9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

eight holes here and here and here oops, ten holes! another one with ten holes, man those are dirty! I guess there are a couple of different types of wheels out there. [edit on 17-9-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween One of those oddities that I cannot reconcile with is the video of the object in that an aircraft the size of a 757 cannot be so obscured by that 4 or 5 foot high obstruction behind which it flies. That aircraft would have to have been quite a distance beyond the obstruction to appear so small, and especially considering that the depth perception relative to the obstruction itself is not significantly reduced. The picture below is obviously superimposed but it gives an idea why I would expect to see much more of the aircraft.

The height of the tail would have been lower than in your superimposed version, thus the plane was farther and smaller then what you show.

Another oddity is the distance the nose cone traversed and the density through which it passed before exiting the building when compared to plane debris ejected from the WTC at impact. (If I recall correctly, an engine was found on a sidewalk somewhere. ) The WTC buildings were 208ft wide, the plane length 159 feet. Fl11 supposedly cruised into the building at just under 500mph, and 175 just under 600mph, a building which apparently had a flimsy interior structure with the hardest materials on the inside being the elevators themselves. I would expect that given how far the nose cone from Fl77 travelled and through what, that much more of flights 11 and 175 would have exited the buildings.

I beleive that quite a lot of it did. In fact just like at the pentagon, the landing gear from one of the planes (don't know which one), a heavy compact mass, was found on a building roof across the street.

From all accounts on the flight training of the pilot, and from statements made by numerous pilots, I do not believe that the aircraft was piloted just mere feet above the ground by an amateur. Which then makes me wonder if it was remotely controlled.

You have obviously never flown an RC plane. did you miss the discussion of ground effect on an earlier page?

There have been several threads on flight 77, where people explain away the existence of flight 77. Why? I know, you saw the pics... There have been statements of "no debris", "not enough deris", "not the correct size debris". Has anyone stopped to THINK! the the "real conspiracy" may be the fact that we are having the "Missile Theory" shoved down our throats... Why? Why is there tons of info claiming there was a missile? Why is everyone buying into the "Missile Theory" rather than question, why so much of this info so readily available! Any search engine, do 757 = missile = no plane = what hit the Pentagon... Why? There's the conspiracy.... someone/group has made the "Missile Theory" too available.... Too available... Talk about mind control... You saw pics, you've heard from eye witnesses, you saw reports... Yet the power of suggestion has formed a "Missile Theory"... Group think/thought!? Alike thinking.... Who? started the "Missile Theory" and WHY? you should be asking... Who would benefit to mold minds into the "Missile Theory Thought" Well since deris can be talked away, what of the passengers and crew: www.cnn.com... Can you expalin away these people... Truth is hard to believe

Here we go, check out this link with statements by Senator Dayton. www.willthomas.net...

Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., charged on July 31 that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) have covered up "catastrophic failures" that left the nation vulnerable during the Sept. 11 hijackings. "For almost three years now, NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history," Dayton declared during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing. During the hearing, Dayton told leaders of the Sept. 11 commission, that, based on the commission's report, a NORAD chronology made public a week after the attacks was grossly misleading. The chronology said the FAA notified the military's emergency air command of three of the hijackings while those jetliners were still airborne. Dayton cited commission findings that the FAA failed to inform NORAD about three of the planes until after they had crashed. And, he said, a squadron of NORAD fighter planes that was scrambled was sent east over the Atlantic Ocean and was 150 miles from Washington, D.C., when the third plane struck the Pentagon - "farther than they were before they took off."

The original article comes from the Star Washington Tribune. As well, there are multiple articles of anti-terrorism exercises the morning of. I think its highly possible that a plane did strike the pentagon, but I'm not convinced it was a 757, the proof in the original post goes to show it was probably a plane, but not specifically a 757. It could have been a UAV. [edit on 17-9-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by HowardRoark The height of the tail would have been lower than in your superimposed version, thus the plane was farther and smaller then what you show.

Oh and why is that?

I beleive that quite a lot of it did. In fact just like at the pentagon, the landing gear from one of the planes (don't know which one), a heavy compact mass, was found on a building roof across the street.

I may take your word for it since it is impossible to have read every article about what was found. But a landing gear does not make up " quite a lot of it." Still, I am happy to review whatever is out there and add to what information I have because I have not definitvely taken a position.

From all accounts on the flight training of the pilot, and from statements made by numerous pilots, I do not believe that the aircraft was piloted just mere feet above the ground by an amateur. Which then makes me wonder if it was remotely controlled.

