9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by vandalizor If this is some "custom" job from the military, that involves yet more people that have to be kept quiet in what is already largest conspiracy ever heard of. The conspiracy theories make too many assumptions for my liking. Not the least of which is the assumption that the hundred (if not hundreds) or so military people, FBI agents, and CIA agents (well maybe they would do it) would just abandon their oath and keep quiet about the whole thing while their leaders perpetrated mass murder on the people they have sworn to protect? Sorry, I don't buy it, no way. You may get some to go along with it on some fairy tale of the "greater good", but no way they all go along with it.

And why would everyone involved need to know what the big picture was? Does the top brass inform people all the way down and in between of what it is that they are doing, why and how? Do the dozens or hundreds need to even know anything beyond their own small part in it? I'm not saying it was a conspiracy. I'm just saying that a lot of it doesn't add up. Add to that the fact that the gov't has been behaving most suspiciously, and there you go.

Originally posted by Gerion That is a very good point. Another point is this question: Why use something different than the boeing in question, if you have get rid of the planeand kill the passengers anyway. Also the risk of having identifyable debris from a Global Hawk, a missile or anything else would be very, very high - even after an explosion Same goes for the planes that hit WTC. Once there is a time difference between the hits, the chances are very high, that this city has literally hundreds of cameras pointing at these buildings. What if somebody would take a shot good enough to reveal a military plane? If I had to layout such an attack, I would never take that chance! The problem with any kind of other plane like a Global Hawk, is the fact that even from a different plane the inside and outside debris would be missing. I hope I am not repeating something that has already been said, because I only read the first 30 pages and the last 10. I found the documentary by Dave von Kleist on the Web, and actually these questions were the first I came up with. Why would they make it even more difficult than it already is, when they could have it the easy way?

Good questions. However, if you read the declassified papers of "Operation Northwoods" you can see how they thought out much of what you ask, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff's hand signatures all over it.

Originally posted by Aris Good questions. However, if you read the declassified papers of "Operation Northwoods" you can see how they thought out much of what you ask, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff's hand signatures all over it.

Operation Northwoods is definitely a remarkable piece of paper in american history but the fact that it was declassified by the "freedom of information act" in 1997/98 makes it absolutely uneligible as a template for these events. It would be like leaving fingerprints and a written confession at a crime scene. It sounds just too easy to me.

Originally posted by Aris "'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. "Marine Corps officer Mike Dobbs was standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building. "It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion," he said later Tuesday. "I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running. They evacuated everybody around us." "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?... There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that isn't going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to see footage of the crash. I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there's this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, but I don't think that's going to happen." "The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building." - Ford, Ken "The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said." snip, you get the point

These quotes are pretty much my point. You can look at them collectively and you can see that the general consensus is a aircraft of commercial design struck the Pentagon. How many people know a 737 from a 747 from a 757 from DC9 from an L1011, etc... I could tell some, but certainly not all. How many of the people that know the differences can distinguish them in the momentary glimpse they are presented as it is moving at 500MPH? How many of the people that now the differences and could tell them from a glimpse of the aircraft moving at 500MPH, were actually present, in eyewitness range of the pentagon on 9/11 @ approx 9:30? I don't discount the eyewitness reports all together, but they are not ironclad proof of anything other than what struck the pentagon was most likely a commercial passenger type aircraft. Sure there is one guy at the beginning that says "it was like a cruise missile with wings", well cruise missiles have wings big guy... Tells me he probably wouldn't know a cruise missile if there was one on his front lawn and I would be suprised if there was more to that qoute, like "Yeah, it was an aircraft flying so low it was like a cruise missile with wings..." People tend to twist quotes to only present what supports their case and tend to omit what doesn't. As far as underlings not needing to know the big picture, well that does happen sometimes, but the minute this stuff hit the news wire, I think it is highly likely they would probably have put 2 and 2 together, at least more than a few of them. [edit on 25-5-2006 by vandalizor] [edit on 25-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 One engine never hit the building. Eyewitnesses saw (IIRC) the starbord engine hit the generator, spin it, and come off the wing and explode. And what I said was the INTERIOR was drywall, and the inner ring wall was standard masonry and not reinforced. However according to this page all the inner walls are standard masonry.

"A great deal of thought has been given to protecting the Pentagon from fire. Its steel-reinforced concrete construction makes it a fire resistant building. In addition, the main interior walls above the basement level are of masonry. The basement, where the maintenance shops, garage and storage rooms are located, is divided into fire areas by reinforced concrete firewalls with double, automatic firedoors. Transformer vaults and machine rooms throughout the building are protected by masonry walls and firedoors.

www.greatbuildings.com... Masonry wouldn't stand up NEARLY as well as the reinforced outer wall. The outer wall was designed to withstand the impact of a massive truck bomb, almost touching the wall when it goes off,without collapsing. Which is why you DON'T have the huge collapse you're insisting on from the 757.

