9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Howard Roark you really kill me with your nick name sure you must like Ayn Rand, with all the inconsistencies between her life and her novels, alas... this thread is not about that. You spent time "striking me Out" on a paralell sidenote on the "alegued 757" there is nothing that compared to the events of 9/11 , and Russia and its secret police and politics. But the Bottom line is that the US sells itself as the police of the world and the most advenced militar and technological advanced maelstrom on earth, so WHY the confusion? on 9/11 why no scrambling of F16? why 50 minutes of joy flying of an amateur wacko highjacker in the most guarded airspace in the world? Why the cameras and evidence removed, why the secrecy, why the pentagon is unprotected? there are only 2 ways of looking at the 9/11 scenario: The US forces are stupid, slow, dont react with inteligence, dont have the means to stop ANYTHING for almost an hour and they failed miserabily in protecting ANYTHING and worst of all there havent been another attack so we dont know if they are up to it yet.. ____THIS ESCENARIO I REFUSE TO BELIEVE__________ The MOST PROBABLE_______ since there are a lot of bogus data I prefer to believe the data for a 757 is non conclusive and the posibility of an inside Job seem more plausible, given the facts and the absence of data due to confiscation.... But I am struck out ...so who cares? When I say murder in this case I mean all the dead people in 9-11 not only on the pentagon.

Originally posted by kix why 50 minutes of joy flying of an amateur wacko highjacker in the most guarded airspace in the world?

It must be hard to guard against all of those planes flying in and out

Originally posted by HowardRoark It must be hard to guard against all of those planes flying in and out

I'm sure they give pilots less than a friendly reminder, if they forget. Restricted airspace is taken pretty seriously in the US. It's actually not as close as it looks on that map. [edit on 7-11-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by HowardRoark It must be hard to guard against all of those planes flying in and out

I'm sure they give pilots less than a friendly reminder, if they forget. Restricted airspace is taken pretty seriously in the US.

But they don't shoot them down. Or at least pre 9/11 they didn't. Now? who knows. I pity the guy that would have to make that call, however. what if your are wrong and you just shot down a plane that was returning to the airport because of a mechanincal emergency?

Thank you soooo much for this article. I have read and seen video's on the Pentagon which claim that the 757 was taken down somewhere else and had the people killed. Also, that there were no evidences of people actually seeing the plane. That was so upsetting for me to think about. NOt that being flown into a builiding at 350-400mph is any better, but sure better than the alternatives that I've heard about. I don't think for one second that this evidence proves our Governement had nothing to do with the attacks, but it puts to rest in my mind that the 757 did hit the Pentagon and not a missle. However, I did have a tough time making out the "seats" in the pictures that you mentioned. I still have many questions such as: the pilots and their ability to guide the plane and were not listed as passangers on any of the flights. Also, I heard on a video that dogs could not find any human remains in the wreckage. Do you have any evidence or explanation of those things? Thanks for all your hard work!

Originally posted by HowardRoark But they don't shoot them down. Or at least pre 9/11 they didn't. Now? who knows. I pity the guy that would have to make that call, however. what if your are wrong and you just shot down a plane that was returning to the airport because of a mechanincal emergency?

If it's not a hijacked plane, that's not even an issue. Radio contact would be made and communication would take place. If they don't respond, that's a different story.

What if the plane is returning because of an electrical failure that includes the loss of onboard communications devices such as transponders and radios? [edit on 4-11-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark What if the plane is returning because of an electrical failure that includes the loss of onboard communications devices such as transponders and radios?

In the very rare event that that should happen, I'm sure they'd just shoot it down. Seriously, they probably have some backup radio, or something, wouldn't you think? Otherwise, I imagine they'd make eye contact with the pilot and do sign language, or something. I'm sure the pilot would hold up the mic and point to it, indicating it's not working, or something. Or maybe, he'd probably just get on his cell phone and call someone.

From some personal conversations with pilots, total radio failures are uncommon, butthey do happen. Pre 9/11 the proceedures were different.

My advise, in the event of a radio failure, would be: Don't fly through the no fly zones. Co-pilot: "Hey, isn't that the Pentagon down there? You're not supposed to fly over that, right? Pilot: "Yeah, but the radio isn't working, so we're fine." [edit on 4-11-2004 by Damned]

Look at that map again. The Pentagon is right under the approach path of one of the two longest runways at Ronald Reagan airport.

wow...I can't believe this thread is still going, and people still think that a missile was shot at the pentagon. If it really wasn't the plane, then what happened to the plane full of people? It just disappeared into thin air? The government shot it down so they could fire a missile at the pentagon? Tell me how a plane could just disappear, if it did not crash into the pentagon. Oh wait, that's impossible, they would have seen it on the radar in the exact spot it went down, there's no way that could be faked...

