9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by jthomas 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:

Please show me evindece that most of the witnesse knew they saw AA 757. A witness even admitted he did not know what hit the Pentagon he was told later it was a 757.

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

Yes you can tell that a fighter, that pretty easy. But if i posdt several airliners, with only a few seconds to look could you tell me what type of airliner it was? Or if it was civilian or military? [edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 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?

Were all the people around the Pentagon Amish or something? They don't know what a passenger plane looks like? Your standards of identification seem a bit extreme there, ULTIMA1. By your standards, if a witness didnt instantly know it was a 757, their statements are immediately dismissed because they obviously dont know what they saw. Just identifying it as a passenger plane isnt good enough. They need to know exact model (bonus for memorizing part numbers), plus show the video of them watching the plane hit the pentagon. Otherwise, they arent a witness.

Originally posted by Disclosed Just identifying it as a passenger plane isnt good enough. They need to know exact model (bonus for memorizing part numbers), plus show the video of them watching the plane hit the pentagon. Otherwise, they arent a witness.

1. We are not looking for evidence of a passenger plane, we are looking for evidnece of a AA 757, i mean we are looking for the truth are we not ? 2. As you know there is no released photo or video of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, so there is no real evidence that it did. [edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 1. We are not looking for evidence of a passenger plane, we are looking for evidnece of a AA 757, i mean we are looking for the truth are we not ?

The AA 757 is not a passenger plane? Thats pretty odd....I could have sworn that it was a passenger plane. Very interesting.

Originally posted by Disclosed The AA 757 is not a passenger plane?

I will only state this 1 last time for your understanding, since you seem to have such a hard time with simple things. We are looking for a AA 757, not just a passenger plane. Remember we are looking for the truth. [edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Salana

Originally posted by zerocool HOW THE F**K CAN A PLANE GET THAT BLOODY CLOSE TO THE MOST SECURED AND GUARDED BUILDING IN THE WORLD!

I do not think it is the most secured and guarded building in the world. Here is a picture, made from a private Cessna on August 2001:

In the background you see the Ronald Reagan Airport. Why wasn�t this plane shot down so close at "the most secured and guarded building in the world"? SALANA

Uuuuhh... because 4 aircraft weren't hijacked on that day? And flown into buildings in NY more than an hour before? The problem I have with this scenario is that ANYTIME a plane is hijacked, fighther jets are immediately scrambled to intercept it. This didn't happen with ANY of the 4 planes on 9/11. And why wasn't the Pentagon airpace being patrolled? I mean they had already flown 2 aircraft into buildings that day. What do we pay $500 billion a year for defense for anyway?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 We are looking for a AA 757, not just a passenger plane. Remember we are looking for the truth.

The AA 757 is not a passenger plane? Guess I always thought a 757 was a passenger airline. How strange.

Originally posted by Disclosed The AA 757 is not a passenger plane? Guess I always thought a 757 was a passenger airline. How strange.

I do not respond to misquotes.

reply to post by AntiPolitrix "Why would the US Government hit the Pentagon with a missle and then say an airplain hit it. If the US government did stage the attacks they would have done a better job." Wait, so you're saying that if they did stage it... they would've done a better job??? So, you're saying that as far as a staged attack goes, this one just doesn't fit the bill of being a "good job"... in other words... it makes no sense... they didn't do a "good job" of making their "staged event" match their "official story". THAT'S THE POINT. It doesn't make sense and it doesn't match the official story. You just proved the "conspiracy theorists" point for them!

Originally posted by ANOK reply to post by jthomas

 

I was referring to the other video not your F-14 vid.

Yes, I know.

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.

You want a video to "prove" a 757 hit the Pentagon. That's YOUR claim. As you must understand by now, any video is irrelevant. No one needs a video to "prove" AA77 hit the Pentagon given that ALL of the other evidence conclusively demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon, including the eyewitnesses who were quite capable of seeing that AA77 was an American Airlines passenger jet as well as those who can tell identify a 757 from other passenger jets.

Show me a 757 at the pentagoon and I might believe the governments wild story.

LOL. There is NO government story. ALL of the evidence you continue to deny is completely independent of whatever the government wants to say about it.

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...

