9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Zaphod58 How do you know they don't? Because they haven't shown every single piece of debris that was recovered? Oh, right I forgot that it's their obligation to release every single picture, and every single piece of debris for you to go over. The NTSB or any other organization that investigates plane crashes has NEVER released every piece of evidence they have. They probably have pictures and parts that easily identify this plane as they one they said it was, but they're not going to release it to satisfy a relatively small number of people that insist the gov't did it and it wasn't a 757.

Well the problem with your post is that i can find FBI and NTSB reports on a lot of other aircraft crime scenes but not 1 on any of the 911 aircraft. I never said the government did it, i am a truth seeker. I can can find the incident reports and reconstruction photos for flight 800 but not 1 report on any of the 911 aircraft. I can find incident reports and photos for KAL Flight 007 but not 1 report on any of the 911 aircraft.

This one hour movie should end the discussion on the Pentagon attack unless you are total stupid. If it was already posted I apologize in advance video.google.com...

Originally posted by serpiko1 This one hour movie should end the discussion on the Pentagon attack unless you are total stupid. If it was already posted I apologize in advance video.google.com...

I have seen alot of reports stating that the voice recorder was blank. So where are thety getting the information on the voice recorder ?

Originally posted by ANOK Your logic makes no sense. The wings hit the wall, no? So a sudden impact with a wall is not going to stop them moving forward? Where are they going to go once they hit the wall but don't penetrate it? Without reverting to your 'they were pulled through the hole' BS. You need to go back to high school!

The objects are going to continue in motion until they are stopped by a greater force. The body of the plane created a hole, thus giving them a path to continue on. You seem to think that a wall is going to simply make the plane stop dead in it's tracks and the parts to then go backwards. That would defy the laws of physics. Just like some people thinking that the light poles should have stopped the plane. You need to learn the most basic physics. And the problem is that you keep thinking in terms of a car where things are going at a much slower speed. YOu see a car hit a wall and it stops so therefore a plane must do the same thing. So you can pretend to know what you are talking about by insulting people all you want, but what I am telling you is backed up and by the 100s of engineers and scinetists who I got it from. So please list your credentials that give you the authority to dismiss the findings of the scientific community and the engineers at places like Cronell. I mean since according to you, these great engineers need to go back to high school. Dazel us with your credentials.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Well the problem with your post is that i can find FBI and NTSB reports on a lot of other aircraft crime scenes but not 1 on any of the 911 aircraft. I never said the government did it, i am a truth seeker. I can can find the incident reports and reconstruction photos for flight 800 but not 1 report on any of the 911 aircraft. I can find incident reports and photos for KAL Flight 007 but not 1 report on any of the 911 aircraft.

You have already been told the answer to this. Why would you keep asking? When a crime is involved, the FBI has authority over the NTSB, sot here isn't going to be an NTSB report. And I don't recall the FBI making public records of their investigations. It's a simple issue of jurisdiction. "The FBI has jurisdiction if a hijacking or hostage taking incident occurs aboard an aircraft that is still on the ground. If the aircraft is in flight, and a hijacking or hostage-taking incident occurs, the FAA has jurisdiction with assistance from the TSA and FBI. Other potential emergencies will involve the FBI as well." In all other situations, the FBI provides assistance to the NTSB. Of course somehow I don't think the NTSB's explanation of why they don't have a public record of it is going to mean anything to you since clearly you only want to see a conspiracy.

Originally posted by serpiko1 This one hour movie should end the discussion on the Pentagon attack unless you are total stupid. If it was already posted I apologize in advance video.google.com...

Except that almost everything in that movie is wrong. Here's a useful link: forums.randi.org... But I guess to you an electrical engineer who specializes in airplane data recovery and telemetry would qualify as a complete idiot because they don't take the bate of a 9/11 cult video.

Originally posted by snoopy When a crime is involved, the FBI has authority over the NTSB, sot here isn't going to be an NTSB report. And I don't recall the FBI making public records of their investigations. It's a simple issue of jurisdiction. In all other situations, the FBI provides assistance to the NTSB. Of course somehow I don't think the NTSB's explanation of why they don't have a public record of it is going to mean anything to you since clearly you only want to see a conspiracy.

As you satated in the firts sentence the FBI has the authority over the NTSB at a crime scene. Hate to tell you but flight 800 was a crime scene because of the first thought was a terrorist bombing and because of witnesses who said they thought they saw a missile. So if we have the reports on flight 800 that was a crime scene and KAL flight 007 that was a crime scene why do we not have any reports on any of the 911 aircraft after 5 years ? Since when is finding the truth a conspiracy ?

