9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Matthew5012 Whats your personal opinion on what happend, without sorses and proof for a minute just what you really think with all that you have looked into. Cheers

I honestly believe that the Pentagon was hit by a passenger jet hijacked by islamist terrorists inspired by the rethoric of Osama bin Laden. I think the Bush administration could have done more to avoid 9/11, like listening to the warnings and advice of Clinton's security staff, but I don't think they planned or in any way actively participated in the attacks. They may have deliberately ignored the warnings, probably mostly out of spite and to distance themselves as much as possible from the Clinton administration, but maybe also in anticipation of an attack that could be used, like Hitler used the Reichtags fire, to increase the power of government and law- and intelligence agencies and as an excuse for military agression in the Middle East. Planning and perpetrating the whole thing from the White House, with everything that could go wrong and expose such a conspiracy, would be far to risky when all they had to do to get an attack on American soil would be to sit back, relax, and wait for the excrement to hit the fan. There's my two cents.

"They may have deliberately ignored the warnings, probably mostly out of spite and to distance themselves as much as possible from the Clinton administration, but maybe also in anticipation of an attack that could be used, like Hitler used the Reichtags fire, to increase the power of government and law- and intelligence agencies and as an excuse for military agression in the Middle East." My thoughts exactly

Originally posted by Duby78 Yes, it takes a some time to prepare a fighter for action. But I know that even Croatian air force has at least a pair of fighters ready to scramble within minutes on 24/7 basis (that was case even before 9/11). Now, Croatia would have fighters ready (shitty Mig-21), and US would not?? I just can't belive that

There were between 14 and 21 that were armed and ready to scramble in the US on 9/11. It's just that none of them were in Washington DC.

Originally posted by Duby78 Yes, it takes a some time to prepare a fighter for action. But I know that even Croatian air force has at least a pair of fighters ready to scramble within minutes on 24/7 basis (that was case even before 9/11). Now, Croatia would have fighters ready (shitty Mig-21), and US would not?? I just can't belive that

You weren't paying attention There WERE scramble fighters, 21 at best for the entire area of USA. But Andrews wasn't scramble base.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 530, or 345, the point is that compressibility wouldn't be a factor for either speed. The speed of sound at sea level is 761 mph. I don't know which is the accurate speed for the plane, but compressibility wouldn't be a factor unless the plane was travelling at a much higher speed than it was possible for it to be travelling at.

Compressablity happens at 500 mph. thats why any aircraft that can fly faster the that has swept wings.. Airliners do not have swept wings.

So you're saying that if you look at a picture of a WWII fighter that had perfectly straight wings, and a modern airliner the wing angle will be exactly the same, since airliners don't have swept wings. Here's a P-51: Here's a 757: Oops! Looks swept to me! ALL jet aircraft use swept wings, because a swept wing lets them fly closer to the speed of sound.

Wing span: 38,05 m. Wing area: 185,24 m². Wing sweep: 25 degrees

www.zap16.com... Oops! Seems it DOES have a sweep to it. [edit on 6/7/2006 by Zaphod58]

For comparison, the Hawker hunter has a top speed of:

Maximum speed: Mach 0.94, 620 knots (715 mph, 1,150 km/h) at sea level

And that's not when you're screamign the hell out of it on a suicide mission with no regards to safety. It's wing sweep is:

The mid-mounted wings have a leading edge sweep of 35 degrees

Only 10 degrees more than the 757. For what it's worth...

Taking an hour to get a plane ready for launch is BS. When I was in the Navy we could pull a plane out of the hanger and launch it in under 20 minutes without even rushing. Why is it on many other ocasions of planes not responding or flying in no-fly areas do they manage to intercept them within minutes? Do you really think the closest base to DC wouldn't have planes ready to scramble? The most secure city in the nation wasn't prepared to protect itself, I find that hard to believe.

