9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Huabamambo Now I don't know about some people. But when pretty well every Ny firefighter who was there at the WTC says bombs brought the building down then I'm inclined to believe them.These people saw whole firefighting units wiped out. It would be a great insult to the memory of the Firefighters to brand the surviving FF's as conspiracy theory nuts.

That is probably the best quote I have done here. The fact that the NYFD are among the most well respected of all in the U.S.

thanks for your input, and your valiant effort wading through this huge thread. i think the problem can best be solved by not believing anything the media publishes:

Originally posted by Huabamambo Hey all. I must say this has been the most interesting debate in the four years since 9/11. I agree that an airplane hit the pentagon but clearly it wasn't a 757. The pentagon only released those five frames but even in the first frame you can tell its much smaller then a 757. And in the frames after there is a gray smoke trail. That doesn't happen from a 757 flying at 3 feet off the gound ...

k, something is bogus, either it's a hundred witness' statements or a video clip provided by the Dark Side® with frames missing, i will discard the video clip anyday.

You can all judge for yourselves. I've seen all the photographs and there is indeed a small hole and not enough wreckage to indicate a big airliner.

good point, the damage is the absolutely weakest spot of the 757 based theory, what i don't know is how much time they had before early photos were taken, so there's no real way to tell ho much wreckage was originally visible, is there?

And as for the Fox news reports that the plane vapourized? When I was watching tv on 9/11 they said that there weren't any body parts recovered. Vapourized from all the fuel. No luggage or any of the seats can be found in the recovery photos either. The Coroner didn't even recover any airline passenger body parts. Now how can that be?

simple lies, that is all. if they can get away with presenting fake evidence (tickets and passports surviving crash&fire?), why not remove genuine stuff while you're at it?

As for witnesses I don't deny they saw an airplane either. In times like these however the corporate media rushes in and before you know it the story involves a purple monkey dishwasher.

i hope not, there's no way to disprove your claim, though. simply dismissing eyewitness accounts, is imho, a bit to easy. for example: IF you conjured up a plane flying along a highway, would you make up negative AoA? i doubt it. PS: wrt size - a scaled down model of an airliner might have been used....hard to tell from witness accounts. [edit on 19-12-2005 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Huabamambo I've done alot of reading on the subject and done alot of legwork. You will be hard pressed to find a NY firefighter who doesn't believe that there were bombs in the basement.

Have you actually talked to any NYFD people? Have you ever asked any NYFD people that hang out at the Firehouse.com forums? There are a number of NYFD firemen that post regularly on that board, as well as many others that are closely associated with the NYFD. Go ahead and ask over there. I dare you. Seriously. If you are going to make a ridiculous statement like “You will be hard pressed to find a NY firefighter who doesn't believe that there were bombs in the basement,” Then you had better be prepared to back it up. So do you have the stones to back up your assertions? Are you brave enough to confront real fire fighters that don’t believe that there were bombs in the basement? I doubt it.

Now I don't know about some people. But when pretty well every Ny firefighter who was there at the WTC says bombs brought the building down then I'm inclined to believe them. These people saw whole firefighting units wiped out. It would be a great insult to the memory of the Firefighters to brand the surviving FF's as conspiracy theory nuts.

Once again, I ask, How many NYFD firemen have you personally talked or corresponded with? Do you realize just how absurd your statements are? If all of the NYFD firemen actually believed that their comrades, brothers, fathers, etc. were killed because of bombs in the basements, then why haven’t they spoken up? Where is the outcry? If you think that men who go into burning buildings for a living are too afraid of your mythical NWO to speak up about something like this, then you seriously do not know or understand firemen (or policemen for that matter). SO. I challenge you. Find some real NYFD firemen and talk to them about this. Go on a firefighter forum and ask them the same things. Post a link to the thread so that we can read the response. Go ahead. I dare you.