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by Kellter Wow Cathearder, Outstanding research and your post is laid out perferct. You've convinced me a 757 hit the Pentagon, now you just have to convince me that someone who learned how to fly by Microsoft Flight Simulator managed to pull off such a precise hit. I believe the pilot did spend time in a professional flight simulator but theres two problems with that. 1. His instructor didn't have high marks for him. 2. He couldn't practice the approach to the Pentagon on the professional software as it would have really raised some flags. Again, outstanding job Cathearder, my other issues are for another thread, thanks for all your woek.

1. Didn't matter in the least. You take lessons on how to fly a plane so you can do the two hardest things: take off and land. He didn't need to be good at either (or even know how to do either) - all he had to be able to do is fly it while it was in the air (ask any airline pilot, these new planes practically fly themselves). 2. Didn't matter in the least - he simply punched in the proper GPS coordinates into the flight computer and it flew him there, once he had visual on the Pentagon he turned off the autopilot, performed a 330 turn to correct his angle (wasn't a very good pilot) decended to 2,000 feet, put the plane at full throttle and continued his straight flight into the side of the building. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]

At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane. However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane. However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons. In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said. they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons. In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said. When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997," Chilton said. Newsday On December 12, 2000, they were settling in Mesa, Arizona, and Hanjour was ready to brush up on his flight training. By early 2001, he was using a Boeing 737 simulator. Because his performance struck his flight instructors as sub-standard, they discouraged Hanjour from continuing, but he persisted. 9/11 Commission of the 9/11 Plot But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said. Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide. Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious. Washington Post

Originally posted by Shoktek wow...I can't believe this thread is still going, and people still think that a missile was shot at the pentagon. If it really wasn't the plane, then what happened to the plane full of people? It just disappeared into thin air? The government shot it down so they could fire a missile at the pentagon? Tell me how a plane could just disappear, if it did not crash into the pentagon. Oh wait, that's impossible, they would have seen it on the radar in the exact spot it went down, there's no way that could be faked...

For the LOVE!.......the transponders were turned off, and therefore their little blips on all the screens that tracked them blinked out. THEREFORE, after they were turned off by the hijackers, they could no longer be determined on where they were. And they were NOT shot down, OBVIOUSLY. They were landed somewhere, but as to where, that cannot be determined. And so you apply "logic" by thinking that since, according to those who believe it was an inside job theory, we're not sure where the planes ended up, so therefore, the whole thing is untrue hands down. So if something really extravagant like some huge diamond was stolen from somewhere, but replaced with some phony fake one, and someone was trying to point out that the real one is no longer there, you would be like..."well, if that's true, and that thing next to us is fake, then where's the REAL one? Yeah, that's right, we don't know where the real one is, so your claim is stupid!" Yeah, your deductive skills and paths of thinking are real rational....

Originally posted by SimpleTruth For the LOVE!.......the transponders were turned off, and therefore their little blips on all the screens that tracked them blinked out. THEREFORE, after they were turned off by the hijackers, they could no longer be determined on where they were. And they were NOT shot down, OBVIOUSLY. They were landed somewhere, but as to where, that cannot be determined. And so you apply "logic" by thinking that since, according to those who believe it was an inside job theory, we're not sure where the planes ended up, so therefore, the whole thing is untrue hands down. So if something really extravagant like some huge diamond was stolen from somewhere, but replaced with some phony fake one, and someone was trying to point out that the real one is no longer there, you would be like..."well, if that's true, and that thing next to us is fake, then where's the REAL one? Yeah, that's right, we don't know where the real one is, so your claim is stupid!" Yeah, your deductive skills and paths of thinking are real rational....

I think it is a bit easier to misplace a diamond than it is a 757 and all the people on board ...yea, it was just landed somewhere...that makes a WHOLE lot of sense. If you seriously believe that this plane did not hit the pentagon...especially after everything in this thread..as skeptic overlord said, you just NEED this to be a conspiracy. Any theory you can present to us regarding a missile hitting the pentagon is simple fiction based on no real evidence whatsoever. I guess for some people it's a hell lot of fun to take any random event and turn it in to a conspiracy..but for those of us who still have most of our brain cells in tact, we would rather just decide on what really happened. Keep on looking out your windows and wearing your tin foil hat... [edit on 7-11-2004 by Shoktek]

Originally posted by HowardRoark Look at that map again. The Pentagon is right under the approach path of one of the two longest runways at Ronald Reagan airport.

