9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I do not think the attack axis of the 757 is realistic,a terroist during an attack has one motive kill as many people or do as much damage as possible.If you are flying a airliner into a satic object like a building what do you aim for? the largest area of the said object the largest area for the Flight 77 to hit was the roof,not a 70 foot tall wall.... The Use of the downed poles to mark the path is well just lame....multiple strikes the wings of a plane would comprimise the lift and stablization of the plane and would account for a skiding plane..but there is no massive skid mark... Now the lack of engines or a vertical stabilizer makes me to think to things,the fire destroyed them or they were not there.... as the 20 or 30 foot tall vertical stabilizer did not leave a slice print not did jackknife over onto the roof. Now if the fire left this 128,730 lb aircraft in ashes in 30 minutes including the engines which are know to survive airplane fires why didnt larger sections of the building catch fire (did any one know of internal fires) or was the lawn not as badly burnt,I would explect a large blazing lawn, but alas I did not see this..... I do not know what hit the Pentagon...but I do know two things planes dont eat buildings and the hijackers were not Blue Angel reserve pilots

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 and once again, you assume that a company would waste money to set up cameras to cover someone else's property. Yes the FBI came and got the tapes (supposedly since i have never seen an official source stating that) Of course, thats what you do in a crime investigation, you get everything that may be evidence and sift through it, discarding anything that doesnt shine any light on the crime. Those tapes most likely show NOTHING other than the parking lots they are aimed at. So, why keep tapes that show a parking lot, let alone release them????

Why did the FBI originally state that they would be used in court but then they were not, so what is the excuse now that they will not release them.

LOL Swamp Fox, the FBI did confiscate tapes, one of which was at a military personnel gas station that had a security camera to monitor the area (no not the whole area, just the station) but had a glimpse of what happened at the Pentagon. And with how popular the Pentagon is, you didn't have any cameras watching? Give me a break - let them release the cameras, haha save themselves a few more conspiracy theorists, it's been.. what .. 5 years.. 1-2 1/2 tapes so far? ridiculous.

And once again, someone is paying more attention to conspiracy sites for their info.

Hahaha thanks for your opinion, however I could care less of what you think. Have a nice day.

Chickenhound, why were they aiming for the wall? Because hitting something on a flat trajectory is way easier than hitting it in a dive run, esp. for unexperienced pilot.

Tuccy that's another great point, and considering that area was just renovated (the outer ring of that sector anyways), they would of had a better and not to mention easier opportunity to nail the roof or the closer area of the building. Instead of executing a bank all the way, just to nail a specific, reinforced area? It's sort of unusual :-/ I think.

actually, the ENTIRE pentagon was already under renovation -- the side to the right of the impact was already renovated but the side to the left was just beginning its renovation

Still makes for an unconventional target, trying to execute such a difficult bank with a 757 just to nail the side of the building? As I said, the roof would of been much more strategic and widespread, rather than the whole and small area of destruction it had.

For the last time... My local WalMArt has 21 cameras pointed at the front parking lot alone... Pentagon had ZERO pointing at the helipad? LAughable and very telling.

Don't let anyone confuse you, we know there were cameras and over 50+ tapes were confiscated that had any angle of the Pentagon crash. Honestly, and like I said, with as big as the Pentagon is, you'd expect cameras to be pointed at it or in its direction for webcam purposes and security purposes.

Don't let anyone confuse you, we know there were cameras and over 50+ tapes were confiscated that had any angle of the Pentagon crash.

Yes we know there were cameras, but we don't know that they captured the crash, they were pointed at where vehicles would be, not to watch a plane coming in. The tapes belong to whoever owned them, the FBI can't legally release them.

Originally posted by Masisoar Still makes for an unconventional target, trying to execute such a difficult bank with a 757 just to nail the side of the building? As I said, the roof would of been much more strategic and widespread, rather than the whole and small area of destruction it had.

Exactly,to attack the roof and all he had to do was point his nose at the building an accelerate,he would have hit the building at a high speed and a "easy" angle,why risk loosing your weapon to do an attack that you may not be able to pull off,it seems he had the easiest target,a large flat thing on the ground,just dive into it,but he pulls off the most advance attack of the day to do a simple job,hmmm

Originally posted by tuccy Chickenhound, why were they aiming for the wall? Because hitting something on a flat trajectory is way easier than hitting it in a dive run, esp. for unexperienced pilot.

"Way easier" yes it is attack on flat plane....but...in this case he would have buildings trees and ligt poles in his path,why risk it when he would have studied that building weeks or months in advance of his attack,he would the best region to attack,and the best angle to come in from with least obsticals. i.e a 45 degree dive into the roof ask yourself;I'm a young inexperienced pilot,I have many options do I pull off a move in a plane that I do not know the stall speed or its maximum angle,or should I just pull up and dive into the building? What ever is fastest and kills the most people? roof or wall? turn or dive?

umm, another reason for hittin the building on its side was that fact that the Army, Navy, and Air Force's Intelligence Offices are located on the lower floors of the first ring on that side. About the cameras -- many people forget how relaxed security was before 9/11; many cameras were focused on the entrances, not a wall that isn't directly accessible by foot (pre 9/11). Also note, the helopad camera only tooke a picture every 3 (or maybe it was 6) seconds. [edit on 15-8-2006 by misguidedprophet] [edit on 15-8-2006 by misguidedprophet]

Originally posted by misguidedprophet umm, another reason for hittin the building on its side was that fact that the Army, Navy, and Air Force's Intelligence Offices are located on the lower floors of the first ring on that side.

Well if the hijackers knew that,then they also knew where Rumsfield usually is kickin' it [edit on 15-8-2006 by Chickenhound] [edit on 15-8-2006 by Chickenhound]

Can a wing of a 757 or any jetliner survive(maintain integ) being hit with a light pole a 500 mph?

Someone posted on these forums about birds piercing holes through the wings of a passing plane going to land on an Airfield.

Originally posted by Mr_pointy The tapes belong to whoever owned them, the FBI can't legally release them.

Wrong. Sonce they are evidence of a crime and part of the public record they are REQUIRED by law to provide copies via the FOIA process. The recievers may not reproduce, broadcast or sell the footage, but they are required to provide it.

Originally posted by Chickenhound Can a wing of a 757 or any jetliner survive(maintain integ) being hit with a light pole a 500 mph?

Well since the light pole is designed with a breakaway base to minimize the damage caused in auto accidents, and since the wing hit the top of the pole, thus maximizing the force on said base through the principle of leverage, I would say, yes, the wing will win the battle. That's not to say it wouldn't be damaged, just that the pole would give way first.