9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by blatantblue mouth, you should really look into the loose change readers guide. then youll be able to retract your retracting.

there are valid points made by Ct's, but don't take everything they put out as Gospel. i used to, and BOY what a mistake that was

[edit on 2-6-2006 by blatantblue]

what points did you find inaccurate in LC or in general? Remember, not all CT'ers think alike.

well im not going to list them all out, itd take up a lot of space and pages on this thread but i find the squibs to be a valid concern, i find united 93 concerns and questions to be pretty valid a lot of things listed on places like www.911myths.com that website really addresses a lot of the claims made, some well, some not. really the only thing i can find a lack of explanation to are those squibs. but in light of everything else ive seen, its not enough to change my mind, but it is enough to alert me to the fact theres more than we know. thanks, later [edit on 2-6-2006 by blatantblue]

"UMM no apologies at all. First off, where did they get this information? They did not give sources themselves. Oh, OK. So, we have to take what the media says as face value?? Even so, the airport a few miles away from the pentagon would notice a "UFO" about to hit the pentagon." 911 timeline for flight 77, Source: www.nogw.com... 8:56 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 transponder signal stops. 8:56 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 goes off course and starts making a 180 degree turn over southern Ohio / northeastern Kentucky. 9:05 a.m.: West Virginia flight control notices a new eastbound plane entering their radar with no radio contact and no transponder identification. They are not sure it is American Airlines Flight 77. Supposedly they wait another 19 minutes before notifying NORAD about it. 9:24 a.m.: The FAA notifies NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 has been hijacked. The FAA lost contact with American Airlines Flight 77 when the transponder signal stops at 8:55 a.m. -- Why does it take 29 minutes for the FAA to tell NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 has been hijacked? 9:33 a.m.: According to The New York Times, American Airlines Flight 77 was lost at 8:56 when it turned off its transponder, and stayed lost until now. Washington air traffic control sees a fast moving blip on their radar at this time and sends a warning to Dulles Airport in Washington. Is it conceivable that an airplane could be lost inside United States air space for 37 minutes? One doesn't need a transponder signal to get a radar signal. If this is true, why did the FAA warn that the plane was headed towards Washington at 9:24? 9:36 a.m.: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport instructs a military C130 aircraft that had just departed Andrews Air Force base to try to identify American Airlines Flight 77. The C130 reports it is a 767 and it is moving low and very fast. The C-130 reports a 767 but not known if it is flight 77 since it was lost on radar.

Wow so the wings were torn off at the generators? That must mean it happend... after all they did find the wings there... oh wait! they didnt... where did the wings go after being torn off by the generators? And that would mean it ewoudl have skidded into the building... but it didnt because there was not skid marks

Present all the "so called" evidence that you want!

Originally posted by diggs Some who "saw" the plane couldn't hear it???

Not that. No one describe "hearing" the loud screeching noise. I've lived near the airport in Atlanta and I can tell you that it's pretty loud thousands of feet in the air, and I'm just talking from inside the house. Outside, you can't even hear yourself talk

I especially like the witnesses who said they saw "people's faces" in the windows! So much for witnesses.

Right. Come on, talking about "over-exaggerating". And then with "500 MPH" moving object. Sure.

Another odd witness account:

"I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low," Captain Liebner says the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck.

Helicopter? And the plane didn't even hit the helipad! And remember the 1st reports where that a helicopter struck the building. So much for eyewitness accounts. And my all time favorite one:

''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.

www.pentagonresearch.com... Let's discuss any subject regarding those 2 new released DoD Pentagon security gate camera videos, together with the contemplations of Russell Pickering from his Pentagon Research website as a good base to start off with. And please read www.pentagonresearch.com... and www.pentagonresearch.com... also, before posting your views on the subject. One of the interesting conclusions of Russell is his 1 frame per second assumption of these 2 DoD videos. Do us all a favour, and use these DoD links, and no outside links which could have been altered or enhanced, to discuss the 2 videos : www.defenselink.mil... Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff FOIA Requester Service Center May. 28, 2006 Videos of American Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 : Video 1 (WMV) pserver.mii.instacontent.net... Video 2 (WMV) pserver.mii.instacontent.net...

Originally posted by ANOK Guys the hole was only 18 foot in diameter, where is this 2 and 3 stories comming from! The hole stopped at the top of the GROUND floor, start of the 1st floor...This has been shown over and over again.

Repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make it true. The image you keep showing is of the second level of the Pentagon. What you think is the ground, is actually the spray from firefighters obscuring the more than 100 foot wide breach and the uprooted columns at ground level. Please see the pictures I posted on pages 152 and 154 of this thread. I don't want to waste bandwidth on posting them again.

No way IMO could a 757 hit that low without hitting the ground first. Especialy if we are supposed to believe that blury object in the pentagoon video is a 757.

