9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by mcfunthomas WHERE ARE THOSE 100s OF WITNESSES?? have you talked to them personally? or just read on the net? If on the net, there are also those who can swear that wasn't a large AA F77? who is right? those who support your point of view, because you are after the Official TALE??!!

Send a U2U to Skeptic Overlord with that question.

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by mcfunthomas 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.

Not true at all. You are not right at all. Not only is it possible, but 100s of witnesses testified to it, and 1000s of people were there to see it. yet you never care to explain that. The only miracles happening are in this missle theory. Like your magic missle that looks like a commercial jet liner, does zig zags to hit light poles, hits a generator, does a 90 degree turn, then a 180 degree turn, hits a vent shaft, then does another 180 degree turn, and then another 90 degree turn, then hits the building. Then continues out the far side of the building while leaving many support beams blocking the path completely intact. All the while never actually blowing up except for on impact, and uet still continually going through. And that missle has a 40ft tail that flew over the top of the building. Yeah you wannt talk about miracles?

mcfun, You state above in the quote that a 757 can't fly so low. I have question, and I am only seeking truth here, I have not yet made a decision on what I believe. My question is this: A 757 can't fly that low at that speed or doesn't because it might crash? I would think, yes, this is just me thinking nothing to back it up, that a 757 doesn't fly that low at that speed because it would crash. My logic here is not based technical info, just kind of the common sense kind. Kind of like thinking I probably shouldn't take a sharp turn on a 2 lane road in my car at 130 miles an hour. Or I probably shouldn't touch an iron that I just turned off 2 minutes ago. I am not disputing either way. YOU said it can't fly that low at that speed. Why?

Originally posted by jab712 I am not disputing either way. YOU said it can't fly that low at that speed. Why?

An aircraft wing is designed to create lift, the faster it's moving through the air the more lift it creates. So flying at 500 mph creates an enormous amount of lift. Also to be doing that speed the throttles would have to be wide open, creating a lot of thrust, enough to easily move a car that is behind the engines. Anyway a plane at that speed with engines producing max thrust would be very difficult to keep level at the altitude it would have to have been at. They would have been fighting with the stick to keep it level. Did they know enough to be able to trim the plane? I doubt it, that's something you learn from experience, not a book or flight simulator. Basically they would have been fighting against lift, and then when they got real low there would not be enough air under the wings to even create lift. So you can imagine how hard that would be to control. Imagine diving and swimming in a pool full of treacle, then suddenly the treacle is gone, you'd hit the bottom pretty hard. The engine shrouds would have to have been like 3 feet off the ground to have hit where it did. Even an extremely experienced pilot would have a very hard time pulling that off without smacking into the ground. Flying a plane is not like driving a car, you don't just turn the wheel and go where you want it to. At 3 feet off the ground and 500 mph you have no time or room to correct errors, even if it had enough lift. Big jets are sluggish, they're not designed to make wild maneuvers like a fighter jet.

Thank you Anok, that was what I was looking for. I don't know enough about flying a plane, that is why I asked. I appreciate the explanation. I have to say, more of those kind of responses would be great. I feel that questions are asked, but sometimes are retorted with another question or asking for proof of why someone asked the question. It ends up with more confusion and argument than anything else. Thanks again for actually just answering.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas oh, SNOOPY... Can't you see that planes like 757 can't fly so low with the speed you state??!!

Tell that to B-52 crews training low-level penetrations of enemy airspace... In a bomber designed to fly comfortably in stratosphere. Tehre were structural problems, true... But just after years of operations. Not after several minutes.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas TODAY I'M PASTING: membres.lycos.fr...

You know what would happn to Global Hawk with large missiles stripped to its wings? It won't fly as the wings would be severely damaged. Oh, and you know that there exists (and even is somewhere here posted) a pic of 757 wheel assembly - not just wheel assembly, but right that part that is in the Pentagon pic? Not to speak about scales etc...

Originally posted by ANOK An aircraft wing is designed to create lift, the faster it's moving through the air the more lift it creates. So flying at 500 mph creates an enormous amount of lift.

Nothing new. Planes designed for high ubsonic speed stratospheric flight have managed to make high subsonic speed nap-of-the-Earth flying without any modifications until several years later a fatigue of wings became apparent.

Also to be doing that speed the throttles would have to be wide open, creating a lot of thrust, enough to easily move a car that is behind the engines.

