9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I'm still waiting for just ONE solid piece of evidence that there is even ONE antiaircraft gun/SAM launcher at the Pentagon. Not just "I know a guy who knows a guy who said..." or "I was on the tour and this guy said". Show me one piece of CONCRETE PROOF they are there? You CAN NOT HIDE something like a SAM launcher, and even an AA gun. They have radars which are obvious, they have gun and missiles which are obvious. Where are they then?

In some people's heads, Zaph, they have frikkin death rays. Common sense fails to prevail as usual and the fact that light aircraft even now still enter restricted airspace without immediate anhaliation means nothing. Of course the fact that ideas like that are also delibrately propogated to help portray this invisible wall which cannot be penetrated is nothing either. One would hope those with sense would work it out for themselves instead of having to publically announce it, but once again the thinking has to be done for others and they continue to wonder why they 'have' to be kept under such strict control and are treated like inferior beings by those in power. Unfortunately the power does get to some people though... and then we get bigger problems. [edit on 13-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith In some people's heads, Zaph, they have frikkin death rays. Common sense fails to prevail as usual and the fact that light aircraft even now still enter restricted airspace without immediate anhaliation means nothing.

death rays LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching — and at the speed of light, no less. They are labeled "directed-energy weapons," and they may well signal a revolution in military hardware — perhaps more so than the atomic bomb. Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too. That’s the outlook of J. Douglas Beason, author of the recently published book "The E-Bomb: How America’s New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future." Beason previously served on the White House staff working for the president’s science adviser under both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

crazy conspiracy theorists. Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link. [edit on 13/1/2006 by Mirthful Me] i was looking for that link. at least i said external source, eh? [edit on 13-1-2006 by billybob]

I know about energy weapons thanks, most (if not all) of the ones that are of any use against an object such as an aircraft are still in experimental stages, having worked for developers and manufacturers of military equipment I can assure you that it is an exceedingly long time before things get from the prototype stage to active deployment. There are far more impressive pages available for the public if you look around than that anyway, including laser based stun weapons - much like phasers - for instance. If you look there are still cases now of private aircraft intruding in controlled airspace, how come they don't get knocked out.. Even after 9/11? Of course I'm just Government scum apparantly, so why bother listening to anyone that even has the slightest bit of relevant experience... Someone who reads some bs on the Internet knows far more.... Hehe, someone who has even slight experience is just a sheep, someone who reads what some weirdo who never left his shack wrote is enlightened... yeah I get it.. heh... [edit on 13-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Xain What about the Antiaircraft surrounding the pentagon? They are programmed to destroy anything within airspace that does not have a US Military Friendly transponder.

Right.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a commercial plane approaching the Pentagon will be shot down. Is this correct? How close can a commercial plane get before this “program” is triggered? 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, 1 mile? A plane traveling 400 mph covers a mile in about 9 seconds.

Actually it's true. Pentagon is the most protected with the highest security in the world. This is a fact. And they do have AA weapons. Not to mention the most sophisticated radar system that the pentagon uses to track multiple missiles at once covering an area large as the US. The Pentagon is the home of the Department of Defense, with which it is synonymous. It is the most identifiable symbol of U.S. military might.... I'm not making this up, there are facts. Most of which I found have been removed for some reason. Found some great pages on pentagon security but now there non accessible. For example, here was some site I had been to - www.pentagonsecurity.com... www.penta-sec.com...

Originally posted by AgentSmith I know about energy weapons thanks, most (if not all) of the ones that are of any use against an object such as an aircraft are still in experimental stages, having worked for developers and manufacturers of military equipment I can assure you that it is an exceedingly long time before things get from the prototype stage to active deployment. There are far more impressive pages available for the public if you look around than that anyway, including laser based stun weapons - much like phasers - for instance. If you look there are still cases now of private aircraft intruding in controlled airspace, how come they don't get knocked out.. Even after 9/11? Of course I'm just Government scum apparantly, so why bother listening to anyone that even has the slightest bit of relevant experience... Someone who reads some bs on the Internet knows far more....

Hehe, someone who has even slight experience is just a sheep, someone who reads what some weirdo who never left his shack wrote is enlightened... yeah I get it.. heh... [edit on 13-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

you were ridiculing people for 'believing' in beam weapons. they are no longer science fiction. they are also only one possibility for an alternate explanation of the days events, which involve secret technologies. (did the us inform japan that a single bomb was about to level their city? did they let japan know all the developments of the manhattan project? di the nazis keep british scientist abreast of their U2 developments?) when these technologies are publicized, they have already been developed. that is just good military common sense. these weapons are planned to be space-based, but that does not mean that they only work in space.