It's close, but they still don't allow flying through the no fly zone. The map might be misleading, actually. Look at this real picture. You don't even see the airport in the general vicinity. It's not as close as you would think. www.directionsmag.com...

Originally posted by Shoktek I think it is a bit easier to misplace a diamond than it is a 757 and all the people on board

...yea, it was just landed somewhere...that makes a WHOLE lot of sense. If you seriously believe that this plane did not hit the pentagon...especially after everything in this thread..as skeptic overlord said, you just NEED this to be a conspiracy. Any theory you can present to us regarding a missile hitting the pentagon is simple fiction based on no real evidence whatsoever. I guess for some people it's a hell lot of fun to take any random event and turn it in to a conspiracy..but for those of us who still have most of our brain cells in tact, we would rather just decide on what really happened. Keep on looking out your windows and wearing your tin foil hat...

[edit on 7-11-2004 by Shoktek]

For one thing, you're typing down things that I didn't type. I don't wear tin foil hats or subscribe to any theories that are even remotely connected to that type of thing. Also, the planes wouldn't have landed just anywhere. I did NOT say that. Of course not. That WOULD be ridiculous because in most places it would be easily seen and noticed. However, is it really hard to imagine them being landed somewhere undisclosed? Somewhere NOT publically owned, but federally owned? Like a military base? Then who would ever know about it? Only those at the particular base. Maybe even a higher restricted place than a base. Also, there is no WAY I need this to be a conspiracy. I used to love Bush and company. I was elated when he became pres in 2000. Up until recently, I've always thought our government was something that would never do any wrong to its own people. But history dictates, and current discrepancies in the story of how 9/11 "officially" happened, along with some accompanying disturbing FACTS, yes facts, I now know that our government is NOT above corruption or somehow holy and benevolent and incapable of horrible acts. I was naive. So do you think I was pulled out of that view I had so easily?? Do you think that a bunch of raving people with no sound evidence would convince me that Bush may NOT be so great, and that there are those in power right now who actually might have an agenda that takes precedence in their minds FAR above the well-being of the people? If there is not a ton of evidence, wouldn't I have just ignored these "theories"? Because, let me tell you, it would have been a HELL of a lot more convienient for me to just still think what I used to. But unfortunately, there were so many things pointing to the fact that some from our own government did this, that it was enough to change to take me out of my VERY strong opinion of before. There are so many pieces of physical and especially circumstantial evidence, it's not funny. The fact that you weren't aware of the transponders tells me that maybe you haven't looked into it very deeply. If not, I suggest doing so. So no, I don't NEED this to be a conspiracy. I was perfectly happy and content in my blissfully ignorant state. And yes, at first I denied it. But I couldn't for long. So stop making assumptions about me. Yes, Catherder did a very thorough job with his research, and presented it very well. However, I still don't think it's right. If you want to know why, then I'll type it out. But if you don't want to hear anything more from any of us crazies, then I'm not going to bother.

I agree with you and know that our government is responsible for many terrible things that have happened, many of which we will probably never know about. I don't think they are giving us all the facts on 9/11, and it probably does go deeper than the story they gave everyone...I am pretty sure the plane did actually hit the pentagon, although I won't be 100% until the video of it is released, or an actual independent study proves what happened in the whole attack on that day (this will probably never happen). Many strange things happened around and on 9/11, but almost all of what we can say about what happened is mere speculation...I don't think we will ever have the facts about it, and I don't think we will ever know what really happened. We didn't know about FDR's prior pearl harbor knowledge until just recently...maybe it will take another 50 or so years before we solve this thing.

Originally posted by Shoktek I agree with you and know that our government is responsible for many terrible things that have happened, many of which we will probably never know about. I don't think they are giving us all the facts on 9/11, and it probably does go deeper than the story they gave everyone...I am pretty sure the plane did actually hit the pentagon, although I won't be 100% until the video of it is released, or an actual independent study proves what happened in the whole attack on that day (this will probably never happen). Many strange things happened around and on 9/11, but almost all of what we can say about what happened is mere speculation...I don't think we will ever have the facts about it, and I don't think we will ever know what really happened. We didn't know about FDR's prior pearl harbor knowledge until just recently...maybe it will take another 50 or so years before we solve this thing.

