9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by Caustic Logic G-Day Caustic: There is an American Airlines Pilot on this board who Claims to have known the first officer of Flight 77. If that American Airlines Pilot would PM me with some logical evidence about that aircraft and tell me the truth, I might let this thing die. My main evidence is the serial number I coped off of the jet engine I saw. I saw no Luggage, I saw no, dismembered Bodies, I saw no body parts. I saw no large aircraft parts of any size than a sheet metal piece that required 2 white shirt Goverment employees to carry. There were no Seats, no Skid marks, just no nothing. I saw Pentagon incinerated bodies and one person still seated at there desk. I saw mass confusion and a Twilight Zone feeling that I can not describe and I wondered in my soul why this was not a crime scene. No Orange marker flags for evidence. Everybody has read the account of FBI Agent Erstine/Ecstine having an vocal argument with me in that Pickett line detail in which I somehow avoided getting arested. The most quoted statement that Christopher Bolynn commented on was the statement made to me on site by the FBI. Son, Just Pick The Damn Stuff Up!!! This was said to me by Agent Erstine/Ecstine and Washington DC local TV Channel Fox 5 ran that Danner story. Do you think that Fox News called me? Nobody called me but a mass of reporters that were mainly from the American Free Press and WINGTV and Pentagon Research.com and The Piper Report and they all had a hidden agenda. I am not a Zionist or anti semintic in the least. I am a Christian whether you believe in God or not. After all of these MP3 interviews which can still be heard I found that I had been had, mainly by a bunch of Jewish haters. I now find this apalling! I love Israel, but the Palistinians are getting a Bumn rap. So I never really got the real Flight 77 story out there in truth. I told all at my Blog, but ATS removed the URL and said to me it was not allowed. I respect there decession as it was a MySpace account. But I just plain give up! I Deleted the entired 6 Month account and I guess the Alex Jones Group thinks I have been terminated by the CIA. I am not kidding you. The Zionist people say I work for the Mossad and it was a Jewish inside job. Russell Pickering I still feel is/was an goverment shill. I can not even find him. He did a USA People search on me, so I did a 59.95 USA People search on him. Is this not a circus? I have written a long piece right here about some of the issues of Flight 77. I do not know where to write about this subject. I have had many people tell me many things to do. This site is very hard for me at times to discern. Should I just park it right here and write the story word for word as I saw it? This is the 2nd 4000 word post and it is not fair to the ATS readers to dance all over the place to read SamDanner. I will say this again. For you conceited members that know all, please do not waste your time posting to me. I do not know it all. Dylan Avery who think,s I am full of it, thinks he is the main 9/11 expert. I am old enough to be his father and then some. But I respect his work. I do not need the attention. I repeat and I repeat again. I am not an attention seeker and this Flight 77 record has killed my own personel life. My wife has divorced me and all 3 children do not even speak to me. Alex Jones and some others think I am a super Patriot. But when the rubber hits the road , I get good ratings but as in the case of Jesus, all of his disciples just walked away. The webmaster of this whole ATS site. Is there someway to stick all of this flight 77 posts together? I suppose not. So I will start a new threat as I did at my website. A whole new threat. What ever happened to Flight 77 and all of the Passengers? Or I will just stay here. SamDanner American Airlines Flight 77

Amazingly good job with this post! Here's somthing I saw on youtube (yes, I know) that i think shows it was, or at least could have been, a 757 as well. One thing not many people notice is that a missile or any other military explosive shouldn't make that kind of explosion. Anyone who has seen the episode of MythBusters where they blew up the kid's parents car after he wrote in and asked them to will know what i mean. They showed how to make a movie-style fireball explosion and an actual explosion.For the movie-style one, they put a lot of gasoline with a little explosives underneath to spread it out/ignite it, and it made a large fireball like in the pentagon security cam video, but the car was mostly intact. If you look at pictures of the pentagon hole, it is basically only a hole where the plane hit with fire damage around. The reason there are still intact windows near the hole is because a gas explosion doesn't have as much explosive power as, for example, gunpowder or plastic explosive. It is closer to a fast, agressive fire than a fast detonation. They then filled the car with bags of gunpowder, and when it went of, instead of the fireball there was just a loud BAM and them a cloud of dust, after which the car was gone. There was barely anything left. I think this shows that it couldn't have been a missile or bomb. Of course, some one's going to say it was faked/manipulated, but that's they way it is with everything, isn't it? [edit on 10-5-2008 by W35M4N]

