9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 The problem is, that many people, like Ultima, Terral, et al...ASSUME that they have seen all the pictures of wreckage from Flight 77. Which, they havent. That, and some ignore the other facts, i.e. the remains of the passengers that were found, the witnesses etc....

So you can show more more facts like where did they take the parts found to do a accident reconstruction. Where is the report showing that the parts found match flight 77 ? If there was not a proper investigation done then that makes any evidence in doubt. If the fire was hot enough to destroy most of the plane it would have destroyed bodies. A witness admitted to finding out afterward that it was supposed to be a 757. Some of the witnesses have polictical connections or jobs. [edit on 11-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

So you can show more more facts like where did they take the parts found to do a accident reconstruction.

Look at your post. You only reconstruct the wreckage in an ACCIDENT investigation when you need to find the cause of said accident. Crashing a plane into a building on purpose is NOT an accident.

If the fire was hot enough to destroy most of the plane it would have destroyed bodies.

Since the majority of the jet is aluminum, lets look at its properties. Aluminum's melting point is 1220.66 degrees farenheit. www.chemicalelements.com... To reduce a human body to ashes it takes 1,500 to 2,000 degrees farenheit for two hours. www.cremation.org... So in other words, it takes a lot more heat to destroy a human body than it does to melt an aluminum airframe. By the way, the bodies recovered at the Pentagon were burned until they were only identfiable through dental/dna records. Yes there are pictures but ATS rules prevent me from posting them.

A witness admitted to finding out afterward that it was supposed to be a 757

As opposed to him thinking it was a 737.......

Some of the witnesses have polictical connections or jobs.

You are kidding me with this one right? Some of the people working at or around the Pentagon have political connections or jobs???? Who would have thunk it.......

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

So you can show more more facts like where did they take the parts found to do a accident reconstruction.

Look at your post. You only reconstruct the wreckage in an ACCIDENT investigation when you need to find the cause of said accident. Crashing a plane into a building on purpose is NOT an accident.

If the fire was hot enough to destroy most of the plane it would have destroyed bodies.

Since the majority of the jet is aluminum, lets look at its properties. Aluminum's melting point is 1220.66 degrees farenheit. www.chemicalelements.com... To reduce a human body to ashes it takes 1,500 to 2,000 degrees farenheit for two hours. www.cremation.org... So in other words, it takes a lot more heat to destroy a human body than it does to melt an aluminum airframe. By the way, the bodies recovered at the Pentagon were burned until they were only identfiable through dental/dna records. Yes there are pictures but ATS rules prevent me from posting them.

A witness admitted to finding out afterward that it was supposed to be a 757

As opposed to him thinking it was a 737.......

Some of the witnesses have polictical connections or jobs.

You are kidding me with this one right? Some of the people working at or around the Pentagon have political connections or jobs???? Who would have thunk it.......

1. Wrong, you do a recontruction at any crash site, just like you do a reconstruction at any crime scene. It does not matter what you think or believe happened you still have to do a proper investigation. So show me a legal document that says they woudl not have do a proper investigation. 2. What about aircraft aluminum,, and jet fuel, and you are forgetting all the other material on the plane. 3. He did not know what it was until someone told him. Also people having political connections and jobs are going to go along with an official story no matter what it is. www.geocities.com...

"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.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 11-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Wrong, you do a recontruction at any crash site, just like you do a reconstruction at any crime scene. It does not matter what you think or believe happened you still have to do a proper investigation. So show me a legal document that says they woudl not have do a proper investigation.

No, not quite. When you know the cause of the crash, you dont worry about putting the pieces back together. Sidenote....what kind of legal document do you think there is going to be? "Procedures to be followed in the event a terrorist flies a jet into a government building"?? I suppose that you believe everything in on the internet too?

What about aircraft aluminum,, and jet fuel, and you are forgetting all the other material on the plane.

Still going to melt about the same temperature. As for the rest of it, a lot of it will be consumed at much lower temperatures..i.e. wiring, fabrics, plastics etc....

Also people having political connections and jobs are going to go along with an official story no matter what it is.

Umm...havent paid a whole lot of attention to history huh?

