9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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?

Well i could see maybe 1 plane , but 2 planes at 2 crash sites seems like something was going on.

And where exactly were the witnesses to this mysterious second plane at the Pentagon? The only people that claimed to see a smaller plane there were talking about the plane that HIT the Pentagon. There were no reports that I remember about any other planes but the C-130. Every person talking about a smaller plane was talking about the one that hit the building.

The plane circling Flight 93 was a small private jet in the area asked by air controllers to take a look for them. I forget who the pilot was, but it was some exec for a jean company or something like that. I would have to look it up, but it's easy to find. The C-130H at the Pentagon was a cargo plane for the national guard on its way to Minnasota when air traffic controllers vectored to follow a suspicious aircraft. They identified the plane as a 757 just like many of the other eyewitnesses and reported that it had crashed into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 And where exactly were the witnesses to this mysterious second plane at the Pentagon? The only people that claimed to see a smaller plane there were talking about the plane that HIT the Pentagon. There were no reports that I remember about any other planes but the C-130. Every person talking about a smaller plane was talking about the one that hit the building.

So are you saying that the eyewitnesses could not verify that a 757 hit the Pentagon. [edit on 22-7-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 22-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]

No. I'm saying that there were eyewitnesses that didn't know what a 757 was, and said they saw something else, and there were eyewitnesses that saw a 757. Don't you bother reading these threads? We've gone over this point several times.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 No. I'm saying that there were eyewitnesses that didn't know what a 757 was, and said they saw something else, and there were eyewitnesses that saw a 757. Don't you bother reading these threads? We've gone over this point several times.

Yes i have read over most of the eyewitness accounts and they could not verify the plane to be a 757. Even the military people were not sure. Some eyewitnessess even admitted they were told later it was a 757. Source: www.geocities.com...

Scott P. Cook "We didn’t know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had hit. Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon. I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight. ...

Also air traffic controllers thought it was a military plane because of the speed and the turns it was doing. Source: www.ratical.org...

At the Dulles tower, O'Brien saw the TV pictures from New York and headed back to her post to help other planes quickly land. "We started moving the planes as quickly as we could," she says. "Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed . . . I had literally a blip and nothing more." O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. "I said, `Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House,'" recalls Howell. "I was yelling . . . `We've got a target headed right for the White House!'" At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane,"

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link. [edit on 7/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

How did the 757 travel through all those concrete walls of the penagon? F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH - Incredible movie clip. An US F4 Phantom Jet tests the strength of a concrete wall built to withstand a nuclear blast by crashing into it at 500 MPH. A high rate FPS camera is used to watch the plane literally turn into dust. zango.com...

It pleases me greatly to see how the "no plane" advocates have turned, I remeber some arguing in this very thread how the damage was too small for a 757, now it is suddenly too large At first the 757 ought to level almost half of the Pentagon, now it should vaporise upon impact 1) The concrete block was designed to withstand a F-4 Phantom crashing into it. 2) You don't see any difference between a homogenous concrete and between a reinforced wall? The Pentagon, even if reinforced, wasn't a bunker. The reinforcing was against a truckbomb, ie against blast, not against a physical impact. Definitely not against an impact of a cargo plane. 3) Even if the Phantom was at MTOW at the crash (which it wasn't), the 757 would have over two times its kinetic energy assuming the crashes happened ad roughly equal speeds. [edit on 23-7-2006 by tuccy]

Actually the concrete wall was designed to withstand any plane crashing into it. They just happened to have a F-4 handy to test against it. HOWEVER, it's about 10 or 20 times THICKER than the wall at the Pentagon.

Eyewitnesses testimoney goes only so far. How many people are knowledgable enough to distinguish plane models at stand still let alone at high rates of speed? I can say for fact that had I been there I would no have been able to tell you what model plane it was. But i could tell you if it was a commercial plane or a missle. And given 1000s of witnesses, i think it's pretty safe to rule out a missle. Not to mention who would create a plan to use a missle that was going to fly in front of 1000s of witnesses and plan on all of them getting it wrong? Who would risk taking the chance that no commuters would happen to have a camera and capture it? Who would base some epic conspiracy bigger than any in history on pure luck?

Originally posted by snoopy Who would risk taking the chance that no commuters would happen to have a camera and capture it? Who would base some epic conspiracy bigger than any in history on pure luck?

Some redneck cowboys? Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link. [edit on 7/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

I bet the mods love your one liners!There were plenty of people who saw a plane.Not one saw a missile.Get that through your head.Silver 757's at any speed are easily recognized.It was!Not to mention the mangled light poles,fences and generator,that were hit.Kinda wide range to be hit by a missile! [edit on 23-7-2006 by Duhh]

The point is though, if the wall the plane hits gives way and allows the plane to punch through, then how does it disintegrate the plane into nothing? If that F-4 had been able to punch through that wall would it have still turned to dust? That seems to be what happend at the pentagoon...

THE F4 SITUATION DOES NOT HAVE AnY THING TO DO WITH THIS.Look at the diff.Quite a leap to say they are the same.The plane did what it did! Crashed into the pentagone,broke in to lots,and lots of pieces.What is you don't understand?Lots of people saw it.Flight path destruction,etc....?????No missile found or seen etc....