According to witnesses the right wing and engine took out a fence and knocked a big diesel transformer askew. The left engine hit a low wall between the helipad and the Pentagon. [edit on 4-6-2006 by Dansker]

Not to mention the cabin of the aircraft is only 12' 4" in diameter (that's smaller than 18' isn't it?) and you can't compare the damage sustained from a 178' tube piledriving into a confined space at around 400mph with a flimsier wing which ranges from a few feet at the tip to what, just over a dozen or so nearer at the base?

"When you hear hoofbeats in the night, think first of horses, not of zebras" The above is the basic principle I follow. I'm not American, I don't live in the Northern Hemisphere. I started researching this after participating in a thread about Flight 93 on another forum. Eventually I ended up here after researching a lot of sites on Flight 77 and the "No Boeing" theory. I'm not a Physicist but I've studied aircraft crashes and also forensics for about 20 years (yes, through books and on the net). I have some comments that I'd like to add to this ongoing saga. First of all, although this is my first post here, I've read every single page of this thread - it's taken me about 26 hours to do so. Body identification in aircraft crashes is not just a matter of DNA. There are hundreds of branches of the forensic sciences and they all come together where necessary. In a severe aircraft crash/burn, there is obviously going to be, in some cases, little left to identify - but teeth, dentures, dental plates and bone are rarely destroyed. Also, quite often, body parts are thrown from the wreckage and are relatively intact. Some are protected by other debris in the ensuing fire. A lot of identification is done by forensic dentistry and bone specialists. Secondly, no two aircraft crashes are the same. Now unless you actually run a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon again, you're not going to be able to repeat the crash dynamics, plus, to some degree, you're going to get different results. Both the black boxes, the CVR and the FDR were recovered from the Pentagon crash, taken to the NTSB, their data extracted and that data was handed to the FBI. who are handling the investigation. Note: There was data. Rarely, if ever, is that data released to the public, unless it's in transcript form on the NTSB site. As far as I'm aware, it's not admissible in a court of law. All right, the crummy video that was released (which I only found recently). I can identify a tail fin in the first (?) frame. To me, it fits the profile of a B757 - it's too tall to be from a smaller craft. Within the fireball, I can also see that tail, appearing to impact and then be thrown backwards, away from the wall. I can also see large pieces of wreckage being thrown in all directions by the impact/explosion, some towards the centre sections of the Pentagon. That's it. That's all I can honestly say I saw. I can't verify an aircraft shape at all. I've watched that video (both versions) about 50 times now. To answer those who are questioning tail damage on the face of the Pentagon, I did find a photo somewhere but right now I can't remember where. I'll need to do some backtracking to find it. For those who don't see wreckage, try looking at page one. My eyesight isn't brilliant but I can see wreckage. It may not be the size you want it to be but aircraft aren't like that. They don't split up into huge chunks just so you can identify them. Very often, your wreckage is the size of confetti. Sorry, that's just how it is. I'm mildly surprised the airline and NTSB's "Go Teams" didn't attend this crash, as they did attend Flight 93's crash site, but as this was almost immediately placed in the hands of the FBI, I'm assuming they blocked access. That's a shame as the Go Teams have the most experience and would have been more aware of what they were looking at. Oh yes, remote control from the ground. This one I researched a while ago, while posting in the thread on another site. As far as I can ascertain, the American commercial airliners did not have the technology to even autoland at that stage (well, some did but very few). They were upgraded at a later date. So, really, I doubt that a commerical airliner would have had the technology in 2001 for remote control from the ground. And yes, I find from all my reading that American Airlines Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon.

Playing devil's advocate, there was a drama/documentary about Flight '93 (can't remember what it was called) and the husband of Sandy Bradshaw was interviewed on it, he used to be an airline pilot himself. I distinctly remember him saying words to the effect of "And I told her if they could take back control of the cockpit I could tell her how to program the computer so the plane could land itself' which implies to me that he at least thought it may have auto-land capability.

That's actually the argument I used on the other forum, only I got shot down in flames (no pun intended). So I went researching and found nothing to substantiate autoland in 2001. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, I don't know. I figured ATC and a pilot on the ground would be able to talk them down if autoland was a possibility but I was told flat out "No, they didn't have it then". Edited to add: Ooops, off topic. [edit on 4-6-2006 by Aotearoa]

Originally posted by Dansker According to witnesses the right wing and engine took out a fence and knocked a big diesel transformer askew. The left engine hit a low wall between the helipad and the Pentagon.

I don't see where the left engine countinued hitting the ground after striking the small wall there. I doubt it would bounce up after hitting that 2ft wall going 530mph.

Originally posted by diggs I don't see where the left engine countinued hitting the ground after striking the small wall there. I doubt it would bounce up after hitting that 2ft wall going 530mph.

According to one eyewitness quoted a few pages back in this thread (I'm too lazy to find it right now), the left engine exploded or disintegrated on impact with the wall. Even if it didn't, I don't see why it should hit the ground during the few fractions of a second between striking the wall and crashing into the Pentagon.