I was ridiculing the idea that the Pentagon is protected by a force field as some would imagine, nothing you are saying is secret or unknown info, there is much more in the public domain than that. Also note the future tense of the article... Saying that there are already various weapons being used using Microwaves, Ultrasonics, etc.. Still, these are all sizeable devices and they would have to be able to track very quickly to keep a lock on such a low, fast moving target. You can't hide them in your pocket you know. [edit on 13-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Actually it's true. Pentagon is the most protected with the highest security in the world. This is a fact.

I'm not sure where to begin with this, but, you are wrong. Having first hand experience with many high security buildings in the D.C. area, I would have to say that the most secure building that I have been in is CIA headquarters ( you won't even get close to the building unless they know you are coming).

And when i go to the department of defense website, everything on the pentagon, including tours had been remove indefinitely.

Tours are still available. the virtual tour has been taken down, understandably.

They go about deploying AA guns around the entire perimeter of Washing D.C. one year later... PS, there not like samsite so don't be a jerk. There on trucks. AKA "Avenger" - Land to air Stinger missiles.

I think you are talking about patriot missile batteries. IIRC they deployed them the day after 9/11 for a short while then again on the anniversary of 9/11. They are not a regular sight around the D.C. area. They were not in use before 9/11 and have only been deployed a few times since.

Originally posted by defcon5 Didn't you notice that she is selling books on that site: [edit on 1/1/2006 by defcon5]

What?....huh? I couldn't read what you wrote behind this pop-up

Originally posted by Skibum

Actually it's true. Pentagon is the most protected with the highest security in the world. This is a fact.

I'm not sure where to begin with this, but, you are wrong. Having first hand experience with many high security buildings in the D.C. area, I would have to say that the most secure building that I have been in is CIA headquarters ( you won't even get close to the building unless they know you are coming).

And when i go to the department of defense website, everything on the pentagon, including tours had been remove indefinitely.

Tours are still available. the virtual tour has been taken down, understandably.

They go about deploying AA guns around the entire perimeter of Washing D.C. one year later... PS, there not like samsite so don't be a jerk. There on trucks. AKA "Avenger" - Land to air Stinger missiles.

I think you are talking about patriot missile batteries. IIRC they deployed them the day after 9/11 for a short while then again on the anniversary of 9/11. They are not a regular sight around the D.C. area. They were not in use before 9/11 and have only been deployed a few times since.

Actually no, i meant what i said. please read the links i post before posting about them. They are Avenger anti aircraft missiles, land to air based. and as far as the most secure building goes, then maybe you should get your fact strait. Funny how you know so much about the buildings first hand in the D.C. area, maybe you can shed some lite on the truth other then being ignorant. Other then the Federal reserve bank, on a terrorist level, Pentagon is the worlds securest building... there is no denying this. Just Google it.

Pentagon is the worlds securest building... there is no denying this. Just Google it.

Why so I can get a bunch of links to pages from people like you who have no idea what they are talking about. They, just like you, are just repeating a rumor they heard from someone else. Next time you are in the area, try this little "security test". Take your car to the pentagon (or metro since there is a station right at the pentagon)park in the pentagon parking lot and walk right up to and through the front door. You would be rather surprised how easy it is. For a pubic building they are very secure, but nowhere near as tight as I have seen in other places including some non government buildings. [edit on 13/1/06 by Skibum]

Perhaps it is just a type O and means nothing but why does the original article claim to be written five years after the event when the date on the article is only 3 years later?

Originally posted by defcon5 Look, your first mistake was posting that a site full of mechy’s told you what this disk was, then you posting it without bothering to check what planes those engines go on. Mistaking one plane for another was just an added bonus. Don’t come back with the garbage about how they said “I think”, that is just you trying to cover up your screw up.

