9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Catherder (or anyone else, for that matter), can you please explain: 1) Why the 'scattered' (by hand maybe ?) and (luckily !) for any camera crew at the scene, clearly visible remains of a plane, travelling at anything from 150 to 500+ mph, that hit any building would NOT be either disintegrated by the sheer speed of the impact, or at least marked ? The pics of the more recognisable parts are suspiciously clean \ unscratched \ un-burnt etc., and the amount of fuel carried \ left at the time of impact would surely have caused some fire damage to these parts, even if the impact had not ! 2) The plane, whatever it was, must have been travelling fast enough to be able for the pilot to be able to control, and aim at the walls of the pentagon. Even at the slow (for a passenger plane) speed of say 100 mph, that would equal approximately 145 feet per second. The length of the plane you mention is 155 feet, so in 1 second, most of the plane would have hit the wall... including the wings, which are only halfway from the nose, and again, suspiciously ignored in your 'eveidence' of damage to the building. Where in any photo, most of which are clear enough to see the brickwork, is the damage to the wall caused by 124 feet of wings (with at least some fuel left to make sure the target was reached), taking just over HALF a second to reach the wall, at the relatively slow speed I chose of 100 mph (I don't know the stall speed of the plane mentioned, but most planes reach 100 to 150 mph for takeoff, so the stall speed would probably be less than that) ? I suspect the actual speed of impact was more like 150 to 200 but I'm not an expert. I'm merely interested in hearing ALL the facts \ evidence, not just the ones that work in certain threads. 3) The pentagon is probably the most likely target for any terrorist organisation to want to destroy, and would be covered by the best recording equipment your dollars can buy, which would film EVERY possible attack angle from the road and the sky. Would they use low quality security cameras that give unclear images, and position them just over doorways \ carparks etc. ? Of course they wouldn't ! Even newspaper photographers have cameras that can see a quarter of a mile away ! Why don't the pentagon ? They're the most powerful (and hence the most targetted) people in the world ! Why was the only possibly useful evidence (again, suspiciously removed but never shown) filmed by a petrol \ gas station across the road ? 4) Next to the 'impact' hole, supposedly caused by a 40+ ton plane 155 feet long, 12 feet wide at the front and 124 feet wide at the wings (just 70 feet from the front) and doing 150+ mph, is a 'no parking any time' sign STILL ATTACHED TO THE WALL ! Why wasn't it damaged \ burnt \ marked in any way ? Look forward to any answers !

Originally posted by Boone 870 Ultima, did the driver of this bus give up control or was it taken from him?

Comparing apples and oranges again? Please stay on topic and provide proper facts and evidence to answer this, "Can anyone tell me in the history of hijackings how many planes DID NOT get off an emergancy call or signal? What are the odds of 4 planes in the same day not geting off an emergency call or signal?" [edit on 17-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

www.satp.org...(2)/CN_ghosh.htm

The wife of the Solicitor General, Barbara K Olson called her husband, at the Justice Department at 09:25 hrs from the ‘plane to tell him about the hijacking and to report that the passengers and pilots were being held towards the rear of the plane.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA, your 'source' comes up as 'Page Can Not Be Found' Maybe it's my computer.... So, just to discuss....based on that 'content from external source'....you wish to hinge your entire argument on some wife of the Soliciter General? Some non-aviation trained person, who was under duress.....and tell me, quickly......haw many people reading this thread have confused the uniform of a male Flight Attendant for that of a Pilot?!? How many, at a quick glance.....no hat, no coat, just the shirt and pants, could tell the difference????? Do you know, how many times, I have been.....in my Captain's uniform, been asked for a pillow or a beverage?!? I don't mean the full uniform, just the shirt, the epaulets and the tie. PEOPLE who are not in the business do not notice the distinctions!!! And this wife, rest her, is supposed to be a valid source? Apologies to her family, I just needed to make a point.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 I am one topic. Earlier, you said, ''PILOTS SHOULD NOT JUST GIVE OVER CONTROL OF THIER PLANE TO HIJACKERS.'' Did the flight crews of ANA Flight 61 and EA Flight 961 give up control of their aircraft or was it taken?

Originally posted by weedwhacker ..you wish to hinge your entire argument on some wife of the Soliciter General? Some non-aviation trained person, who was under duress.....and tell me, quickly......

You mean like you and others hinge your entire argument about AA77 hitting the Pentagon based mostly on non-aviation trained witnesses?

Wheres the wings from the plane? Why did the video the gov't FINALLY released had the wrong day time stamped on the bottom corner? Where is all the wreckage from the crash. ALL plane crashes have wreckage, luggage. SOmething. No way a plane made up of titanium burn up with few pieces scattered here or there. Wheres the wings imprint on the pentagon building? Why didnt the gov't release the videos of the supposed plane hitting the pentagon and why within minutes of the supposed plane hitting the pentagon did the FBI take all cctv video of surrounding businesses? Why did the gov't say there was no video of the plane hitting the building? They had no problem showing the planes hitting the twin towers over and over again. Kerosene(jet fuel) doesnt burn that hot to melt tons of metal that a plane crash of that size would leave behind. Lets remember ppl, some of the supposed hijackers on that day ARE STILL ALIVE AND WELL IN THEIR COUNTRY. The FBI so far has not revised their list knowing they are still alive. Good try with this but it still leaves all these questions to be answered. Isnt it ironic the side of the pentagon hit was the side being remodeled.HMM.. And isnt it ironic that Donald Rumsfeld was on the OTHER side of the building when this happened.HMMM HMMM.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 HA HA HA!!! NO, where did anyone here say they "base their entire argument on non-aviation witnesses"???!!! ULTIMA, don't jump the shark, you were doing so well. AND what's up with your one-liner comebacks all of the time? Try to write a coherent sentence without accusing people of something that isn't true.