Yes, you DO need a video. That is EXACTLY what you claim you need. YOU claim you NEED a video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon to PROVE it happened while all of us KNOW no one needs a video. We have every bit of physical and eyewitness evidence that you cannot refute. Then you claim it's impossible for an eyewitness to be able to identify a passenger jet when I show you how a cameraman can follow and video an F-14 flying at 750+ MPH. And we can all see what is obvious. This is SO funny. No wonder the 9/11 truth Movement is so confused.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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]

Gee, Ultima1, I haven't seen your admission yet that it is easy to tell a fighter jet moving faster than the speed of sound from a passenger jet. Are you now saying that you are unable to do so?! Do you understand that most people do not the difference from a 757 and an y other passenger jet yet they are perfectly capable of describing a passenger jet by their description of what they saw? Do you understand that a number of witnesses with knowledge and interest of flying machines could tell a 757 from a 767 and accurately described it as so? Why your persistence in denying the obvious?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas 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:

Please show me evindece that most of the witnesse knew they saw AA 757. A witness even admitted he did not know what hit the Pentagon he was told later it was a 757.

Only a few identified it as a 757. Others, who may not no the difference from a 757 and a DC-3 described a passenger jet, or one with American Airlines on it, even seeing passengers in its windows. Have you bothered to read their reports? On what rational basis would anyone have to KNOW it's a 757 to be able to describe what they saw? Please tell me that. In any case, as you MUST realize by now, the eyewitness reports are consistent with ALL of the other evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. We do not rely exclusively on those reports but on the sum total of all the evidence. Do you still have a problem understanding that? If so, why?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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

Yes you can tell that a fighter, that pretty easy. But if i posdt several airliners, with only a few seconds to look could you tell me what type of airliner it was?

We're not speculating here. We're talking about what actually happened at the Pentagon.

Or if it was civilian or military?

Civilian, as ALL of the evidence demonstrated on 9/11. Sorry, you do not have the luxury of cherry-picking evidence. It doesn't matter if an eyewitness did not know exactly what he or she was looking at. The eyewitness reports were consistent with, and corroborated, ALL of the other evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. People's eyes are not video cameras. Eyewitnesses to AA77 crashing into the Pentagon were at varying distances and saw the plane for different lengths of time. Please, it's been 6 1/2 years. You have had ample opportunity to try and refute ALL of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. When are you going to understand that?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed Just identifying it as a passenger plane isnt good enough. They need to know exact model (bonus for memorizing part numbers), plus show the video of them watching the plane hit the pentagon. Otherwise, they arent a witness.

2. As you know there is no released photo or video of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, so there is no real evidence that it did.

Ultima1, do you not yet have a clue how irrational a statement that is? We've been over that over and over. How can you possibly make that statement? Please demonstrate WHY you would deny all of the other evidence and claim that we absolutely need a video to PROVE AA77 hit the Pentagon? Why would you claim that NO other evidence matters????

Ultima, this is what you said:

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.

And I posted that even at 500 miles an hour, you can still pick out the markings and be able to tell what kind of plane it is. Are most of the witnesses well versed to say its a 757 as opposed to a 767? No, but they are able to say " I saw a large twin engined passenger airliner with American Airlines markings, crash into the Pentagon" The other half, we know from the human remains found of people KNOWN to have been on Flight 77, the personal effects found in the wreckage of the Pentagon and the remains of the RB-211 engines and several OTHER points that show it was a B-757, American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. And please, no more whining that you have not been able to look at the reports. Quite frankly, you do not have a need to know.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed The AA 757 is not a passenger plane?

I will only state this 1 last time for your understanding, since you seem to have such a hard time with simple things. We are looking for a AA 757, not just a passenger plane. Remember we are looking for the truth.

The truth is right in front of you.

Originally posted by jthomas a passenger jet, or one with American Airlines on it, even seeing passengers in its windows.

If you believe someone could actully see passengers in the plane at that speed and at a distance you are alot worse off then i thought, you make a good little media robot.

Originally posted by jthomas The truth is right in front of you.

Thats the funniest thing i have heard. You believers do not know the truth only what you have ben told and saw on TV. I am still wating for any actual photos or videos that show flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Oh but wait thats right there have not been any released so you believers have no evidence to support the official story.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas a passenger jet, or one with American Airlines on it, even seeing passengers in its windows.

If you believe someone could actully see passengers in the plane at that speed and at a distance you are alot worse off then i thought, you make a good little media robot.

Obviously, it's easy when you are close. I see pilots of the Blue Angels in their F-18s all the time at air shows as they fly by low at high speed. Perhaps you should go to an air show and learn for yourself. In any case, you are just showing that you are unable to make any case for your claims whatsoever. You're just trolling. Refute this witness:

"'Out of my peripheral vision, I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.'' ''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said. ''I remember thinking, 'The World Trade Center was just the beginning, there's going to be more.' '' He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.'' While he remembers seeing the crash, Cissell remembers none of the sounds. ''It came in in a perfectly straight line,'' he said. ''It didn't slow down. I want to say it accelerated. It just shot straight in.'' James R. Cissell www.geocities.com...