Granted the A/C is stationary or slowly rolling along the taxiway. While airborne, esp. close to top speed, the effect of jet gases is much reduced by the very movement of the aircraft.

snip

The 3 feet are for the impact - that doesn't mean they were flying at 3 ft all the way to the Pentagon. And in the final phase of attack (ie that very-low-level from the hwy to Pentagon) there won't be much time for neither corrections or high-speed low-level flight effects. As for the untrained etc... Partly true. Less flight experience and training than an ordinary airline or military pilot BUT... Much more flight experience and training than say German pilots by the end of WW2 (yet even then ultimate greenhorn was still sometimes a threat and often was rather reliable at attacking large targets flying in a straight line) or Japanese Kamikaze pilots (and they were in their Ohkas performing both dive and low-level attacks at 500 knots without any sort of hydraulic steering or such, against moving targets smaller than Pentagon and bristling with defensive fire)...

thx ANOK for being quicker with the response about ... say low flying planes

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by ANOK An aircraft wing is designed to create lift, the faster it's moving through the air the more lift it creates. So flying at 500 mph creates an enormous amount of lift.

Nothing new. Planes designed for high ubsonic speed stratospheric flight have managed to make high subsonic speed nap-of-the-Earth flying without any modifications until several years later a fatigue of wings became apparent.

Also to be doing that speed the throttles would have to be wide open, creating a lot of thrust, enough to easily move a car that is behind the engines.

Granted the A/C is stationary or slowly rolling along the taxiway. While airborne, esp. close to top speed, the effect of jet gases is much reduced by the very movement of the aircraft.

snip

The 3 feet are for the impact - that doesn't mean they were flying at 3 ft all the way to the Pentagon. And in the final phase of attack (ie that very-low-level from the hwy to Pentagon) there won't be much time for neither corrections or high-speed low-level flight effects. As for the untrained etc... Partly true. Less flight experience and training than an ordinary airline or military pilot BUT... Much more flight experience and training than say German pilots by the end of WW2 (yet even then ultimate greenhorn was still sometimes a threat and often was rather reliable at attacking large targets flying in a straight line) or Japanese Kamikaze pilots (and they were in their Ohkas performing both dive and low-level attacks at 500 knots without any sort of hydraulic steering or such, against moving targets smaller than Pentagon and bristling with defensive fire)...

Does the theory described above apply to B757 planes? Because as I understand you seem to write about sort of military planes and/or smaller than Boeing class planes...right?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by mcfunthomas WHERE ARE THOSE 100s OF WITNESSES?? have you talked to them personally? or just read on the net? If on the net, there are also those who can swear that wasn't a large AA F77? who is right? those who support your point of view, because you are after the Official TALE??!!

Send a U2U to Skeptic Overlord with that question.

If I understand you.. well, I think I dont need to. They weren't Q's to answer if you asked me; they are rhetorical Q's. There are witnesses, TRUE!! But what do you do when their testimonies contradict one another? is this reply relevant to your post?

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by mcfunthomas TODAY I'M PASTING: membres.lycos.fr...

You know what would happn to Global Hawk with large missiles stripped to its wings? It won't fly as the wings would be severely damaged. Oh, and you know that there exists (and even is somewhere here posted) a pic of 757 wheel assembly - not just wheel assembly, but right that part that is in the Pentagon pic? Not to speak about scales etc...

hmmm... so... 1. the Global Hawk was just a possibility, one of, you know. 2. Are all missiles same in size? Only a large one could have supposedly been used then? 3. As to 757 wheel assembly. I doubt it was from tha plane. Why? Too small, you know. First, we should know what planes could use such assembly. 4. what 'scales n etc' are you thinking about? Did I miss sth?

Originally posted by mcfunthomas thx ANOK for being quicker with the response about ... say low flying planes

NP Mcfunthomas...Notice they wait till you post then come back with the stock government responce? And they're digging up some oldie goldies...lol The B-52 problem has got nothing to do with the ability of a commercial jet to fly at 500mph just feet off the ground. Apples and Oranges. Military piliots and pilot 101 dropouts.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas 1. the Global Hawk was just a possibility, one of, you know.

What kind of engine is in a global hawk and where is it made? What did the engineer from the plant that makes the engines that powers the Global Hawk say when shown a picture of the pentagon engine debris? I bet you don't know the answer to those questions.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas 2. Are all missiles same in size? Only a large one could have supposedly been used then?

yes a large one was used, a Boeing 757.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas 3. As to 757 wheel assembly. I doubt it was from tha plane. Why? Too small, you know. First, we should know what planes could use such assembly.

What proof do you have of that? just by looking at a picture of it on the internet?

