BillyBob; have you guys listened to this interview posted by WCIP it talks about the air turbulence behind and below the craft, as WCIP says it is worth a listen to.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace Thought you Pentagon folks might be interested in this. Below is a link to a lengthy interview with Nila Sagadevan regarding the Pentagon strike. Sagadevan is both an aeronautical engineer and a pilot with over 6000 hours commercial flight time. He has some interesting things to say about the flight maneuvers and navigation carried out by Hani "Crack Pilot" Hanjour, the damage to the Pentagon, and many other things. mp3.rbnlive.com... Worth a listen. [edit on 2005-11-26 by wecomeinpeace]

[edit on 27/11/2005 by Sauron]

Yes, it's exerting pressure on it, but not enough to flip a car. It's one thing for a person to be walking behind an airplane and have problems with the engine exhaust, but I've been in cars and trucks behind engines running at power, and we were never even close to flipping over. The car rocked from side to side, and it got noisy inside, but that was all. A car on the ground would actually be SAFER from wake turbulence. It would hit the ground, and "flatten" for lack of a better word, and spread out in several directions. If it was more enclosed, you might see cars flipping over, but in an open area, it's too dissipated to flip cars. You'd see cars swerve, or lose control, but not flip like in the video.

Originally posted by Sauron AgentSmith and BillyBob; have you guys listened to this interview posted by WCIP it talks about the air turbulence behind and below the craft, as WCIP says it is worth a listen to. mp3.rbnlive.com... Worth a listen.

i want to listen, but it won't work.. my error meesage is 'sound file damaged or unknown format'. is there a different link or format?

must first download it, by rightclicking and "Save To", after that, you open it with f.ex. Media Player. That guy sounds very sophisticated, btw, he's on the team with Jimmy Walter's reopen9/11.org, a site worth visiting. So, can we return to examining where various eyewitnesse's exact positions were while observing that downward spiral from the supposed flight 77, so we can determine as exact as can be, the circle it made after passing behind Reagan International airport ? Observe please, that I do not say that it was not a 757, but it still could have been a decoy, painted as flight 77. Still could be a 767 or whatever. The diameter of that downward spiral is VERY important, that could settle once and for all if a life pilot was steering that plane IN the cockpit, or if it was steered by a remote pilot in that C-130. Flight 77 is in the aviation records as NOT flying on 9/11 ! I am not aware that that fact has been denied yet. 100% sure denied, I mean. And not regarding its flightnumber, but its tail number! Us guys are champions in disturbing the flow of a highly important discussion. That turbulence subject has been brought up in this very same thread numerous times before, and as HowardRoark explained before, if an aircraft is moving at 450 miles per hour forward , the push of the air coming out of its engines is moving also partly forward, its outcoming airspeed must be subtracted by 450 M/hr. I tried to keep it simple, as you can see.

if that is an interview on the power hour, then here is another link...911 truth the power hour with nila sagadevan.

In the intro it says it is "The Investigative Journal" and the host is Greg Sizmanski (sp?). Not sure if that has anything to do with the Power Hour. LaBTop is right, you need to download the file to your computer then open it with iTunes or WinAmp or whatever. There are two files that it should stream, each of an hour duration. Works great in iTunes. And if you're using Windows Media Player...well...there's no hope for you anyway, lol. It'll probably fail to play it, and if it does, it will only play one of the streams...before crashing. Go Gates!

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace There are two files that it should stream, each of an hour duration. Works great in iTunes.

okay, thanks. the power hour interview is good, too, if it's not the same one. they mention some generals and military men by name that agree with the conspiracy theory(ie. that there is a conspiracy, not the specifics)

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace And if you're using Windows Media Player...well...there's no hope for you anyway, lol. It'll probably fail to play it, and if it does, it will only play one of the streams...before crashing. Go Gates!

all microsoft programs are designed to crash immediately after sending microsoft all your personal data, including bank account access and personal networks. they are also designed to crash every few hours, just to keep the user with his buried in counterintuitive 'help' windows. i wouldn't be surprised if it was a wintel box that crashed into the pentagon. THAT would be believable. nila says he made FOIA requests for the passenger lists, and eventually got them(hard won), only to find, ....NO ARAB NAMES. sound familiar, agent smith?

Originally posted by billybob nila says he made FOIA requests for the passenger lists, and eventually got them(hard won), only to find, ....NO ARAB NAMES. sound familiar, agent smith?

Have you got a link for this? It would be nice to see the info. Oh and can you explain how a commercial document (as in the manifest) was suddenly available through a FOIA request? Please tell us how the Government gave us 'evidence' of their own crimes... EDIT to add: [edit on 28-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by billybob nila says he made FOIA requests for the passenger lists, and eventually got them(hard won), only to find, ....NO ARAB NAMES. sound familiar, agent smith?

Have you got a link for this? It would be nice to see the info.

Oh and can you explain how a commercial document (as in the manifest) was suddenly available through a FOIA request? Please tell us how the Government gave us 'evidence' of their own crimes... EDIT to add:

[edit on 28-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

i'm only reporting what i heard on that interview, which has now been linked to several times. nila claims to have the original passenger manifests. if he does, will you THEN believe there is some kind of cover-up, or will the hijackers have some new mystery power attributed to them which allows them to slip undetected onto airliners, ...four seperate ones, at that. nila is a commercial pilot and aeronautical engineer. did you listen to the two hour program? he says he has the lists. if you want to argue that, it won't be with me right now, 'cause i don't have 'em. i do have a link to a guy saying he has them. he also mentioned that there wer no less than EIGHT video cameras on each side of the pentagon, for a total of FORTY video cameras. they ALL 'malfunctioned' on that day.

Fourty cameras located all around the perimeter of the Pentagon and all of them were on the fritz on 9-11? Something smells fishy and it reeks of a coverup.