I don't know what is up with this but this is just line wrapping this post so a more readable version this is available at: defendindependence.org... OK, this article has just been debunked, let us move on shalt we? Aircraft may be affected by a number of Ground effects, aerodynamic effects due to a flying body's proximity to the ground. One of the most important of these effects is the Wing In Ground effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately twice a wingspan's length off the ground or other level surface (such as the sea). The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at a height of one half the wingspan length above the ground. It can present a hazard for inexperienced pilots who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing, but it has also been used to effectively enhance the performance of certain kinds of aircraft whose planform has been adapted to take advantage of it, such as the Russian ekranoplans. The first to give scientific description of the ground effect and to provide theoretical methods of calculation of air cushion vehicles was Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in his 1927 paper "Air Resistance and the Express Train". Wings create lift through the generation of a high(er) pressure area below the wing and a low(er) pressure area above the wing according to Bernoulli's principle; this is what contributes to the lifting force. The air under the wing, since it is of higher relative pressure, tends to flow outwards towards the wing tip from wing root. The low-pressure air above the wing tends to flow inwards from the wing tip towards the wing root. At the wingtips, outward-flowing air from beneath the wing "rolls over" to meet the inward-flowing air from above the wing, resulting in wingtip vortices. Wingtip vortices are a major cause of induced drag, which refers to any drag created as a side-effect of generating lift. Reducing this form of drag leads to a number of widely-used design considerations found on many aircraft. Gliders, for instance, use very long wings with a high aspect ratio in order to reduce the size of the wingtip in relation to the size of the wing as a whole, thereby reducing the contribution of induced drag. Other aircraft sometimes include winglets to actively disrupt the airflow over the tip, to the same end. The phenomenon of 'wing in ground effect' is caused by the ground 'interrupting' the wingtip vortices and downwash behind the wing. When a wing is flown very close to the ground, wingtip vortices are unable to form effectively due to the obstruction of the ground. The result is lower induced drag, which increases the performance of the aircraft while it is experiencing the ground effect. [B]Factors affecting 'wing in ground effect'[/B] Factors affecting 'wing in ground effect' are numerous, and may include the wing's area, its chord length, and its angle-of-attack as it nears the surface, as well as the weight, speed, and configuration of the aircraft, and wing loading (aircraft weight per unit-area of wing). 'Wing in ground effect', often described as a 'cushion', is thought to be an increase in air pressure which occurs below a wing when it comes into close proximity with the ground. 'Wing in ground effect' begins to be noticeable (to both the pilot and an onlooker) when the aircraft is within 1-1.5 times the length of its own wingspan from the ground. [B]'Wing in ground effect', however, only becomes extremely pronounced, where lift can momentarily increase by as much as 40%, when the plane is within about half its wingspan distance from the ground.[/B] Due to the effect of spoilers and high wing loading, this effect is only dramatically noticed in smaller, less complex aircraft, usually weighing less than 12,500 lbs. Ground effect is a major factor in aircraft "floating" down the runway, and is the reason that low-wing aircraft have a tendency to float more than the high-wing varieties. 'Wing in ground effect' during take-off is thought to be a cause of many aircraft accidents. A small plane loaded beyond gross weight capabilities may be able to take off under ground effect, thanks to the 'artificially' low stall speed due to the decreased induced drag. But it may not be able to climb beyond a certain point. Once the pilot climbs out of ground effect wingtip vortices will form, the wings will stall, and the aircraft will suddenly descend - usually resulting in a crash. (Note that the ground effect cushion does not of itself reduce wing vortices; rather, on leaving ground effect the pilot of an overloaded aircraft must increase the angle of attack to keep flying. This action will increase drag to the point where ultimately a crash may occur). Full Article: en.wikipedia.org... Boeing 757 dimensions: Wingspan: 124'10" Width of Cabin: 24' Width of engines: 8'x2(16') (IIRC?) Wing area: 1994sq ft. Total Weight: 221,000 lbs. Boeing Website: www.airliners.net... Here is my attempt but I am not sure what to and what not to account for so I will take out everything that might cause a conflict: 1498(total wingspan)-288(total cabin width)-192(total width of both engines)=1018 inches or 84.833 feet 1018/2=509 inches or 42 foot ground effect height (plus dimensions of the plane itself). Although, in actually ground effect comes into play once the plane is within 1-1.5 times its own wingspan from the ground (which would be also assuming the worst case: 84.83-127.25 feet above ground level), I used the 1/2 wingspan which increases the planes natural lift ability by 40%. As noted in the ground effect theorem and as mentioned ground effect would cause a new (or inexperienced) pilot duress (i.e. Hani Hanjour). Light poles heights range from 30-45 feet, approximately. These are supposedly the same poles as used around the Pentagon, so it appears that they were approximately 40 feet tall. [edit on 10-5-2008 by RexxCrow]