The whole purpose of a reconstruction is to find out what went wrong and where the failure was. When it comes to somsone intentionally crashing a plane, there is no need to reconstruct it. And more importantly, the nature of the damage was too extreme for them to do a reconstruction. Even if it had been an accident instead, there's no way they could reconstruct the planes. How many previous plane reconstructions involved planes crashing into buildings at 500mph and haviong the buildings collapse on top of them? How many invovled flying into concrete buildings and liquifying? How many involved a plane flying straight down at full speed and being burried 30ft underground? Almost always it involves the pilot trying to do whatever he can to do the least amount of damage to the plane (or more importantly the people inside). These planes were flown to cause the most damage possible.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 Sidenote....what kind of legal document do you think there is going to be? "Procedures to be followed in the event a terrorist flies a jet into a government building"?? I suppose that you believe everything in on the internet too?

I asked for you to show a legal document that states that you DO NOT have to do a reconstruction if you think you know what happened

Originally posted by snoopy The whole purpose of a reconstruction is to find out what went wrong and where the failure was. When it comes to somsone intentionally crashing a plane, there is no need to reconstruct it. And more importantly, the nature of the damage was too extreme for them to do a reconstruction. Even if it had been an accident instead, there's no way they could reconstruct the planes. How many previous plane reconstructions involved planes crashing into buildings at 500mph and haviong the buildings collapse on top of them? How many invovled flying into concrete buildings and liquifying? How many involved a plane flying straight down at full speed and being burried 30ft underground? Almost always it involves the pilot trying to do whatever he can to do the least amount of damage to the plane (or more importantly the people inside). These planes were flown to cause the most damage possible.

Well you forgot flight 800. Flight 800 had an eplosion in mid-air and split in two, then hit the water going several hundred miles an hour with engines running. It took Navy divers months to find all the pieces but they did a reconstruction. If they did not do a recontruction at the Pentagon it means they did not do a proper investigation. [edit on 13-10-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 13-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Flight 800 is a bit different. Because it exploded in mid air it did not land in the same manner. Quite different than a plane heading into the ground at full speed. The parts are all going to be in tact, just scattered. So you hvae a plane that is not going very fast to begin with, further slowed down by coming apart in the air. And since it was an accident of unknown origin, a reconstruction was needed to help determine the cause.

Snoopy is right. Mentioning flight 800 is irrelevant. We had no clue about what happened to flight 800. With Flight 77 we had the hijacking reports, eyewitnesses and the WTC crashes to go on. I can name you plenty of instances in which they did NOT reconstruct the aircraft, but went on radar tracks, data recorders and debris fields.

Originally posted by snoopy Flight 800 is a bit different. Because it exploded in mid air it did not land in the same manner. Quite different than a plane heading into the ground at full speed. The parts are all going to be in tact, just scattered. So you hvae a plane that is not going very fast to begin with, further slowed down by coming apart in the air. And since it was an accident of unknown origin, a reconstruction was needed to help determine the cause.

Well it did hit the water at a very high speed, and it exploded and thier was fire just like at the Penatagon. Their was still a lot of pieces found. But there is still the question of why there was not a proper investigation done at the Pentagon, since it was an accident /crime scene.

You ASSUME a proper investigation was not done.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 You ASSUME a proper investigation was not done.

So you can show me reports of an investigation and where the parts were taken for reconstruction, even though the NTSB is not going to show any reports to the public due to the FBI being in control of the investigation. NTSB reports showing that they will not release informtion to the public : www.ntsb.gov... www.ntsb.gov... www.ntsb.gov... www.ntsb.gov...

Once again, the parts were not needed for a reconstruction.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 Once again, the parts were not needed for a reconstruction.

Then they did not do a proper investigation. A reconstruction is part of a normal plane crash investigation.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 Once again, the parts were not needed for a reconstruction.

Then they did not do a proper investigation. A reconstruction is part of a normal plane crash investigation.

Ultima, May I ask a question? When you say a reconstruction, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean a computerized reconstruction of the crash? Taking every piece of the plane and putting it back together? Reconstructing the sequence of events from take off until impact? I am not being a smart butt, I really want to make sure I understand what is meant by "reconstruction." Thanks! [edit on 13-10-2006 by jab712]

Deconstructing Reconstruction

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Then they did not do a proper investigation. A reconstruction is part of a normal plane crash investigation.