So you're telling me that you could load the weapons onto trailers, pull the trailers out of the bunkers, drag them across the flightline, mount them on the planes, fuel them, and have them ready to go in 20 minutes? Man I'm so impressed! I dare you to go up to the Wing Commander at Andrews that said it would have taken an hour or more to arm them and launch them and call him a liar to his face.

You do know we don't have to drag things anymore?...LOL We use tow tractors and trailers, it takes 2 mins to drag stuff from the 'bunkers'. All proceses are carried out by different crews, the fuelers would be fueling while the ordanance guys load weopons. Aircrew would be doing their walkaround. Actualy the USAF probably take 4 time as long as the Navy could do it just because of the anal ways they do things But to answer your question, it can be done, and yes I would call the air force dude a liar to his face. I don't fear authority as you seem to.... Damn, aboard ship we would have 15 mins from when the plane landed to taxi to a safe spot, pin the ejection seats, re-fuel, re-oil, re-arm, do a turn-around inspection, change crew, and re-launch! If the airforce takes an hour to launch a plane on land then they need to re-avaluate there work methods. [edit on 7/6/2006 by ANOK]

Why is it on many other ocasions of planes not responding or flying in no-fly areas do they manage to intercept them within minutes?

Which incidents, the ones that are post 9-11? I suppose 9-11 has a little to do with the quick interceptions of the past 5 years.

I'm well aware of tugs btw. I've seen the best teams in the USAF loading planes, and even with the weapons AT the plane, it took them 30 minutes, then another 30 to align the nav systems and finish preflight checks and you're at your hour. Unlike a CVN where the weapons are easier to get up to the planes, it DOES take longer for the USAF to load weapons. And I didn't say to tell him to his face, because I'm afraid of authority. I RESPECT him for being such a high rank, I'd just love to see the reaction of someone of the internet coming up to his face and telling him that he's lying about something like that. [edit on 6/7/2006 by Zaphod58]

Whatever Zaphod You watched, I actualy did it for 2 years working on the flightline as a 'plane captain' (USAF equiv. 'crew chief'). The hour they quote is proably what their maintenance books say, not what they could realy do if they needed to.

Yeah, you say you did it, and I didn't. That doesn't change the fact that many people that KNOW have said it would have taken then an hour to preflight, load, and get the planes ready, or even longer in some cases. I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.

What you mean ppl who have a reason to support the official story? Ppl who have a reason to exegerate the truth to protect their government? It's funny, but if my post said 'yes it used to take us at least an hour', you would believe me then wouldn't you? You only believe what you want to hear... [edit on 7/6/2006 by ANOK]

People that I've talked to long before 9/11, books that I've read, well before 9/11. I'm taking ONE quote from the wing commander post 9/11, and adding it to MANY quotes PRE 9/11 and oddly enough, they say the same thing.

I doubt say our Gripens would be ready to action much under an hour as well (except, obviously, those two that are at the scramble duty) and they are made with emphasis on easy handling - they can be refuelled and rearmed in 10 minutes by seven people (theoretically) but flight prep. from the "cold" state would take much longer.

OK tuccy why don't you explain to us why it would 'take much longer'? I'd love to know the details of what you think is involved in launching a fighter jet.

Originally posted by ANOK You only believe what you want to hear...

And that's the crux of the whole problem, isn't it? People in general know a lot about one thing and very little about everything else. It takes a truly open mind to do the research and say "okay, that might be right and it might not" and then do more research to really find out. Sadly, I'm finding the beliefs come before the research for a lot of people. That's why, regardless of any evidence put forward, those who have made up their minds are not going to change them unless they are open to the truth and prepared to accept it. I might be wrong with what I feel I've proven but I know that if I had incontrovertible evidence to show that, I'd have to change my stance. That's what being open minded is all about.

Very true Aotearoa. Hate to go off on a tangent but what you believe you percieve. If you believe story A then you'll most likely only hear or want to hear evidence that supports that story. If you believe story B then vice versa I suppose. My switch away from being an official story believer coincided with my new outlook and understanding of the nature of reality.