reply to post by RexxCrow Rexx.... this theory has been debunked so many times over. Several threads... and this video of an air show:

Keep in mind that impact speed of the hit at the Pentagon was cruising speed, of course the slower the plane goes the less "ground effect" has, otherwise planes would never be able to land! Although, that film does serve to prove, if you want to debate it, that no plane was hit the Pentagon, regardless of "ground effect or not", see because you can clearly see that plane at all times during filming, although in the Pentagon security footage released no plane is ever visible, nor is there any plane visible in the motel footage released more recently, only an explosion is visible.

Also the claim isn't that it's impossible to fly a commercial jet low to the ground. The claim is it would be near impossible for someone who has never flown a commercial jet before to fly at ground level at 500 mph, while hitting objects, and not leaving a mark on the pentagoon lawn. All nice and clam like, in the face of death. If you have a youtube vid of someone doing that trick you might have something... Taken by itself though yeah it could have been done, but you all keep forgetting that each little improbable event like this one, when you can learn to put it all together, completes a picture that just doesn't look like what the government is telling us. Don't forget the forest... [edit on 11/5/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt Several threads... and this video of an air show:

The only thing this vidoe shows is that it takes a very experienced pilot to fly at low altitudes like they were flying at the Pentagon. As far anything else it does not debunk much. [edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by RexxCrow Keep in mind that impact speed of the hit at the Pentagon was cruising speed, of course the slower the plane goes the less "ground effect" has, otherwise planes would never be able to land! Although, that film does serve to prove, if you want to debate it, that no plane was hit the Pentagon, regardless of "ground effect or not", see because you can clearly see that plane at all times during filming, although in the Pentagon security footage released no plane is ever visible, nor is there any plane visible in the motel footage released more recently, only an explosion is visible.

We all know that whether or not a video exists or not is completely irrelevant given that we have other overwhelming evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Also, as this and other videos demonstrate, it is quite easily to identify a plane and its markings flying at high speed.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt Several threads... and this video of an air show:

The only thing this vidoe shows is that it takes a very experienced pilot to fly at low altitudes like they were flying at the Pentagon. As far anything else it does not debunk much. [edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

There is nothing to debunk. It demonstrates what we all know: it is very easy to identify an aircraft and its markings flying at high speed, just what 9/11 Truthers have always claimed is impossible. Meanwhile, we are still waiting for you all to demonstrate your claims that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by jthomas There is nothing to debunk. It demonstrates what we all know: it is very easy to identify an aircraft and its markings flying at high speed, just what 9/11 Truthers have always claimed is impossible.