Alright. But I've talked to FF's in person who believe that bombs brought down the trade centre. Didn't you see the French Brothers video? A whole Fire fighting Unit was talking about how the building collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition. Have you heard some of the audio tapes? Shortly before the collapse the FF's radioed how alot of fires in one of the buildings were almost completely extinguished. Do you see what happens? When a plane crashes into a building and all the fuel ignites it burns completely and violently for maybe an hour. As Fox news indicated it doesn't flow to the basement and form a pool of fire melting the core in the basement. That is a completely stupid Corporate Media argument. And what about the second plane? The trajectory it was coming in was a failure because most of the fuel blew up outside the building. So how could it all leak into the basement, ignite there and melt all the basement core? Don't you see. Corporate media 9/11 arguments are flawed and don't hold water. There weren't even any arab names on the Pentagon flight either. [edit on 22-12-2005 by Huabamambo]

You are wandering off the Pentagon subject here, but. . .

Originally posted by Huabamambo Alright. But I've talked to FF's in person who believe that bombs brought down the trade centre.

Were these NYFD firefighters that were actually there? or a bunch of volunteer firemen in Nebraska somewhere?

Originally posted by Huabamambo Didn't you see the French Brothers video? A whole Fire fighting Unit was talking about how the building collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition.

The collapse of the towers was an extraordinary event. If someone say they collapsed like a controlled demolition, that doesn’t meant that they meant that it was a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by Huabamambo Have you heard some of the audio tapes? Shortly before the collapse the FF's radioed how alot of fires in one of the buildings were almost completely extinguished.

They were on the lowest floor affected by the impact and fire. The fires were still raging out of control on the floors above them.

Originally posted by Huabamambo Do you see what happens? When a plane crashes into a building and all the fuel ignites it burns completely and violently for maybe an hour. As Fox news indicated it doesn't flow to the basement and form a pool of fire melting the core in the basement. That is a completely stupid Corporate Media argument.

[scratching my head] I’m not sure I follow your argument there.

Originally posted by Huabamambo And what about the second plane? The trajectory it was coming in was a failure because most of the fuel blew up outside the building.

Not really. All of the fuel in the left wing hit the core area squarely. Maybe the following will help you to visualize this.

Originally posted by Huabamambo So how could it all leak into the basement, ignite there and melt all the basement core? The fuel flowed down the elevator shafts. Where do you come up with the assertion that the basement core was melted? Where is there proof of this?

Originally posted by Huabamambo Don't you see. Corporate media 9/11 arguments are flawed and don't hold water.

What about the various engineers and architects that have studied the collapses and have found no evidence of explosives? Are they “flawed” also?

What about all the various engineers and demolitions experts who have come forward saying bombs brought down the WTC?

Originally posted by Huabamambo What about all the various engineers and demolitions experts who have come forward saying bombs brought down the WTC?

Please name them.

remote controlled airbus imagine the possibilities!

Originally posted by HowardRoark All of the fuel in the left wing hit the core area squarely. Maybe the following will help you to visualize this.

Warning: Misleading Image Alert Just thought I'd once again point out that the above animation is based on nothing but imagination, and someone's ability to make GIFs. No corroborating evidence whatsoever, as God has yet to come out with his super-x-ray cross-sections of the impacts that day.

My question is about that C-130 that was spotted flying around the Pentagon after the hit. I was wondering if that C-130 could have been controlling that drone or whatever it was that hit the Pentagon? I mean it could have been possible that some people in the darkest sectors of the military knew what they were doing. Or that Bush and Cheney needed their own version of Pearl Harbor, and what better way to do it than to do it American civilian airliners, our own citizens, and attack our own buildings.

Originally posted by bsbray11 Warning: Misleading Image Alert Just thought I'd once again point out that the above animation is based on nothing but imagination, and someone's ability to make GIFs. No corroborating evidence whatsoever, as God has yet to come out with his super-x-ray cross-sections of the impacts that day.