No. Maybe you misunderstood. I posted his entire answer because I am honest. I know some "member" may want to run away with it. Like you did. I even had reservations but decided to put the whole quote anyways. He KNEW he was looking at the Pentagon. So he was *thinking* in regards to a 757 or a plane that size and guessed the engines "incorrectly" assuming the official story, and believing that part came from a 757 or whatever. And FYI, I know plenty about those engines. I've done more research than you've done. Apparently for a year, you've been under the impression it came from an APU. And it doesn't. Sorry. A: "The answer to your question is "NO" because its too big. *I think* what you are looking at is the first stage compressor disk to the main engine. *could be* a pratt & whitney PW2000 (It's not) or a general electric CF6-50 motor(Wrong plane). Hope that helps." Note that he said "I think" and "could be". It is niether. The pic I show is the closest. If you find something closer I'll listen. But regardless, I believe the pentagon parts are planted. And I'm sure we will discuss that later. I was simply asking if it belonged to an APU. He said no. You and Catherder and company ARE WRONG. Would you like the official word typed from the Licensed A & P Mechanic? Or maybe a commercial pilot's take on the Pentagon strike? Or a Ret. Army General? Or an Aeronautical Engineer? Did you listen to that interview I posted? Or are you simply confined to anonymous posters with no apparent experience in this field?

As far as it being a Rolls Royce engine, prove it. The only airline I ever saw that faithfully used RR engines was BA (British Air). US carriers usually use US engines, such as PW and GE. That is besides the fact that engines are changed out on a regular basis. I am wondering how you seem to have the latest maintenance records on that particular aircraft, hm? That is generally not public record…

Oh lord. Let me hip you to a neato tool for us 9/11 researchers. It's the, PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE, FAA registry: Here, so now you guys can put this insipid Rolls Royce Engine thing to rest. Here's your "proof": You can search the 'N' number here: registry.faa.gov... N644AA When you do that this is what you get:

FAA Registry N-Number Inquiry Results -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N644AA is Deregistered Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1 Aircraft Description Serial Number 24602 Type Registration Corporation Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date 05/08/1991 Model 757-223 Mode S Code 52072030 Year Manufacturer 1991 Cancel Date 01/14/2002 Reason for Cancellation Destroyed Exported To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aircraft Registration prior to Deregistration Name WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY TRUSTEE Street RODNEY SQ NORTH ATTN CORP TRT ADM City WILMINGTON State DELAWARE Zip Code 19890 County NEW CASTLE Country UNITED STATES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Airworthiness Engine: Manufacturer ROLL-ROYCE Classification: Standard Engine Model: RB.211 SERIES Category Transport A/W Date 05/08/1991 registry.faa.gov...

Funny thing though. When one would check on Flight 93 and Flight 175's tail #. They were still still registered as active/still valid. For 4 yrs. Until 9/28/05, after calls from 9/11 researchers, then they changed it to..."REASON FOR CANCELLATION: CANCELLED"...While Flight 11 and Flight 77 (both didn't take off according to BTS and both were drones) were listed as "Destroyed" in the FAA registry. Are we done here? Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link. [edit on 14/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

As far as it being a Rolls Royce engine, prove it. The only airline I ever saw that faithfully used RR engines was BA (British Air). US carriers usually use US engines, such as PW and GE. I have sat on L-1011's and seen that RR emblem on the engines. They just using that space for advertising? That Rolls engine has a very distinctive sound and I've heard it around MD-11's as well. Just wondering. Jackson

I believe that you are referring to the picture posted by catherder in the beginning of this thread. I also believe that it was catherder’s intention to demonstrate that the green paint observed on the debris inside the pentagon was consistent with green paint used in other Boeing aircraft. I was referring to the picture I referred to: The pic CatHerder posted of the L-1011 being demo'ed 4.I saw a pic of the wall at the Pentagon and it looked like there might have been three impacts, but the area on either side of the center one and the flanking ones was pristine. Where'd that spar go? Can you repost with the pic? I wish I could, I've looked all over for it. If I find it I'll stick it up here.

Originally posted by Jackson Steward 5.Lastly...I gotta tell ya...flying a 757 at that speed over that terrain in those conditions and putting it inside a vertical space that's what, forty feet high? Sweetheart...that's a hell of a bit of flying...low enough to hit a generator in the yard, still high enough not to hit the ground AT ALL... Try that on your Flight Simulator and get back to me! And this from a guy who's never been in the cockpit before?!! Whhooooeeeee!!

