9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

The C-130 at the Pentagon and Flight 93 WAS the same plane. Both were just along the flight path for it. A jammer? Or that Flight 93 caused an overload when it crashed, or when it was flying low and they had a power flicker. My fathers work used to have that all the time because they were on the final approach path. A plane would come in super low occasionally and the lights would flicker. They finally put protection on the wires because a plane did that and the wires hit and blew out the transformer.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 The C-130 at the Pentagon and Flight 93 WAS the same plane. Both were just along the flight path for it.

Yes i know it was the same C-130, just strange that both it and the small jet were seen both places together. Well i know a jammer will cause lights to flicker. On our RF-4's we had to tow them out of the hanger to work on jammers. The UHF radios could blow out the lights too.

Why is it strange? The two crashes were relatively far apart time wise (by far I mean far enough for a turboprop to get from one to the other), and were along the flightpath it had to take to get home. So why is it strange that it overflew both crashes?

Originally posted by LaBTop That would explain the strange nicely executed circling down to the most uninteresting part of the Pentagon.

Just a side note, maybe most uninteresting for you, but most interesting for any suicide pilot as it was the only side where there weren't buildings in front of the Pentagon. As for the autopilot, my bet is it was used to get to D.C., but that turn joined with a dive was already under manual control.

If it was a terrorist pilot intent on doing EXTREME damage, why would you come in on ONE side? Why not bring it down on top, or atleast descent INTO the pentagon. Why come in on the SIDE knowing how Reinforced it is? Surely impacting into the roof would of brought about more damage than coming in on one side?

Originally posted by tuccy Not every angle around but every angle inside - that's the difference. The cameras were set up to guard top-secret departments, safes and so on. The only two external threats perceived as real prior to 0911 were truckbomb and nuke missile. For a truckbomb a camera with 2fps speed is enough and for nuke anything is useless.

Really? No perceived threat prior to 9/11 worthy of multiple external video cameras and security measures? How about Pentagon MASCAL, which took place almost a full year prior to 9/11? Was this a simualtion to see how the various government agencies would respond to 9/11? --- Oct. 24, 2000 "There was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents. Police and fire department personnel contemplate responses during the MASCAL drill. A plane crash is simulated inside the cardboard courtyard of a surprisingly realistic-looking model Pentagon. www.ratical.org... [edit on 21-7-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop If it was a terrorist pilot intent on doing EXTREME damage, why would you come in on ONE side? Why not bring it down on top, or atleast descent INTO the pentagon. Why come in on the SIDE knowing how Reinforced it is? Surely impacting into the roof would of brought about more damage than coming in on one side?

At the time it WASN'T known how reinforced it was. It's much harder to hit a target in a plane that's diving than it is to fly a relatively flat trajectory. That's why if you watch a lot of old Kamikaze videos, you'll see a LOT of them flying in low above the water. It made them harder to hit, and made it much easier to hit their target. When you're diving straight down the wind and other forces affect the plane a lot more.

At the time it wasnt known how reinforced it was? Would that really matter though? Id asume collapsing DOWN on a structure would cause more chance of collapse in a wider spread area, than hitting a reinforced wall side on. And these pilots managed to fly that low, that fast into a wall, yet cant nose dive a plane into a larger target? Why couldnt they fly the plane horizontally like they did, only ABOVE the pentagon, then as soon as it was in range, just slam it down.

I didn't say they COULDN'T have done it, but that it would have been much harder, and there would have been more chance of missing. It takes a lot more control to dive a plane onto a target. I was just commenting on your quote about them slamming into the known reinforced side. At the time people knew there was work being done but not exactly what.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop At the time it wasnt known how reinforced it was? Would that really matter though? Id asume collapsing DOWN on a structure would cause more chance of collapse in a wider spread area, than hitting a reinforced wall side on.

Originally posted by Zaphod58I was just commenting on your quote about them slamming into the known reinforced side. At the time people knew there was work being done but not exactly what.

By making sure that the supposed plane slammed into the reinforced side of the pentagon, they would in essense be making sure that most of the physical evidence was destroyed in the impact. [edit on 21-7-2006 by In nothing we trust]

But supposidly these guys didnt care about evidence. We are made to believe about passports, training books, receipts and so forth. why would they want to destroy the evidence IN this case?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop But supposidly these guys didnt care about evidence. We are made to believe about passports, training books, receipts and so forth. why would they want to destroy the evidence IN this case?

Hitler World Trade Centers [edit on 21-7-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Intersting opportune pictures. but what do they have to do with the thread at hand?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop Intersting opportune pictures. but what do they have to do with the thread at hand?

Everything April 7, 1934 Several thousand Americans attend a pro-Nazi rally in Queens. New York. --- coup d'état (kooh day-tah) A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power. Coup d'état is French for “stroke of the state” or “blow to the government.” [edit on 21-7-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Even if they had crashed into the NON-REINFORCED side of the Pentagon (which would have been much harder as there were buildings all around there except the one side) the plane would have blown apart, and there would have been very little of it left.

Granted, but Alqaeda we believe make attacks for hte MOST POSSIBLE destruction. BIG outrageous attacks. I imagine spewing jet fuel as well as the plane over a major chunk of the centre section would of been better than hitting the side. Im a hands up for NO ALQAEDA DRIVEN plane into the pentagon.

Maybe, but flying it into the side GUARANTEED a hit, where diving into the top didn't. It makes more sense to MAKE SURE you're going to hit your target than to risk not hitting it.

But wouldnt flight 93 of taken that? Risk the passengers storming, and just hold on, trying to fly it further instead of crashing it? I mean it had the passengers, crashing a plane into any civilian area would of been a catastrophey. Flying that low had more risks I believe, and again, if u can bring a plane going that fast, to fly that close to the ground and hit a wall that is NO TALLER than the plane... surely you have the ability to dive the plane into a large building like the pentagon when your flying so low?

If you fly a plane low, and try to dive it into the building it's even harder. You have to manuver it so hard that you're risking the plane breaking up from the Over G that you have to pull to get it into a dive where you can see the target and dive into it. You HAVE to fly at medium to high altitude. And the higher you are, the more risk of overspeed and tearing the plane apart.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop But wouldnt flight 93 of taken that? Risk the passengers storming, and just hold on, trying to fly it further instead of crashing it?

Perhaps perceived as a bit of undoable in the situation the passangers already got into the cockpit?