Flight 800 was NOT a crime scene. It was INITIALLY thought to be, however, the FBI stated by November of 1997 that there was no evidence of criminal activity and the investigation was turned over completely to the NTSB. And KAL 007 was NOT investigated just by the US. The US was involved because everytime a US built airliner is involved the NTSB sends observers to help figure out what happened. [edit on 1/15/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Flight 800 was NOT a crime scene. It was INITIALLY thought to be, however, the FBI stated by November of 1997 that there was no evidence of criminal activity and the investigation was turned over completely to the NTSB. And KAL 007 was NOT investigated just by the US. The US was involved because everytime a US built airliner is involved the NTSB sends observers to help figure out what happened. [edit on 1/15/2007 by Zaphod58]

Yes flight 800 was initially a crime scene making the FBI in charge. Same with flight 77, the FBI took over the Pentagon area on 21 Septemeber and and handed back over control to the Army 5 days later. But we still have no reports on flight 77 from the FBI. www.defenselink.mil...

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2001 -- The FBI assumed crime-scene jurisdiction at the Pentagon terrorist attack site Sept. 21 from the Arlington County (Va.) Fire Department, officials said. FBI officials estimate the crime scene investigation would last about a month, Arlington Fire Chief Edward P. Plaugher said. He said he expects "additional remains will be discovered during the course of the FBI investigation" and mortuary specialists will remain on site to process them. WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2001 -- The FBI handed over Pentagon crash site management to the Army Military District of Washington at 7 a.m. today. The transfer of responsibility marks the end of the FBI's crime scene investigation following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack against the Pentagon. MDW will oversee ongoing security operations around the damaged area of the building. FBI investigators will move their operations to the Pentagon's north parking lot and continue to sift through debris for more evidence.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 15-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

And since it was on a military facility they are under no obligation to publish a report about it. The military frequently doesn't publish accident reports. The Army took control of the scene, and it probably became a military report somewhere in a file cabinet gathering dust and being eaten by silverfish.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 And since it was on a military facility they are under no obligation to publish a report about it. The military frequently doesn't publish accident reports. The Army took control of the scene, and it probably became a military report somewhere in a file cabinet gathering dust and being eaten by silverfish.

But the FBI would have still made a report and the NTSB would have also since they assisted with the black boxes, which original reports are conflicting on where the black boxes were found and if anything on the flight data could be recovered. The Army did not take control of the scnene the FBI just handed back over jurisdiction to them but kept doing evidence recovery.

Originally posted by snoopy The objects are going to continue in motion until they are stopped by a greater force. The body of the plane created a hole, thus giving them a path to continue on. You seem to think that a wall is going to simply make the plane stop dead in it's tracks and the parts to then go backwards. That would defy the laws of physics. Just like some people thinking that the light poles should have stopped the plane. You need to learn the most basic physics. And the problem is that you keep thinking in terms of a car where things are going at a much slower speed. YOu see a car hit a wall and it stops so therefore a plane must do the same thing. So you can pretend to know what you are talking about by insulting people all you want, but what I am telling you is backed up and by the 100s of engineers and scinetists who I got it from. So please list your credentials that give you the authority to dismiss the findings of the scientific community and the engineers at places like Cronell. I mean since according to you, these great engineers need to go back to high school. Dazel us with your credentials.

What do you think would have happened to the plane if it didn't penetrate the wall? Just curious. And stop putting words in my mouth, I am not thinking of a car at low speed. I'm trying to imagine the wings being sucked through the hole and all I see is a cartoon. But the hole didn't give the wings somewhere to go! There was NO HOLE where the wings would have impacted. I'm not saying it should have just stopped, whatever hit the pentagoon made a hole just big enough for a 757 fuselage to go through. It's an extreme stretch to think the wings after impacting the wall would continue on and just follow the fuselage in. Do you think the plane is all one solid object with flexible wings that bend? The wing root is a weak point that wouldn't survive such an impact, the edges of the hole would have sheared the wings as it went through and the wings would have impacted the wall leaving some debris behind on the OUTSIDE of the building. 500mph does not change the laws of physics. The wings would have wanted to continue forward after hitting the wall, obviously they couldn't continue forward could they? I'll admit some of the wing root may have stayed with the plane and gone through the hole, but the whole wing and engines? No way. That is nonsense and if you have proof otherwise from 'Cronell' (sic) let's see it. Why don't you dazzle us with your genious and explain in your own words how the wings were sucked into the hole. I don't want to here just liquification, I want to see if you understand what you're reading cause so far it seems you don't. Prove me wrong.

What do you think would have happened to the plane if it didn't penetrate the wall? Just curious.

It probably would have looked very similar to the video of the fighter jet being flown into the 4 foot thick concrete wall, shattered into very samll pieces.

But the hole didn't give the wings somewhere to go! There was NO HOLE where the wings would have impacted. I'm not saying it should have just stopped, whatever hit the pentagoon made a hole just big enough for a 757 fuselage to go through. It's an extreme stretch to think the wings after impacting the wall would continue on and just follow the fuselage in. Do you think the plane is all one solid object with flexible wings that bend? The wing root is a weak point that wouldn't survive such an impact, the edges of the hole would have sheared the wings as it went through and the wings would have impacted the wall leaving some debris behind on the OUTSIDE of the building.