You have obviously never flown an RC plane.

No I have not. Neither have I ever met Usama Bin Laden, does that make me less qualified to digest the information available about same and then speak to whether or not he was responsible for the crimes as charged? I have to rely on pragmatism when it comes to what we are told happened versus the argument for and against, to form an opinion. This is only one of many articles that deepens my scepticism;

A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that, "The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation ( Note I said only) carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. ( but, I especially note the last statement.)

Now perhaps you are some master pilot, I don't know, and don't care really, since you can actually be a pilot school flunkie flying crop dusters while portraying yourself as someone of accomplishment. I give more credence to an identified resource.

The report doubts whether those alleged to be the terrorist perpetraters, supposedly trained on Cessna aircraft, could have located a target 200 miles from take off point with such deadly accuracy or mastered the instrument flight rules in the 45 minutes they were there. "Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order," the article states: "At the press conference at which the panel presented its conclusions, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, said, "Those birds either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvred by remote control." There is a great deal more in this article, including expert testimony that it is now possible to control such airliners from the ground. www.davidcogswell.com...

did you miss the discussion of ground effect on an earlier page?

Why yes I did. Is it irrefutable or mere conjecture? It is also interesting to note that Ms. Rice claimed that there was no way to know that airplanes would be used as missiles, only to discover months later that the very morning of 9/11, the Pentagon had in fact conducted ONE excercise of such an event. Ms. Rice then rescinded her statement. What a short and unflattering memory! I more recently learned they had conducted 5 , that is five such exercises, also on the morning of 9/11. Your government lies! They lied to you with the Bay of Pigs, they lied to you with the Gulf of Tonkin, and they may be lying to you now. You feel free to nod in agreement if you wish, I prefer the intelligent approach...a careful analysis of the information at hand before I form judgement.

Does the Global Hawk or 757 software require that the landing gear be down if it is below some level of altitude? I can't figure out why someone planning to crash a 757 would have the landing gear down. And there are numerous reports of the landing gear being down. Anyone familiar with Global Hawk or 757 software? .

If we think what a terrorist would do to create the greastest amount of damage, they would put the landing grea down so that upon hitting the building it would tear through the building, creating the greastest amount of damge. They also may have thought to leave the landing grear up to turn the flight into a missile. Several had degrees in engineering, I'm sure they thought their plans out quite well. They knew the wings would be the first to be sheared off. Their degrees were on the Masters level. The hijackers were not poor uneducated slobs: www.newsday.com... 11 of the 19 hijackers went to flight school.

impressive article! its good to see someone with the sense to finally backup their story on here with such detail. You laid it all out ... good job man.

Originally posted by daigner9888 its good to see someone with the sense to finally backup their story on here with such detail.

When you say this, are you comparing to other sites? It is your first post, and registered today. Just wondering.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween While I lean to the object as being an aircraft there are some oddities that don't add up for me. CatHerder has done a very good job of compiling the data, yet one of those oddities that I cannot reconcile with is the video of the object in that an aircraft the size of a 757 cannot be so obscured by that 4 or 5 foot high obstruction behind which it flies. That aircraft would have to have been quite a distance beyond the obstruction to appear so small, and especially considering that the depth perception relative to the obstruction itself is not significantly reduced. The picture below is obviously superimposed but it gives an idea why I would expect to see much more of the aircraft.

The problem with this photo is the 757 is completely out of scale. It wouldn't line up on the angle of attack in that position - and it has the nose in front of the aircraft controller tower (for the helipad), and the tail in this photo is 5 times as large as the tail in the background. I urge you to go to the airport and take some photos with a regular elcheapo 35mm camera (something without a zoom lens, similar to what the surveillance camera would have been) of airplanes. If you've ever done so, you'd already know that the photo you thought was a huge aircraft filling your camera lens turns out to be a small plane off in the distance (I've done a few like this much to my chagrin, and so have a couple other here who have related the same expereince to me via U2U's). That's the only problem wtih this example you've shown here - the 757 is not to scale and it's in the wrong position.

there's no way its a manless drone.. obviously anyone who thinks so has never seen the composite material they are made of. It's made of high quality carbon-based material which differs greatly from the traditional aluminum shell of a 757 .. jesus just look at the wreckage photos guys!

CH Do You see something flying over the Pentagon here? Part of the tail?