Thats so funny, well we know you have never been around planes. There is no way a person is going to identify a plane going 500 mph feet of the ground. Let me state the following that you cannot debate. 1. There are no photos or videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. 2. There are no official reports that parts found match Flight 77. [edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas There is nothing to debunk. It demonstrates what we all know: it is very easy to identify an aircraft and its markings flying at high speed, just what 9/11 Truthers have always claimed is impossible.

Thats so funny, well we know you have never been around planes. There is no way a person is going to identify a plane going 500 mph feet of the ground. Let me state the following that you cannot debate. 1. There are no photos or videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. 2. There are no official reports that parts found match Flight 77. [edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Gee, I have 21 years around aircraft total, and I have NO problems picking out enough markings on jets to identify who they belong to, even when they scream past at 500+ mph, and those jets normally dont have "U.S. Air Force" plastered in two foot high letters on the side like an American Airlines airliner does. As for point 2, yes, there ARE reports that do that. You're just pissy that you are not on the distribution list.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 There is no way a person is going to identify a plane going 500 mph feet of the ground.

That's actually incorrect. I used to watch B-1 Bombers fly by at mach .98 at around 100 feet off the ground and I could easily make out the nose art on the aircraft and tell you which one of the bombers it was. "Look, it's the Queen of Hearts". Simply stating what the type of aircraft that flew past you was would be a snap.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 it takes a very experienced pilot to fly at low altitudes like they were flying at the Pentagon.

Sure, if you're worried about crashing. An fool can run a plane into the ground. [edit on 11-5-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas There is nothing to debunk. It demonstrates what we all know: it is very easy to identify an aircraft and its markings flying at high speed, just what 9/11 Truthers have always claimed is impossible.

Thats so funny, well we know you have never been around planes. There is no way a person is going to identify a plane going 500 mph feet of the ground.

I have to laugh. I've been around planes all my life. Obviously, you've never been to an airshow or bothered to look at any videos readily available to you. You have no way of making your claim. Look at the video posted. Speed it up. Double the speed. Now, imagine witnesses scattered at various distances. It's bloody easy, as it was for those who witnesses AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

Let me state the following that you cannot debate. 1. There are no photos or videos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

Let me repeat for the umpteenth time. Videos are completely IRRELEVANT since we have ALL of the other evidence.

2. There are no official reports that parts found match Flight 77.

Let me repeat, again. This is really easy to understand. WE have ALL of the other evidence demonstrating that AA77 hit the Pentagon, including the wreckage. I really can't fathom why you insist on denying what we know is true. Why can't you truthers ever face the reality that you have never presented one iota of evidence demonstrating that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon? When will you EVER get around to it?

Originally posted by ANOK Also the claim isn't that it's impossible to fly a commercial jet low to the ground. The claim is it would be near impossible for someone who has never flown a commercial jet before to fly at ground level at 500 mph, while hitting objects, and not leaving a mark on the pentagoon lawn. All nice and clam like, in the face of death.

This is not an accurate statement. Fact is, Hani Hanjour took many flying lessons and was a licensed commerical airline pilot. Here is some info on Hanjour: - In 1996, Hanjour paid $4,800 for lessons at CRM Flight Cockpit Resource Management in Scottsdale. -In 1999, Hanjour gained his FAA commercial pilot certificate in April. Now I am not sure how it works, but Hanjour had over 600 hours logged of flying experience. - In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001. -FBI agents questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license. That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good." -One 9/11 Commission footnote (to Chapter 7) is relatively positive. 170. FBI report, "Summary of Penttbom Investigation," Feb. 29, 2004, pp. 52­57. Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charters of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach.The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview (Apr.9, 2004). -

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"

www.pentagonresearch.com... -George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams said. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do." Interesting article here:

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

www.salon.com... Most impotant quot from this article:

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

Here is a good example, a video of a F-14 breaking the sound barrier close to the sea and to viewers that will help Ultima1 understand why his claim is invalid: The cameraman was able to follow the F-14 in his lens - somewhat more difficult then just looking at it. One is able to distinguish that it is a fighter jet with two tails and not a passenger jet. The sound barrier at sea level is about 750+ MPH. Those who witnessed AA77 hitting the Pentagon saw a much larger jet flying at 250 mph slower than the F-14 above and witnesses were widely separated at different distances from the crash site and independent of each other. The claim that no one could identify AA77 as a passenger jet with American Airlines markings is just another invalid 9/11 Truther claim.

Originally posted by jthomas There is nothing to debunk. It demonstrates what we all know: it is very easy to identify an aircraft and its markings flying at high speed, just what 9/11 Truthers have always claimed is impossible.

The plane in that vid is not flying at 500 mph. Also if it so easy to see in that vid, why do we not even see a plane in the one video the pentagoon released? And witnesses, seeing markings or not, does not prove a 757 hit the pentagoon, so why all the fuss over it? If you guys buy all this then you must be very easily convinced. Are you the folks who fall for internet scams from Nigeria?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jthomas There is nothing to debunk. It demonstrates what we all know: it is very easy to identify an aircraft and its markings flying at high speed, just what 9/11 Truthers have always claimed is impossible.

The plane in that vid is not flying at 500 mph.

The F-14 is flying at about 750 MPH and easy to tell it's a fighter.

Also if it so easy to see in that vid, why do we not even see a plane in the one video the pentagoon released?

People have eyes. As has been made clear repeatedly, one does not need a video to know AA77 hit the Pentagon. Please explain why you need a video.

And witnesses, seeing markings or not, does not prove a 757 hit the pentagoon, so why all the fuss over it?

It's just one of the many pieces of evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon, isn't it?

If you guys buy all this then you must be very easily convinced. Are you the folks who fall for internet scams from Nigeria?

Looks like the evidence wins over you once again. Please explain to us why the evidence doesn't matter to you, Anok.

reply to post by jthomas I was referring to the other video not your F-14 vid. But anyway so what? I don't see the point of your argument. No matter what video you show it doesn't put a 757 in the pentagoon. Show me a 757 at the pentagoon and I might believe the governments wild story. I was a jet engine mech (AD) in the Navy for 6 years I know what planes look like and what can be seen, I don't need to see a video... What evidence? How about the lack of evidence? [edit on 12/5/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK reply to post by jthomas

 

I was referring to the other video not your F-14 vid. But anyway so what? I don't see the point of your argument. No matter what video you show it doesn't put a 757 in the pentagoon. Show me a 757 at the pentagoon and I might believe the governments wild story. I was a jet engine mech (AD) in the Navy for 6 years I know what planes look like and what can be seen, I don't need to see a video... What evidence? How about the lack of evidence? [edit on 12/5/2008 by ANOK]

And his other video speaks to the ability of aircraft to fly close to the ground. Does the video prove a 757 hit the Pentagon, no, the physical evidence does that.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999 Gee, I have 21 years around aircraft total, and I have NO problems picking out enough markings on jets to identify who they belong to, even when they scream past at 500+ mph, and those jets normally dont have "U.S. Air Force" plastered in two foot high letters on the side like an American Airlines airliner does. As for point 2, yes, there ARE reports that do that. You're just pissy that you are not on the distribution list.

1. Well you have been around thenm for 21 years, what about most of the witness at the Pentagon that have never really been around planes ? If it was so easy to tell what kind of plane it was why did som many noy know it was a 757? What about the witness who admitted he did not know what hit the Pentagon, he was told later it was a 757. If you did not know what a 757 looked like could you tell wahve it was if it went by at 500 mph and you only only got a few seconds to look at it? 2. Please show me the official FBI and NTSB reports that match parts found to the 9/11 planes. [edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]