Originally posted by mcfunthomas WHERE ARE THOSE 100s OF WITNESSES?? have you talked to them personally? or just read on the net? If on the net, there are also those who can swear that wasn't a large AA F77? who is right? those who support your point of view, because you are after the Official TALE??!! If physics proved to state NO to sth, and witnesses say YES, then ONLY miracles can take place. GAME OVER

Did you read my post carefully? NO! So all the rest of your post, starting from: 'The only miracles happening...' is not relevant. SORRY. GAME OVER

That's a faulty argument. You are saying that because you or I don't personally know the whereabouts of the witnesses that it can't be true? Just read on the net? All you guys do is post conspiracy tabloids you just read on the net. Where is that missle you guys are caliming about? So don't come talking to me about that kind of bullshit. I have seen tons of tesimony on TV and documentaries. Not to mention that clearly there were 1000s if not 10,000s there at that time. Do you think they are all going to be interviewed and testify? Where are the tesimonies of the millions and millions of people who all watched the 2nd plane hit the WTC? Does that mean it never happened? So please save the slight of hand arguments for someone else. keep in mind, that had it not been a commercial jet as many people testified and was proven, then those 1000s of people would have reason to speak up and say "no it was not a plane". But if the scientific and frorensic evidence along with the investigation concludes it was what everyone already saw, they have no reason to say anything. It's like if you saw a car accident and the news repoerted it was a car accident. End of case. But had the news reported it was a UFO, you might have reason to say "uh no it wasn't". You get the idea. The physics and forensics ONLY point to flight 77. There is no evidence of anything else what so ever. All other arguments are pure conjecture. Even if not impossible, there is no physical evidence to support them. So yes, GAME OVER (as you put it). And before you go telling people to read your post, read it yourself. Learn the difference between reality and imagination. And then realize that this forum is not here so you can boost your little ego. Some of us are trying to have adult conversations about the issues at hand. Not trying to have pissing matches like 6 year olds. no matter how many CAPs you use.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas If you don't like my links, chuck us yours! can't wait

If I am turning this thread into a complete joke, prove it! when?! how?! What can YOU say about those debris? Were they there IN SITE or not? Are they from F77 or not? If so, YOU must be joking, NOT ME. If not, you are asked to support your point of view...if you manage

I only need you to know that all the photos WITH DEBRIS, which are available ON THE INTERNET support NO-F77 point of view. GAME OVER

It is you who assumes that it was F77...despite many contradicting witnesses. You can't assume sth you are to prove? do you agree? the end of yo reply is just a crap-attack on me. NOT GOOD. Got on nerves? Is it when sb can't prove their theory correct? when can't advance arguments for or against? Let me make it clear: I don't tolerate the attitude such as: 'Go back to inflating your little ego and come back with actual truth and not this nonesense.' If I did the same previously, sorry. I won't do it again. ;/ let's stop using sarcastic imperative mode

It's time for you to get overyourself. I know you think you are some kind of badass tough guy who can intimidate people by using capitol letters. but you need to grow up. It's not an issue of me liking your links or not. It's an issue of them being absurd claims that are complete conjecture used to help you justify your pre determined conclusions. I have explained why this is the case, but you are not interested in that because you are not interested in anything that does not present an inside job. Links have already been posted giving extensive scientific and forensic reasearch. But you aren't interested in those because they don't tell you what you want to ehar. They are damning, hence you need for these barberic attacks to compensate. As if no one will notice. The only one turning this thread into a joke is you my friend. The rest of us are trying to make a mature conversation and not a childish pissing match that you have started to boost your little ego. Everything I have needed to say and the links I have needed to provide have already been done so in this thread. I can't argue that in your opinion the photos are not from a 757. but I am not concerned about your opinion. I am concerned with the facts. Your argument against the claims is to point out other aircraft which even more certianly are not from that wreckage. So if you used your own arguments against yourself, they would discredit your claims. No matter how many times you cry "game over" (how old are you again?) And I don't give a damn what you tolerate. If you are going to come on here acting like a 6 year old bully, then you are going to be treated like one. So until you grow up and act like an adult, expect me to continue reminding you that your little toughguy attitude is not going to scare me into going along withb your beliefs which have no basis. nor are your hypocritical agruments going to sway me. Maybe if you use a few more CAPs or say "game over" a few more times, I will be convinced.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas Does the theory described above apply to B757 planes? Because as I understand you seem to write about sort of military planes and/or smaller than Boeing class planes...right?

It applies to B-52 which was larger than 757 with about the same goal - to fly high and fast and to carry maximal possible payload and minimal possible dead weight. Then, suddenly, with arrival of Soviet SAM's, the 52 was forced to go to treetop level (literarily - seen a footage from a 52 cockpit while flying very close to ground). It took several years for the low-level top-speed flying overstress problems began to show up.