You missile guys should know all about making misleading images, you’re the masters at it, especially getting the scale wrong… This animation seems to go along with the Perdue University study rather well, IMHO.

Originally posted by CatHerder and finally 60 dead people all listed on the plane's manifest... did you look at any of it?? How the heck did they get those 60 bodies into the Pentagon without anyone noticing?

How didn't the 60 people disintegrate like the rest of the plane?

Originally posted by SwearBear How didn't the 60 people disintegrate like the rest of the plane?

They did, there were plenty of little pieces of plane floating around (almost literally) and so were the people. They identified flesh, not bodies. Obviously some small, light items survived too. I would dig out some proper pictures of plane crashes showing you what I mean, but it's against board T&Cs. The family friendly pictures on mainstream sites doesn't always give you a good idea of what to expect. [edit on 26-12-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by defcon5 You missile guys should know all about making misleading images, you’re the masters at it, especially getting the scale wrong…

I don't support the missile theory. It'd be nice if you didn't assume everyone does, kthx.

This animation seems to go along with the Perdue University study rather well, IMHO.

Well, opinions aside, there are no facts to support that animation. Sorry. It was all blown up when the towers fell, and we all know very well that we have no good photographs of the insides of those parts of the buildings after the impacts, let alone can we even begin to say how they impacted from the perspective of inside the buildings. It's just total speculation. Nothing scientific about it at all.

I agree. A plane Hit the pentagon. Nothing to indicate a 757 but a Lear Jet size plane. Hundreds of witnesses even said they saw a Lear Jet size airplane. How could the 757 fly so close to the ground and no reports of cars flipping over from the Jet Wash? Remember the aircraft in NY that took off a few minutes too soon and was ripped apart by the previous wake of another Jet? Apparently some of you don't remember that.

Originally posted by Huabamambo How could the 757 fly so close to the ground and no reports of cars flipping over from the Jet Wash? Remember the aircraft in NY that took off a few minutes too soon and was ripped apart by the previous wake of another Jet? Apparently some of you don't remember that.

Wake turbulence and jet blast are not the same thing, hence the fact that they have different names. Jet blast is not severe enough nor angled correctly to effect the cars that were overflow and wake turbulence only effects other aircraft. Perhaps you would like to explain to me how the lights at the end of the runways at every airport around the world manage to survive this magical force you seem to think exists in the wake of low flying aircraft? I know that I and others have mentioned this before in this thread somewhere, maybe you should read the rest of the thread before re-treading old ground… Buttt... "Apparently some of you don't remember that. "

767 jet blast profiles Please note that these jet blast ratings are for a 767 which has 63,000 lbs of thrust per engine as opposed to the 757 which has only 43,000 lbs. In addition, these jet blast rating are for stationary planes. THe plane flying over the roadway in front of the Pentagon was moving, thus, the jet blast relative to the ground would have been much lower. Also: www.earth-citizens.net...

Jet Blast? How about the ground effect of a 255,000 lb aircraft going that fast with the pilot pushing the nose foreward while that huge plane fighting to fly to altitude!?! Ground effect atitude is about the length wingspan of the aircraft to the ground in most cases. That kind of ground effect from a 255,000 lb aircraft going nearly 500 mph will be much greater a force than the jet blast.

You’ve got to admire the conspiracy theorists. First the claim was that it would have been impossible to fly a plane that close to the ground at that speed without crashing, then when the issue of ground effect was raised, the claim is now that it would have been impossible to crash the plane into the ground at that speed. The buoyancy that ground effect adds to lift is primarily associated with a nose up attitude. ie. The landing flair. A plane that is going nose down into the ground will go into the ground regardless. Yes, the plane probably experienced some ground effect as it approached the building. Would ground effect have prevented the pilot from hitting the building? No.

Problem is Howard, a lot of people don't try and work out what the conspiracy is (if any) by piecing together the evidence. Instead they have some strange desire to want a conspiracy and will desperately try and fit evidence to the crime they have already created in their heads.