Yes, I agree with you here. If no investigation is conducted, then there is no way we can get any hard physical evidence. And for the most part, I'd say that window of opportunity of an investigation is gone because the sites are cleaned up, the steel from WTC was shipped off right away and so on. The best we can have is soft physical evidence (don't know if that's really even a term) in that there is video footage and audio recordings of the WTC. The pentagon is a different matter. There isn't any available sadly. Some footage had captured it, but by now it's either destroyed, or it's still intact, but not being released for whatever reason. Beyond that though, there are testimonies and circumstantial evidence from people both on the outside, like average citizens who were caught up in that day, and from the inside of things, like agents coming out about shady things surrounding 9/11 and related matters. There is so much of this type of evidence that lends way to the belief that our government (rogue elements that is. IMO, largely the CIA) did this, that despite the lack of physical evidence available, one can become at least very confident in the assertion that the government is guilty. Then, when paired with the limited amount of video and audio that do support the circumstantial, IMO that's enough evidence for me. And yes, it may be another case similar to Pearl Harbor where, if we ever find out (at least find out from a gov source) that they were involved or something more was to the story, it won't be for a long time. Not until there is a new generation, where they will be numb to the event, due to not having lived through it. Therefore, there will be no strong movement to try and right the wrong. Granted, it takes a lot of time to delve into all the facets and all the anomalies between what the official story says happened and what reality was. Any "fact" you may come across while researching must be cross-referenced by numerous other sources to verify its validity and to make sure it's not bogus. And I believe, those responsible for 9/11, are counting on the fact that the vast majority of people won't investigate it themselves. Afterall, if the TV says this is the way it is, then that must be a done deal, no further investigation needed. Or, people are just plain lazy. Looking at just one or a few angles of the events from the conspiracy standpoint won't trigger any alarms that something is wrong just from those alone. For instance, just focusing in on the size of the hole of the pentagon, or the scattered testimonies of people who heard multiple explosions in the WTC before they fell, or even both, can be fairly easily brushed off because events like this are bound to have something strange no matter what. Someone who may come across, for the very first time, the viewpoint that the gov did it, may read a bit of it and only receive a few of the facets involved. If they stop there, and don't go on further, it's easy to not think much of it, and then try and justify it along the lines of the official story. Without getting the whole picture, the conspiracy standpoint clearly and understandably looks like there's not enough there to base it on. It in large part, looks crazy, and people start to wonder why one would hold this view. It's not until one looks at all the dimensions that it becomes clear that something is wrong. But most people don't look past the first few they may stumble upon, or even know there are more than one or two dimensions on this issue. It's a case where discrepancy builds on top of another discrepancy, an anomaly on top of an anomaly, paired with this issue, and that inconsistency, etc. where it becomes evident that the official version is wrong. It's a process. It takes diligence and patience. And of course an open mind, which is hard for anyone to achieve. An open mind doesn't mean you accept everything, but that you examine all the facts before you make a conclusion, instead of your preset conlusion dictating how you perceive the facts. That is how I came to have my opinion change drastically. And it was a definite process, and at times I really DIDN'T have an open mind, but eventually it happened all the same. I'm glad you aren't as naive as I was. I'm glad you don't put all your trust in the gov, because you shouldn't. And I apologize if I was too snippity with you, because, really, I can't blame anyone for having a hard time believing what I and others have come to realize. It's just that it gets frusterating after a period of time of being berated and seen as a wacko on this issue. Believe me, I'm not a conspiracy-aholic like some can become. And some people no-doubtedly are, which makes it exceedingly hard when an ACTUAL conspiracy is being detected by some people, because people automatically think of those crazy conspiracy addicts when anything like this is mentioned, and therefore the playing field is not level to begin with. However, ATS has not been too bad and most people are tolerant and openminded, at least more so than people outside the ATS community. Anyway, I urge people to delve into this whole issue and look at all the angles of 9/11, because considering the allegations, if it's true, don't you think it deserves your attention, scrutiny, and investigation?

Originally posted by Kellter Wow Cathearder, Outstanding research and your post is laid out perferct. You've convinced me a 757 hit the Pentagon, now you just have to convince me that someone who learned how to fly by Microsoft Flight Simulator managed to pull off such a precise hit. I believe the pilot did spend time in a professional flight simulator but theres two problems with that. 1. His instructor didn't have high marks for him. 2. He couldn't practice the approach to the Pentagon on the professional software as it would have really raised some flags. Again, outstanding job Cathearder, my other issues are for another thread, thanks for all your woek.

i agree that it is compelling evidence and an excellent job at describing the reason why a 757 could have hit the pentagon, that is under perfect conditions, whoever trained the pilot should be employed by our goverment for training pilots because that appears to have been the most perfect manuever in history, second, why is the government in need to protect our feelings by hiding the black box and seizing all the video feeds that recorded the incident? if they are trying to encourage a lack of trust thats a great way to begin, theres no reason to hide the footage, and theres nothing that we cant handle hearing people battle in a cockpit at the last seconds of life, i just think we would not even be debating this if they did not try to hide footage and evidence, thats absurd