Originally posted by slank Does the Global Hawk or 757 software require that the landing gear be down if it is below some level of altitude? I can't figure out why someone planning to crash a 757 would have the landing gear down. And there are numerous reports of the landing gear being down. Anyone familiar with Global Hawk or 757 software? .

757 landing gear auto deploys under a certain altitude (this is a safety check to avoid a missed landing procedure check by a potentially fatigued or distracted flight crew). However, the safety system in place also does not allow the landing gear to deploy if the aircraft is going over so many knots (I outlined this in an earlier post - I didn't go back to check the number but I think it's anything over 240knots, I just woke up so bear wtih me and check yourself). This is all factual information - I got it all from Boeing. I have no knowledge of the GlobalHawk's flight computer, and I would assume anything beyond the aircraft's basic flight information (max speed, max altitude, max payload, range, etc) would be classified.

Originally posted by LL1 If we think what a terrorist would do to create the greastest amount of damage, they would put the landing grea down so that upon hitting the building it would tear through the building, creating the greastest amount of damge. They also may have thought to leave the landing grear up to turn the flight into a missile. Several had degrees in engineering, I'm sure they thought their plans out quite well. They knew the wings would be the first to be sheared off. Their degrees were on the Masters level. The hijackers were not poor uneducated slobs: www.newsday.com... 11 of the 19 hijackers went to flight school.

You can't deploy the gear over a certain airspeed - and if you could you would cause damage to the gear and airframe and you would also cause turbulence that would adversely effect the flight characteristcs of the aircraft. I'm sure their only plan was to hit "as fast as possible to cause the most damage". You wouldn't use flaps and gear (which act as airbrakes) to slow down when coming in on a suicide run...

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by CatHerder Does anyone read before replying anymore, or is it just "AH! Here is a thread! I won't read what this guy posted, but I'll tell him what I think anyway."

Dont be a smart ass, there are tons of info on this. The info starts to run together. All you have done is taken info from diffrent places and compiled it.

Well then, since you're so bloody knowledgeable and considering "all I've done" is compiled information from 50 different sources (not to mention talked to Boeing), why don't you create a post with as much supporting evidence to show us why it's NOT a 757. Off the cuff glib remarks don't add any value to the discussion. Get off your ass and prove to me that it was not a plane. One comment here, one comment there does nothing at all to prove or disprove it - all it shows is that you're willing to talk like you know something about something, but at the same time you're unable to back any of it up with facts and effort.

Debris is so minimal here as well. The area of where were wings (jet fuel is carried) seem to have burned the ground more than where the body of the plane was.

Originally posted by LL1 CH Do You see something flying over the Pentagon here? Part of the tail?

Well, from the original unaltered (but still precompressed and lossy) frames of this video (without the added timestamps, without the overexposed first frame) this is what could be in those 1/2 second frames. The most glaringly obvious problem with the above animation which was altered by the french site that produced it is this: The 2nd frame showes a brilliant white explosion that is so strong it literally brightens the roadway in front of the security camera - BUT it does not cast any new shadows from the gate poles or traffic cones. It would have to have caused new shadows - that is proof that the 2nd frame in the above video is altered. The first frame. Now, lets look at the real 2nd frame... You'll notice there is no bright white explosion like is claimed on all the conspiracy sites that rely on the altered 2nd frame. What looks like the tail section of the aircraft being twisted/thrown upwards as the body impacts and penetrates the wall in the 3rd cell of the video (the 2nd frame of the explosion). Nothing significant in the 4th frame other than some small chunks of debris being thrown into the air. And in the final frame, what appears to be a significant portion of the tail being thrown clear of the building. Many reports of the accident site by people who were part of the rescue and cleanup crew say almost all the wreckage recovered outside of the building was thrown to the left of the crash site (which is logical, the crash was an angled blow at 62 degrees) much of it over 1000 feet away. "debris rained down in small chunks for minutes" I had posted this elsewhere, but I suppose I should have posted it here as well. [edit on 18-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by LL1 Debris is so minimal here as well. The area of where were wings (jet fuel is carried) seem to have burned the ground more than where the body of the plane was.

But where are the wings?! The wings are these massive structures!! How can the wings be damaged to the point where you can't recognize the wings?! Go figure.

CH, you have done a wonderful job, I am truly sorry. Spittin

This released footage is so crappy. I wish the owner of the service station hid his surveilance tape before the FBI confiscated it. I wish any and all other tapes, including the ones from cameras inside the Pentagon were available to us. The government has gone from being the public's servants to being the public's masters, and it sucks.