Originally posted by weedwhacker HA HA HA!!! NO, where did anyone here say they "base their entire argument on non-aviation witnesses"???!!!

Because most people on here use the non-aviation trained witnesses as thier evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I mean thats basically all they have since there is no actual evidence. [edit on 18-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 One of the witnesses, Tim Timmerman, is a pilot (claimed to be at least) and in his statement on 9/11 he correctly identified the plane as an AA 757. He also witnessed it striking the building. Of the 130-odd witness statements I have, over 20 of them observed the AA markings. From the Tim Timmerman CNN interview on the day:

FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself? TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question. FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767? TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7. FRANKEN: 757, which, of course... TIMMERMAN: American Airlines. FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets. TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.

Looks like a good case for an AA 757 to me. Were any components found in the wreckage that definitely don't match an AA 757?

Originally posted by Pilgrum One of the witnesses, Tim Timmerman, is a pilot (claimed to be at least) and in his statement on 9/11 he correctly identified the plane as an AA 757.

WOW, 1 out of 130 thats really impressive And still no actual evidnce to go along with the witsess statements. But you forgot about the witness who admittind they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757. [edit on 19-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum One of the witnesses, Tim Timmerman, is a pilot (claimed to be at least) and in his statement on 9/11 he correctly identified the plane as an AA 757.

WOW, 1 out of 130 thats really impressive

And still no actual evidnce to go along with the witsess statements. But you forgot about the witness who admittind they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757. [edit on 19-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Now, now, don't revert back to fallacies, Ultima1. Don't forget the 1,000 or so witnesses you are afraid to interview.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 That's the aviation trained witness you were asking for. A qualified observer who saw the whole thing IE AA77 impacting the Pentagon. Can you discredit his observations? As far as I can find see his testimony has never been proven false although plenty of alternate theorists have desperately tried to discredit him. [edit on 19/6/2008 by Pilgrum]

A few quick questions: 1. How do you explain the fireball at the Pentagon being WHITE-HOT, but the fireball at the South Tower being YELLOW-ORANGE? Excerpt from 9/11 Synthetic Terror: The frames of the Pentagon being hit show a fireball which is a WHITE-HOT, brilliant fireball attaining some 130 feet in height, thus indicating a powerful detonation, most likely caused by high explosives of some type. Compare this to the jet fuel explosion involving the South Tower of the World Trade Center, where a cloud of jet fuel went from yellow to orange to black as the fuel was consumed. The evidence again suggest that a large commercial airliner was not involved, but rather some form of missile. 2. How do you explain the vapor trail? 3. What do people here think about Karl Schwarz's Pentagon theory? That a drone recently refitted with missiles and UAV remote control shortly before 9/11 hit the Pentagon? www.physics911.net... portland.indymedia.org... portland.indymedia.org...

reply to post by Markshark4 Just some thoughts, Mark: First image...a CCD camera, one over-exposed frame from a camera that took only a few frames per second. Second image, a properly exposed still photograph. Third image....complete nonsense. Help much? edit....will look at your other part RE: Karl Schwartz later....never heard of him. [edit on 6/19/0808 by weedwhacker]

I am too lazy to read through 254 pages of nonsense so here is a simple video showing you that a MISSILE hit the pentagon. If it's already been posted, i am sorry. www.youtube.com... Do you see a plane? Do you see a big 757? I don't. Also, I don't think this was photoshopped by cnn headline news. Do you? I am looking forward to the nonsense that people will use to try and explain this away. I mean if the USA had such proof that a plane indeed hit the pentagon, and they had video of it, why wouldn't they release it? It would shut a lot of people up, wouldn't it? Government shillies, fire away!

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS I am too lazy to read through 254 pages of nonsense so here is a simple video showing you that a MISSILE hit the pentagon. If it's already been posted, i am sorry. www.youtube.com... Do you see a plane? Do you see a big 757? I don't. Also, I don't think this was photoshopped by cnn headline news. Do you? I am looking forward to the nonsense that people will use to try and explain this away. I mean if the USA had such proof that a plane indeed hit the pentagon, and they had video of it, why wouldn't they release it? It would shut a lot of people up, wouldn't it? Government shillies, fire away!

This one's easy: www.youtube.com...

"This one's easy: www.youtube.com..." How big is a 757 from nose to tail? "this one's easy"

Ha ha ha ha I dont belive you guys... where is the tail section, humm, its designed to suvive worse crashes than this... and for that matter where is the rest of the plane. and I dont believe that fire ball accounts for the fuel that plane was carrying... and lets not even take a look at beefing that wall up just prior to 911. and the rideculous flight path that verifies no plane hit the pentacon. if a 757 hit that structure built in 1950 ... it would be too big of a fire to put out. I need more than a blurry photo... 3200 Americans died that day... God Bless America and REMEBER 911 Always.

The tail section is not any stronger than any other part of the plane. It happens to survive LOW SPEED impacts better than the rest of the plane, because by the time the tail section hits, most of the impact energy is gone. As for the 1950s building, what part of "newly renovated" didn't get through? The building had been undergoing renovations that made it strong enough to withstand a truck bomb almost touching the wall.