I beleive that when they talk about the "main" interior walls, they are taling about the walls that divide the building up into the five wedges. The typical method of construction of interior masonry walls for the period that the buidling was built was to use hollow clay tiles and to cover them directly with with plaster. While these were not as fragile as a modern drywall partition, you can still knock a hole in one with a few swings of a sledge hammer. All of the wedge 1 interior partitions were gutted out in the renovation project. so this area would have been rebuilt with drywall partitions. As you can see the debris hit a portion of wedge 2 before it exited out into the A-E drive. This portion of the building still had some of the original tile and plaster or wire lath and plaster walls.

Originally posted by Aris I'm not saying it was a conspiracy. I'm just saying that a lot of it doesn't add up. Add to that the fact that the gov't has been behaving most suspiciously, and there you go.

But you pretty much are. If it wasn't AA Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, then the US government has conspired to commit the most heinous mass-murder in American history and/or they have conspired to coverup what really happened. Either way it's a conspiracy. [edit on 25-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Originally posted by Aris So much for "the only eyewitnesses that report "seeing" anything, claim to have seen an American Airlines jet". I wish you guys would get your facts straight because this was the easiest part to research, from years ago.

Right, my bad, I meant a commercial passenger jet.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Cade I can't belive the fuselage could penetrate rings A, B & C while at the same time the engines weighing about 6 tons each hardly dent the A ring.

Elaborate on this please.

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that there is a hole through rings A,B and C. Yet there is no hole from any engines. One theory is that the building smashed the plane into tiny pieces. Another theory (the official) is that most of the wreckage is inside the building. How could the fuselage penetrate 3 rings while the engines don't make a hole in the first ring? How could most of the wreckage be inside the building through that narrow hole? I don't buy it, but every one is free to have their own opinion, I'm just a whole lot more skeptical on the governments story here, sorry. Sincerely Cade

Originally posted by vandalizor

Originally posted by Aris I'm not saying it was a conspiracy. I'm just saying that a lot of it doesn't add up. Add to that the fact that the gov't has been behaving most suspiciously, and there you go.

But you pretty much are. If it wasn't AA Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, then the US government has conspired to commit the most heinous mass-murder in American history and/or they have conspired to coverup what really happened. Either way it's a conspiracy. [edit on 25-5-2006 by vandalizor]

I agree with you on this one Vandalizor. When some people say they don't believe in conspiracies, they simply don't understand what the word means. Everybody believes in conspiracies, it's just a matter of WHICH conspiracy they believe in. The one told by the government, used to take away civil liberties (around the globe actually) or the one put forward by the skeptics, who are not allowed airtime on the mainstream media (which makes some people stop and wonder, while others...don't) Sincerely Cade

Originally posted by Cade I'm sure you are aware of the fact that there is a hole through rings A,B and C. Yet there is no hole from any engines.

Perhaps you missed the post from dansker with this drawing: Once the plane penetrated the exterior wall, the only walls the debris would have hit would have been interior partitions until it exited to the A-E drive. Please get this straight. I am tired of trying to explain this over and over again. The plane did not go in and out of three rings.

How could the fuselage penetrate 3 rings while the engines don't make a hole in the first ring?

Not three rings, one large office space with drywall partitions.

Now i dont want to be the one whose starts up another argument or something but I think that this is real crazy that in this photo the so called spot where the plane hit that a no parking sign is still there and basically clean of any dirt or anything what do you have to say about that

that's hilarious, howard. the four walls that are not exterior walls, in your diagram, are held up by DRYWALL and office furniture? hee hee. and once again, the unanswered question; what happened to the forward momentum of the object that made the 'punchout hole'? how did it punch through so cleanly, and then just disappear without even touching the next wall?!?

Originally posted by Mrknighttime32 Now i dont want to be the one whose starts up another argument or something but I think that this is real crazy that in this photo the so called spot where the plane hit that a no parking sign is still there and basically clean of any dirt or anything what do you have to say about that

That's the exit hole into the A-E driveway

Originally posted by billybob that's hilarious, howard. the four walls that are not exterior walls, in your diagram, are held up by DRYWALL and office furniture? hee hee.

No Billybob, don't go stirring up trouble by trying to put words into my mouth. don't be confusing columns with walls. I never said that there were no concrete columns in the debris path, just no concrete walls.

and once again, the unanswered question; what happened to the forward momentum of the object that made the 'punchout hole'? how did it punch through so cleanly, and then just disappear without even touching the next wall?!?