911research.wtc7.net... Tail scoring on the limestone facade on the fourth floor. I'm unsure when the photo was taken, ie before the collapse or after it. It's hard to tell from the photo. It's the top floor, anyway. I find that consistent with the tail breaking away on impact and flying free to impact the wall and rebound. No, I don't know where it ended up or what happened to it. With regard to the pilot. The "alleged" pilot was Hani Hanjour. No one knows for certain. No one knows who piloted that aircraft. While you have American knowledge of his "alleged" flight skills, do you have any idea of any other training he may have received in other countries? What's to stop him (or anyone else) from throwing up a smokescreen and making himself look a worse pilot than he actually is/was. The other thing I wanted to mention is that autopsy list that was supplied to a psychiatrist. It's the worst cut and paste job I've ever seen. (and I've seen a few). Also, the list of flights listed as taking off on the morning of 9/11. I have no intention of trying to find the post in 160 pages of the thread. I'm sure most people are aware that the same flight number is used over and over again but different aircraft run those flights, depending on various factors. Okay, I grant that someone said the list had been changed since 9/11. The odd thing is that both United flights were confirmed taking off with the correct tail numbers, AA77 was not confirmed to take off at all and AA11 took off with the wrong tail number listed. Just something I throw in for discussion. Yes, the departure board could have been wrong or another aircraft substituted at the last minute due to mechanical faults with the one listed.

Originally posted by Aotearoa I'm unsure when the photo was taken, ie before the collapse or after it. It's hard to tell from the photo.

After the collapse.

With regard to the pilot. The "alleged" pilot was Hani Hanjour. No one knows for certain. No one knows who piloted that aircraft. While you have American knowledge of his "alleged" flight skills, do you have any idea of any other training he may have received in other countries? What's to stop him (or anyone else) from throwing up a smokescreen and making himself look a worse pilot than he actually is/was.

AFAIK the hardest pat, most evaluated in the training is the landing. While he didn't have any interest in training how to land...

Originally posted by Aotearoa 911research.wtc7.net...

That is definitely not a tail print! If it was, the vertical tail would have made the same imprint on the 3rd story.

I find that consistent with the tail breaking away on impact and flying free to impact the wall and rebound. No, I don't know where it ended up or what happened to it.

Well it's pretty important, tails just don't disappear.

With regard to the pilot. The "alleged" pilot was Hani Hanjour. No one knows for certain. No one knows who piloted that aircraft. While you have American knowledge of his "alleged" flight skills, do you have any idea of any other training he may have received in other countries? What's to stop him (or anyone else) from throwing up a smokescreen and making himself look a worse pilot than he actually is/was.

Why would he care to put of a smokescreen? That doesn't make sense to me. I'll take the words of his many flight instructors who said he sucked.

Originally posted by Dansker

Originally posted by diggs I don't see where the left engine countinued hitting the ground after striking the small wall there. I doubt it would bounce up after hitting that 2ft wall going 530mph.

According to one eyewitness quoted a few pages back in this thread (I'm too lazy to find it right now), the left engine exploded or disintegrated on impact with the wall. Even if it didn't, I don't see why it should hit the ground during the few fractions of a second between striking the wall and crashing into the Pentagon.

How could the witness notice that when it went 530mph? These witnesses there sure had some killer eyesight! The plane should have been going down at an angle, so if the left engine hit a 2ft wall at that velocity, well do the math.

Originally posted by diggs How could the witness notice that when it went 530mph? These witnesses there sure had some killer eyesight!

It not hard to notice when it practically happens right in front of you. Here's the quote, posted by Zaphod58 bout a week ago:

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Here's another good quote for you.

Frank Probst : a Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer, he was inspecting newly installed telecommunications wiring inside the five-story, 6.5-million-square-foot building.The tall, soft-spoken Probst had a 10 a.m. meeting. About 9:25 a.m., he stopped by the renovation workers' trailer just south of the Pentagon heliport. Someone had a television turned on in the trailer's break room that showed smoke pouring out of the twin towers in New York. "The Pentagon would make a pretty good target," someone in the break room commented. The thought stuck with Probst as he picked up his notebook and walked to the North Parking Lot to attend his meeting. Probst took a sidewalk alongside Route 27, which runs near the Pentagon's western face. Traffic was at a standstill because of a road accident. Then, at about 9:35 a.m., he saw the airliner in the cloudless September sky. American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon. He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze. "I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, 'Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'" He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away. The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart. He still can't remember the sound of the explosion. Sometimes the memory starts to come back when he hears a particularly low-flying airliner heading into nearby Reagan National Airport, or when military jets fly over a burial at Arlington National Cemetery. Most of the time, though, his memory is silent. "It was pretty horrible," he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust, and bits of metal and concrete drifting down like confetti. On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away. www.militarycity.com...

911research.wtc7.net...

The plane should have been going down at an angle, so if the left engine hit a 2ft wall at that velocity, well do the math.

All I've seen describes the plane as travelling parallel to the ground right before it struck the Pentagon. Where did you hear that it was going down at an angle?