Says who? You keep saying this, but I haven't seen any source which supports this assertion. What is the basis for this claim? Did I miss a citation? Except for your statements in this thread, I haven't seen any mention of reconstruction as some sort of prerequisite for a "normal plane crash investigation" anywhere. Nor does the NTSB's own description of its investigative process mention such a requirement: NTSB- Investigative Process It does say this, however:

Investigations Involving Criminal Activity In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support. One example would be the crash of a Pacific Southwest Airlines flight in San Luis Obispo, California on December 7, 1987. All 43 persons aboard died in the crash of the Bae-146. Because of information conveyed over the radio by the flight crew shortly before the crash, the FBI instituted its own investigation, parallel to the Safety Board's investigation, to determine if a crime had been committed. Within days, it was learned that a former employee of the airline had boarded the plane with a gun and, while the plane was in cruise flight, had shot the flight crew, causing the aircraft to crash. When that was made evident, the FBI assumed control of the investigation. More recently, on September 11, 2001, the crashes of all four airliners were obviously the result of criminal actions and the Justice Department assumed control of the investigations. The NTSB provided requested technical support.

Who says a reconstruction is required? [edit on 10/13/2006 by Majic]

Originally posted by bunkbuster One thing I've always wondered - is it possible for a fire to incinerate all visually identifiable aircraft materials, and yet leave enough organic material to make 50+ positive DNA IDs? Is that plausible to anyone in the DNA analysis field?

Thats a very good question, especially since the fireball I saw in the security video was very small and short lived. I would have expected a lot more flames from a plane of that size carrying as much feul as is claimed to account for the total melt down of the plane.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Well it did hit the water at a very high speed, and it exploded and thier was fire just like at the Penatagon. Their was still a lot of pieces found. But there is still the question of why there was not a proper investigation done at the Pentagon, since it was an accident /crime scene.

If you had a car at a high rate of speed that broke in half and crashed, would it cause more damage than one that went full speed into a flat wall? Of course not. So comparing plane debris that plunged into the warer at a maxinmum speed of 120 mph with a plane that went straight into solid concrete at 500mph is not really fair at all. It crashed like many planes have crashed and the results were like most plane crashes. The Pentagon was different from all plane crashes and was the first one where a plane was intentionally flown into a solid obecjt at full speed. Again, as can be seen by the test crash videos, this results in virtually no remaining parts to reconstruct. And there was an investigation. And had they found any evidence of missles or bombs, they would not be able to hide that. They did scientific analysis of every inch of the building. Listing the areas debris and bodies and belongings were found. Documenting the integrity of every beam and poart of the building. Analysing the brun marks and damage patterns of every inch and reconstructing the events. They couldn't possibly have investigated any more than they did. And did more so than most plane crashes. What most people mean by there not being an investigation, is that there wasn't one that only had the intention of finding the government to be behind it. Had there been foul play, it would have been easily spotted.

Originally posted by snoopy If you had a car at a high rate of speed that broke in half and crashed, would it cause more damage than one that went full speed into a flat wall? Of course not. So comparing plane debris that plunged into the warer at a maxinmum speed of 120 mph with a plane that went straight into solid concrete at 500mph is not really fair at all. It crashed like many planes have crashed and the results were like most plane crashes. The Pentagon was different from all plane crashes and was the first one where a plane was intentionally flown into a solid obecjt at full speed. Again, as can be seen by the test crash videos, this results in virtually no remaining parts to reconstruct.

Well first the plane impacted the water at more them 120 mph, as stated the engines were running full. Second the FBI has little training in flight safety and crashes as proven in the flight 800 case. www.apfn.org...

The NTSB allowed the FBI, with little or no experience in airline safety, to independently follow leads and conduct interviews with strained inter-agency relations throughout the investigation. Claiming[5] to have "left no stone unturned..[and]..during the 24-Hour period: 371 vessels identified," the FBI failed to identify the closest surface vessel to the crash. The identities of the remaining three vessels have not been released to the public.