I believe that everything is laying there in the pile of debris out side the hole. As for the nice clean sides of the hole? The next time you talk to a bricklayer ask him to explain control joints to you. [edit on 25-5-2006 by HowardRoark] [edit on 25-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by billybob that's hilarious, howard. the four walls that are not exterior walls, in your diagram, are held up by DRYWALL and office furniture? hee hee.

what do you think the pillars shown an all the ploor plans of pentagon crash site were for ??? incase the question is too dificult for you -- they support a series of lintels , on which upper walls are built this is such a common biluding technique to creat space in lower levers , it beggars belief that it actually has to be explained

Originally posted by Aris So, the supposed 757's aluminum fuselage punched through the first reinforced concrete wall, only leaving a cookie cutter impression, and then went on to punch through five more masonry walls.......

Aluminium, passengers, seats, floor, luggage, cargo and several tons of fuel. And i'm guessing the internal walls are not as solid as the external ones. It only punched through one exterior masonry wall.

By the way, reinforced concrete walls such as the Pentagon's are reinforced with steel. What this does is it spreads the impact to the rest of the wall, thus making the wall less prone to getting punched through. You do understand this basic fact? So, when a reinforced with steel, concrete wall does get compromised to the point of getting punched through, the wall will cave in beyond the impact point.

The outer wall in this case had also been reinforced with kevlar that keeps fractured parts beyond the immidiate impact area in place, and prevents the wall from caving in. At least for a while... [edit on 25-5-2006 by Dansker]

Originally posted by Cade How could most of the wreckage be inside the building through that narrow hole?

Here's a close up of the hole in the outer wall before the building collapsed. I've circled the approximate outline of the fuselage impact area, but as you can see, the hole spreads to the left and right and is not exactly narrow. This article does a pretty good job of documenting and describing the damage: anderson.ath.cx:8000... Here's a couple of pictures I stole there:

Here is an article written by someone who is pretty much on the same page as me with regard to why there is no way our government would try an pull something like this. Does it disprove anything, no. But it is funny to read something written by someone who sees the same thing as me. Here is another article that pretty much outlines why a 9/11 conspiracy by our government is implausable. Again, it doesn't prove or disprove a conspiracy, but merely shows how illogical and disproportionately dangerous (risk vs. gains) it would be for our government to have had any involvement on any level in this. Other than of course perhaps gross negligence and criminal incompetence in protecting some 3000 Americans. It brings up points I have listed already as to why the pieces don't logically fit, and a few more I haven't brought up. Obviously I have been doing some reading on the subject...('') Never a bad thing.... [edit on 25-5-2006 by vandalizor] [edit on 25-5-2006 by vandalizor] [edit on 25-5-2006 by vandalizor] [edit on 25-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Originally posted by ANOK Pls show evidence of this, you have a habit of making claims without anything to back them up...

If you missed the countless and numerous images and photographs posted throughout this thread, showing these parts,then that is not my problem. Why must I repost images that have already been posted? Im not the lazy one.

I would love to see the rotor blades you talk about specificaly...And these many other engine parts you claim were found.

Posted within this thread. dont be a lazy couch potato. Search this thread.

Please provide your studies, as well as your evidence of your investigation while on scene at hte pentagon following the crash.

How about you do the same

dont have to since Im neither. I go by the evidence, many of which has been posted within this thread.

One thing I do know a little about is jet engines having been a jet mechanic in the military...

But appraently you know nothing about plane crashes.

Originally posted by Gerion Operation Northwoods is definitely a remarkable piece of paper in american history but the fact that it was declassified by the "freedom of information act" in 1997/98 makes it absolutely uneligible as a template for these events. It would be like leaving fingerprints and a written confession at a crime scene. It sounds just too easy to me.

No one said it would be the exact same as Operation Northwoods. In fact, since decades have passed since then and technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, it would enable conspirators to make much more intricate plots that are much more difficult to expose by the general public.

Originally posted by vandalizor

Originally posted by Aris I'm not saying it was a conspiracy. I'm just saying that a lot of it doesn't add up. Add to that the fact that the gov't has been behaving most suspiciously, and there you go.

But you pretty much are. If it wasn't AA Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, then the US government has conspired to commit the most heinous mass-murder in American history and/or they have conspired to coverup what really happened. Either way it's a conspiracy. [edit on 25-5-2006 by vandalizor]

OK, let me parse my language so I can be completely accurate: I'm not saying it was a conspiracy where the gov't enabled or allowed 9/11 to happen. I'm just saying that a lot of it doesn't add up. Add to that the fact that the gov't has been behaving most suspiciously, and there you go.