Flight Simulator is not the same thing as reality. Wow!! That explains why I'm still in my bedroom!!!! Nothing gets by you does it!!?? Since, as you say, you’ve never been in a cockpit before, what qualifies you to make this assessment? I'm going to ignore the tone. Read more carefully. I was referring to the guy who DID the flying. The information I have says that flight was his first time behind a yoke. I never said anything at all about my experience in or out of a cockpit. And I stand right by my assertion that flying that plane at that speed over that terrain under those conditions into that tight a vertical space is a hell of a piece of flying. Don't take my word for it, ask someone who flies the damned things. By the way, take some time to consider the difference between "opinion" and "assessment." Jackson

Originally posted by Jackson Steward I believe that you are referring to the picture posted by catherder in the beginning of this thread. I also believe that it was catherder’s intention to demonstrate that the green paint observed on the debris inside the pentagon was consistent with green paint used in other Boeing aircraft. I was referring to the picture I referred to: The pic CatHerder posted of the L-1011 being demo'ed 4.I saw a pic of the wall at the Pentagon and it looked like there might have been three impacts, but the area on either side of the center one and the flanking ones was pristine. Where'd that spar go?

Can you repost with the pic? I wish I could, I've looked all over for it. If I find it I'll stick it up here.

Originally posted by Jackson Steward 5.Lastly...I gotta tell ya...flying a 757 at that speed over that terrain in those conditions and putting it inside a vertical space that's what, forty feet high? Sweetheart...that's a hell of a bit of flying...low enough to hit a generator in the yard, still high enough not to hit the ground AT ALL... Try that on your Flight Simulator and get back to me! And this from a guy who's never been in the cockpit before?!! Whhooooeeeee!!

Flight Simulator is not the same thing as reality. Wow!! That explains why I'm still in my bedroom!!!! Nothing gets by you does it!!?? Since, as you say, you’ve never been in a cockpit before, what qualifies you to make this assessment? I'm going to ignore the tone. Read more carefully. I was referring to the guy who DID the flying. The information I have says that flight was his first time behind a yoke. I never said anything at all about my experience in or out of a cockpit. And I stand right by my assertion that flying that plane at that speed over that terrain under those conditions into that tight a vertical space is a hell of a piece of flying. Don't take my word for it, ask someone who flies the damned things. By the way, take some time to consider the difference between "opinion" and "assessment." Jackson i'll pay twenty bucks to overquote, here. what's goin' on? for one thing, flight simulator is designed to simulate reality. john lear, a man who may be the most diverse pilot in the world, has stated in black and white, that he thinks it would be hard to do. period. he also believes your soul will get sucked into the 'grays' soul sucker on the moon. gurdieff also saw this as the main danger, and that was WAAAY before nasa. what next?

Originally posted by Jackson Steward As far as it being a Rolls Royce engine, prove it. The only airline I ever saw that faithfully used RR engines was BA (British Air). US carriers usually use US engines, such as PW and GE. I have sat on L-1011's and seen that RR emblem on the engines. They just using that space for advertising? That Rolls engine has a very distinctive sound and I've heard it around MD-11's as well. Just wondering. Jackson

Hm.. Did I say that no-one else ever used them, or did I say that the only airline that I have seen use them faithfully, as in they only use those… I think that Air Canada uses quite a few also. But airlines such as Delta Tend to use more GE engines, if I recall correctly I mostly saw PW around Continental, It just depends on what each airline favors and how much they want to spend. They also swap out those engines every so many thousands of miles. It only makes sense for US carriers to favor US engines, they are less expensive as they are not imported. [edit on 1/13/2006 by defcon5]

All it means by the registration numbers being registered still is that for some reason United didn't bother to file the paperwork to deregister the N number for those two planes. It could have been overlooked, or simply forgotten with their Bankruptcy issues. As far as the Avenger, you would STILL be able to see them sitting around the Pentagon if they were there. They're not invisible. You're still looking at an Hummer with a giant missile launcher on the roof, and you STILL have a radar platform for them so you can ID the target. You're STILL going to have evidence of the weapons sitting there. Yes they're small, but you're STILL going to see them.

Originally posted by Xain They go about deploying AA guns around the entire perimeter of Washing D.C. one year later... PS, there not like samsite so don't be a jerk. There on trucks. AKA "Avenger" - Land to air Stinger missiles.

OK, how many of these "trucks" were deployed on 9/11? And once again, since you avoided answering my questions the first time: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a commercial plane approaching the Pentagon will be shot down. Is this correct? How close can a commercial plane get before this “program” is triggered? 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, 1 mile?

There is no way that they would shoot down a commercial airliner over the city. It would cause more widespread damage then just letting it crash. If they had caught it out in the middle of nowhere like the one in PA, then shooting it down would be a viable option.