It seems to me that you are still looking at the photo with the hole on the second floor of the pentagon and the first floor portion of the damage is obscured by the spray from the firefighters. The fact is the hole was clearly wider than just the fuselage. Much of the wing did penetrate the wall and what wasn't stong enough to penetrate was broken into small pieces. There are reports of small pieces of aluminum embedded in the wall where the ends of the wings struck and falied to penetrate.

Originally posted by Skibum It probably would have looked very similar to the video of the fighter jet being flown into the 4 foot thick concrete wall, shattered into very samll pieces.

Hmmm how fast was that jet going? I bet it was more than 500MPH.

It seems to me that you are still looking at the photo with the hole on the second floor of the pentagon and the first floor portion of the damage is obscured by the spray from the firefighters...

Actually no, there is no hole other than the 18' or whatever it is. What you think is hole, were the spray is, was just facade that was knocked off from the explosion. You can still see columns where your hole is supposed to be. Also for the plane to have made a hole at ground level the engine shrouds would have hit the ground before they hit the wall, they sit well bellow the fuselage. Where is the wreckage of engines on the lawn? Now compare it to the WTC, same plane approx same speed, right? Yet the planes at the WTC went through much stronger steel columns, and then we're supposed to believe the planes wings were still intact enough to slice through the 4" thick central core columns? I thought the wings were just thin aluminum that will break up and disappear from hitting a wall, that's the official argument for them not leaving wreckage, right? You think that wall was stronger than the hardend steel outer mesh, and inner core, of the WTC? What were the columns at the pentagoon made of? Indestructible steel? Or was the steel at the WTC soft as butter? Can't have both so the official story contradicts itself. Think about it! [edit on 15/1/2007 by ANOK]

Hmmm how fast was that jet going? I bet it was more than 500MPH.

How much? The speed I'm seeing after searching was 480 MPH.

Actually no, there is no hole other than the 18' or whatever it is. What you think is hole, were the spray is, was just facade that was knocked off from the explosion. You can still see columns where your hole is supposed to be.

I suppose if you are willing to overlook the missing columns as well as the entire sections of wall that used to be between the columns that are severely damaged and still there, and only look at the second floor damage then I suppose you could say that.

Originally posted by Skibum It probably would have looked very similar to the video of the fighter jet being flown into the 4 foot thick concrete wall, shattered into very samll pieces.

Well thier is a couple of problems with that. First the wall of the Pentagon is not 4 feet thick. Second the F-4 is made mostly of steel, the 757 is made mostly of aluminum. So if a plane made mostly of steel could not penatrate that wall how does as plane mostly made of aluminum penatrate the Pentagon wall, collums and interior walls ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Skibum It probably would have looked very similar to the video of the fighter jet being flown into the 4 foot thick concrete wall, shattered into very samll pieces.

Well thier is a couple of problems with that. First the wall of the Pentagon is not 4 feet thick. Second the F-4 is made mostly of steel, the 757 is made mostly of aluminum. So if a plane made mostly of steel could not penatrate that wall how does as plane mostly made of aluminum penatrate the Pentagon wall, collums and interior walls ?

Looks like you answered your own question. Test video- 4 foot thick solid concrete Pentagon- ~ 12 inches of concrete with limestone facade. Test video plane - Less mass than 757 Pentagon plane - Much more mass than F4. Both traveling at approx same speed. Are you suggesting that since a smaller plane couldn't penetrate a 4 foot wall that a 757 couldn't penetrate the thinner wall of the pentagon?

Originally posted by Skibum

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Skibum It probably would have looked very similar to the video of the fighter jet being flown into the 4 foot thick concrete wall, shattered into very samll pieces.

Well thier is a couple of problems with that. First the wall of the Pentagon is not 4 feet thick. Second the F-4 is made mostly of steel, the 757 is made mostly of aluminum. So if a plane made mostly of steel could not penatrate that wall how does as plane mostly made of aluminum penatrate the Pentagon wall, collums and interior walls ?

Looks like you answered your own question. Test video- 4 foot thick solid concrete Pentagon- ~ 12 inches of concrete with limestone facade. Test video plane - Less mass than 757 Pentagon plane - Much more mass than F4. Both traveling at approx same speed. Are you suggesting that since a smaller plane couldn't penetrate a 4 foot wall that a 757 couldn't penetrate the thinner wall of the pentagon?

I am stating that a plane made of aluminum should not have penatrated the 3 rings of the Pentagon.

I know you've heard it before, but it wasn't 3 separate rings. The first and second floors of the outer three rings were not divided like the upper floors were. I guess next you will try to tell me you can't cut steel with water. It's more about mass and speed than what the material is made of. [edit on 16/1/07 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Skibum Pentagon- ~ 12 inches of concrete with limestone facade.

Did you forget the kevlar, and steel reinforcement of that wall?