As it stands we are left with a glaringly well documented trail of explosive residue throughout the body of the 747. Worse, the NTSB inexplicably accepted the inadequate attempts by the FBI to explain away this trail.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by bunkbuster One thing I've always wondered - is it possible for a fire to incinerate all visually identifiable aircraft materials, and yet leave enough organic material to make 50+ positive DNA IDs? Is that plausible to anyone in the DNA analysis field?

Thats a very good question, especially since the fireball I saw in the security video was very small and short lived. I would have expected a lot more flames from a plane of that size carrying as much feul as is claimed to account for the total melt down of the plane.

Extreme heat destroys DNA. www.genetictechnologies.com...

Ultra-violet light, extreme heat and high humidity are the primary destructive agents of the DNA molecule.

Top DNA expert on DNA at WTC. www.nist.gov...

Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective. In early November 2001, Dr. Robert Shaler, the director of the WTC DNA identification effort, contacted me and asked if I would be willing to develop some new DNA tests to help in the identification effort. I agreed to fast track our research efforts over the next several months and produce some test materials for his laboratory to try by January 2002.

[edit on 14-10-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by mcfunthomas as I see, SNOOPY has given up with exchanging arguments with me. He couldn't have reached my level, I suppose. So, as I said, I'm just leaving this rather BEHINDtopsecret.com thread. No more info exchange may I get here. Thx those who surprised me with the supported links, as it has given me the opportunity to browse the NET to find far better info you seem not to pay attention to.

Yea a real mature post there. If you will note I have the last responses in this thread. If you have a question for me, then please post it. Otherwise go to a self ego inflating forum for your vanity issues. Don't let the door hit you on the way out and may your dilusions be grand.

well, well, well. It seems I hooked a snoopy-fish. ANOTHER BLA BLA BLA from the part of SNOOPY. It's all he/she can do..? miserable... Only when felt secure SNOOPY responded to my post. HILARIOUS I encourage others to value his/her stupid attitude towards me. I know it's easier to slam sb face, than focus on sb's statements, ocular proof and so on. I changed my mind. It's better to ignore those who ignore me. As SNOOPY, though stating he does read my posts, he is still ignoring my questions and my posts, refering only to what isn't essential here - like my links. I won't pay attention to his unwise and low-level comments any more. Waste of time. So, SNOOPY, stop us asking you questions until you have answered those already asked, OK ? [TIP: pp.191-2] If you want me to ask you Q's, you must deal with what is already in front of you. But I doubt you do it. You doesn't seem to be able....so don't make me laugh, please. Maybe he should start with fulfiling his/her word he/she has given me. Cant he/she remember? I should have assumed it....well waste of time, you all see. All Im gonna do is to expose SNOOPY lack of competence...from time to time of course, because he/she produces too much ribbish here. ONCE AGAIN the saying is true: It is unable for stupidity to leave its owner [paraphrase] I invite all the rest of the members [SNOOPY FAILED TO COMMENT] to visit www.911studies.com... ULTIMA1? Swampfox46_1999? jab712? Majic? zorgon? intrepid? Terral? Can I ask you to write ath about te website? Any comments? last thing: I see that ANOK and others left the thread, as far as for now. Maybe they couldn't stand sb's stupid attitude any more, you know who I mean, don't you? ANOK - ONE OF FEW I PAY ATTENTION TO.

Originally posted by snoopy If you had a car at a high rate of speed that broke in half and crashed, would it cause more damage than one that went full speed into a flat wall? Of course not. So comparing plane debris that plunged into the warer at a maxinmum speed of 120 mph with a plane that went straight into solid concrete at 500mph is not really fair at all. It crashed like many planes have crashed and the results were like most plane crashes. The Pentagon was different from all plane crashes and was the first one where a plane was intentionally flown into a solid obecjt at full speed. Again, as can be seen by the test crash videos, this results in virtually no remaining parts to reconstruct.

oh, SNOOPY... Can't you see that planes like 757 can't fly so low with the speed you state??!! of course you won't refer to this, cause you will have to admit I'm right. To all the other members - info about it may be found in physics books about that issue. Cant find ? let me know! I'll help you with it? BUT ONE THING SNOOPY wrote is right: Is seems for those like him that PENTAGON is completely different. There many miracules happend...according to the official story.