LOL sound like you're getting desperate there duhh! Why so angry? Why so defensive. Physics is physics. It makes no difference what the objects are, they act in the same way. Ever hear of Newton? Go do some reading on the action of objects when they collide. Do you think physics took a day off on 9-11? Btw notice the spaces between my sentences, we've asked you a million times to pls use a little better grammar, so it makes your posts easier to read and look less like a 5 yr old wrote it. You won't get much respect writing like that. This is not AOL chat. Pls don't get defensive, just trying to be helpfull for all invovled...

Not defensive at all.You are projectng.Pay attention to the answers.You seem to be the childish one.You revert to attacking anything,but the facts presented you! No need to run, face facts.A757 struck the pentagone.You have no shred of anything to prove diff.You have shown nothing to support you "physics"! Because there is nothing to support it!Explain the path of destuction, doccumented and seen by many.The planes seen by every one that was there.No missile, fits this parnoid delusion!Well actually it does! LOL LOL! [edit on 23-7-2006 by Duhh]

Have you even researched the so called witnesses at the pentagon? There were 110 named witnesses. Only 75 of them made statements in the hours after the attack. The rest didn't come forward until way after the event. That to me is suspicious. Check this list of witnesses...

Dennis Clem is a Deputy Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Penny Elgas sits on the FDIC Advisory Committee on Banking Policy, alongside of Jean Baker, who just happens to be the Chief of Staff at the Office of President George H.W. Bush. Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Captain (now Major) Lincoln Leibner is a communications officer for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Stephen McGraw is a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney reborn as an Opus Dei priest. Colonel Mitch Mitchell serves as a CBS News war spinner military consultant. Patty Murray is a United States Senator (D-Washington). Rick Renzi is a United States Congressman (R-Arizona). James Robbins is a contributor to National Review, a national security analyst, and a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. I'm not sure exactly who Meseidy Rodriguez is, but his name appears in legal filings concerning Dick Cheney's top-secret energy policy meetings, which probably isn't a good sign. Vice Admiral Darb Ryan is the Chief of U.S. Naval Personnel. Elizabeth Smiley is an intelligence operations specialist with Civil Aviation Security at FAA headquarters --which means that she is one of the people who inexplicably failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because she was busy watching phantom jetliners crashing into the Pentagon. Brig. General Clyde A. Vaughn is the deputy director of military support to civil authorities --which means that he is another one of the people who inexplicably failed to perform their jobs on September 11, 2001, possibly because he was also busy watching phantom jetliners crashing into the Pentagon.

911review.org... Notice who they all work for? Sry but your witesses can't be trusted imo. So what about witnesses who report an explosive detonation and the smell of cordite? Characturistics of a missile. Did you miss these or do they not fit your version of events?

Air Force Lt. Col. Marc Abshire -- from in his office on the D ring, near the eighth corridor It shot me back in my chair. There was a huge blast. I could feel the air shock wave of it. I didn't know exactly what it was. It didn't rumble. It was more of a direct smack.

Don Perkal -- Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.

Gilah Goldsmith -- We saw a huge black cloud of smoke, she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke

Then there are the ones that just don't make sense...

Steve Anderson -- from 19th floor office in USA TODAY building in Arlington Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

Drug it's wing? Where the marks on the grass? How does a 757 drag its wing and remain flying in a straight line?

Penny Elgas -- The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.

We know this is bogus cause there is a pic of the tail going over the top of the pentagon, I don't have it but it's on ATS in another thread. There are far more, but I'll just leave you with these, seeing as you have done all your research I'm sure you know about them already

You still run! The list you speak of are not the only ones.RESEARCH!Still I like that one.Still planes!No missile seen!Only planes!Cordite!He was a lawyer,what does he know cordite fom a bagelShe was led into tht same question,does not even know what cordite is,few do, see entire quote?Out of context nonsense again.He was the only one in that farce,that really stated he smelled it.!You really just don't like facts!Again;path of destruction,plane parts, witnesses.Some do work for gov.What did you expect?Look where it happened,not just pentagone but surronding area,lots of related gov related business!Oh,here we go again all in on the Con.Circular logic at best!!!!!LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [edit on 23-7-2006 by Duhh]

With all eyewitness testimony you are going to get varying reports as people are effected by emotions, some might want publicity, some might be connecting mental dots to make up for things they missed, or people might say what they think something was even though they have no expertise on it. yet that can be taken as literal. What these conspiracy sites seem to do is take a few rogue witnesses and try to dismiss the bulk of them by using those few that support their pre determined outcome. So then it all comes together as a plane flying into a building and then explosives being set off at the same exact time to acomplish absolutely nothing of use. Or perhaps you could argue that there were mass ahlucinations that day to cover up a bombing or missle which they they trucked in an entire planes worth of parts without anyone knowing. but of course before doing that they have to destroy the opriginal plane and its passengers so that they could plant all the body parts of those passengers and their belongings in the Pentagon. Of course all that without anyone seeing. See it';s easy for these conspiracy sites to pick holes in vague areas and then try to make a conclusion without saying it. The problem is that they do not provide any alternative theories because doing so would point out the fraud. It's a pretty cheap tactic, but it works well.

It seems you have a problem with conspiricy sites? Then what are you doing here? Getting in some overtime on a Sunday? I could say the same to you, you like to pick the witnesses that fit your story but ignore the rest. Look at the big picture, it stinks!