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by mcfunthomas If you don't like my links, chuck us yours! can't wait

If I am turning this thread into a complete joke, prove it! when?! how?! What can YOU say about those debris? Were they there IN SITE or not? Are they from F77 or not? If so, YOU must be joking, NOT ME. If not, you are asked to support your point of view...if you manage

I only need you to know that all the photos WITH DEBRIS, which are available ON THE INTERNET support NO-F77 point of view. GAME OVER

It is you who assumes that it was F77...despite many contradicting witnesses. You can't assume sth you are to prove? do you agree? the end of yo reply is just a crap-attack on me. NOT GOOD. Got on nerves? Is it when sb can't prove their theory correct? when can't advance arguments for or against? Let me make it clear: I don't tolerate the attitude such as: 'Go back to inflating your little ego and come back with actual truth and not this nonesense.' If I did the same previously, sorry. I won't do it again. ;/ let's stop using sarcastic imperative mode

It's time for you to get overyourself. I know you think you are some kind of badass tough guy who can intimidate people by using capitol letters. but you need to grow up. It's not an issue of me liking your links or not. It's an issue of them being absurd claims that are complete conjecture used to help you justify your pre determined conclusions. I have explained why this is the case, but you are not interested in that because you are not interested in anything that does not present an inside job. Links have already been posted giving extensive scientific and forensic reasearch. But you aren't interested in those because they don't tell you what you want to ehar. They are damning, hence you need for these barberic attacks to compensate. As if no one will notice. The only one turning this thread into a joke is you my friend. The rest of us are trying to make a mature conversation and not a childish pissing match that you have started to boost your little ego. Everything I have needed to say and the links I have needed to provide have already been done so in this thread. I can't argue that in your opinion the photos are not from a 757. but I am not concerned about your opinion. I am concerned with the facts. Your argument against the claims is to point out other aircraft which even more certianly are not from that wreckage. So if you used your own arguments against yourself, they would discredit your claims. No matter how many times you cry "game over" (how old are you again?) And I don't give a damn what you tolerate. If you are going to come on here acting like a 6 year old bully, then you are going to be treated like one. So until you grow up and act like an adult, expect me to continue reminding you that your little toughguy attitude is not going to scare me into going along withb your beliefs which have no basis. nor are your hypocritical agruments going to sway me. Maybe if you use a few more CAPs or say "game over" a few more times, I will be convinced.

the way you write and the vocab and phrases you only are able to produce are significant. They all clearly say you are not emotionally balanced. Hence YOU act like a child not me. YOU ARE IGNORED !!!

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by mcfunthomas 1. the Global Hawk was just a possibility, one of, you know.

What kind of engine is in a global hawk and where is it made? What did the engineer from the plant that makes the engines that powers the Global Hawk say when shown a picture of the pentagon engine debris? I bet you don't know the answer to those questions.

But I know that it can't be from 757 either. Sorry chap but I just can't immagine why sb doesn't read what I write. I stated a global hawk or alike. You just misunderstood me.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by mcfunthomas 2. Are all missiles same in size? Only a large one could have supposedly been used then?

yes a large one was used, a Boeing 757.

yeah yeah with a pilot who is still alive ... LOLus MAXimus I don't know how about you but so far I havent seen a single photo to prove it was B757. As you might know: rough shots are more convenient than contradictive testimonies and doctored photos. Hah, even doctored photos I've seen can't prove 757 hit the pentagon. If you got some, show me. FBI knows what hit, they've got the tape and work how to apply FX effects into it to convince us. They have already spent 5y. now to make it. This will surely convince me...

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by mcfunthomas 3. As to 757 wheel assembly. I doubt it was from tha plane. Why? Too small, you know. First, we should know what planes could use such assembly.

What proof do you have of that? just by looking at a picture of it on the internet?

A PROOF? LOGIC, mate. do you want to tell me that all the photos of 757 wheel assembly that can be found on the Net are not relevant? Cant we turst them when it is obvious that what was found in the pentagon site doesn't match the one from 757 ??? Is it hard to compare? I can't believe it? Or I am right or you, please expose my ignorance by leading me the your source of info. Take a challenge... LONG LIVE THE AMATEUR HIJACKERS !!! WHO DEFEATED US FORCES...EVEN GIVING THEM ABOUT AN HOUR TO LOCATE THEM !! WHO CAN FLY WITH NO HELP, NO TRANSMITTERS. HOSANNA IN THE HIGHEST !!! It surely was a miracle-after-miracle day for them. LONG LIVE THE ALLAH they might shout... Sorry for my emmotions but they describe what I think of official tale.

Originally posted by ANOK Military piliots and pilot 101 dropouts.

BULL'S EYE

Originally posted by mcfunthomas the way you write and the vocab and phrases you only are able to produce are significant. They all clearly say you are not emotionally balanced. Hence YOU act like a child not me. YOU ARE IGNORED !!!

Case in point.