9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

All of the people questioning 911 are not conspiracy theorists, hell bent on overthrowing the government. They're normal people who want the whole truth about what the hell is going on right now with their country. So little of it makes any sense, unless you have all the details, which are being kept secret, apparently. I mean, pulease! "They hate our freeeeeedom!" (or our delusions of freedom) Give me a f'ing break. That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird 3 out of 4 actually. And it wasn't like they were small targets. I mean, you'd have to be legally blind to miss.

I knew someone would say this. 3 were aimed at targets the 4th was not aimed at a field. I know what your saying but have you seen a cockpit. I think there is more to these guys than we have been told.

Originally posted by bobjohnson I know what your saying but have you seen a cockpit.

I would suspect that if you don�t care about all of the safety systems, and you had no intention of landing the plane safely, that you could probably ignore 99% of the bells and whistles in a modern cockpit.

Could someone provide me with links / information about discovered black boxes? I mean, black boxes which were found in good (or acceptable) condition? As far as I know, the black box of AA 77 was found and they were able to get some of the recorded datas. Thank you, Salana

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by johnlear Just tell me, on either side of the hole that the fuselage supposedly went through, where is the imprint or damage or any indication that the wings (both left and right) and tail (both horizontal and vertical) made?

This is not the Saturday Morning cartoons, objects do not create holes that represent their exact profile. As compared to the rigid fuselage hitting head-on, the relatively soft wings and stabilizer struck side-on, and as a result likely disintegrated from the high kinetic energy of impact. If you were to dive into the water with arms out straight, they would immediately fall to your side.

"....they would immediately fall to your side..." Give me a break bud! Any clown that believes this simple crap deserves to live in the pathetic world which they have created for themselves. Long winded stories do nothing to dispell the truth, for those who aren't afraid to acknowledge it. Tell me oh enlightened one - if the wings were to fold in on to the side of the fuselage upon impact (physically impossible just to point out) then why did the wings of the trade center planes slice through steel columns like knives through butter????? I'm waiting...

Originally posted by The Joker Tell me oh enlightened one - if the wings were to fold in on to the side of the fuselage upon impact (physically impossible just to point out) then why did the wings of the trade center planes slice through steel columns like knives through butter????? I'm waiting...

I see what you're getting at, but more than likely, those steel columns sliced through the wings, and not vice versa. But that's only because there was nothing but glass between them. If it was concrete, it would be completely different. Nevertheless, I don't believe the wings just folded. It's not as if they're mounted vertically. There is a lot of strength, since they're horizontal. That being true, they would most likely shear off, rather than folding. For example: take a thin, flat piece of wood and smack it against the corner of a concrete block in such a way that the widest surface hits the corner. It's most likely going to break, right? Do the same thing again, but make the thin edge strike the block, and it's not going to break or fold at all. It'll most probably just leave a dent in the edge. (Depending on the type of wood and size, of course. But you get what I mean, right?) Of course, if it was going 200MPH or so, it would indeed shear the board off at the point where it struck, and it would probably be a pretty clean cut. If not, it would definitely explode into shards, which would remain on the side they came in contact with. The same principles go for aluminum, or practically any material. Allow me to illustrate. The first one, if pushed through the hole, will fold or break, and possibly be pulled through with the center chunk. The second one (same piece rotated 90 degrees) will undoubtably shear the pieces, outside of the hole, off, if pushed through the hole. Come on people! This is basic physics! [edit on 2-12-2004 by Damned]

Actually that is a fairly reasonable question. The problem is, is that you are comparing apples to oranges. The WTC towers were very lightweight structures when compared to the pentagon. To begin with, as it has been pointed out, the outer walls of the pentagon were specifically strengthened to resist just this sort of damage. (Actually I believe that the designers of the blast resistant renovation were more concerned with a OK city style truck bomb, but the results were the same) Not only were the outer walls strengthened, and reinforced, but they were also fairly massive or heavy, if you will. In addition, the floor slabs of the pentagon were thick and heavy also. Furthermore, the connections between the floor slabs and the beams and columns of the pentagon were not designed to flex at all. As a result, the exterior walls were also braced by the substantial floor slabs behind it. The WTC, however was built to eliminate unneeded weight. The structure was designed to be as light as possible. The floor slabs were a combination of thin, lightweight concrete slabs poured over a bar joist truss system. The connections between the floor slabs and the perimeter columns were specifically designed to flex so that the normal movement of the building in the winds would not cause damage to the slabs. Thus the amount of lateral support from the floor to the exterior wall is much less then the Pentagon. In addition, if you look at the pictures of the impacts, you will notice that the column breakage shows a stair step pattern. Note please do not confuse the exterior aluminum column covers for the columns themselves. Any way, the columns of the WTC were bolted together in sections. Many of the breaks occurred along these bolted joints. That is why you see those stair step patterns in the breakage.

HR just loves apples and oranges............ I said I wouldnt post in this thread anymore,but this is just getting too rediculous. Your telling me that this lightwieght piece of debris,made from fiberglass and other soft meterials,punched ALL THE WAY THROUGH these walls and made that huge hole?I think not.You want to talk physics?Lets talk physics. Here we have the debris image. And here we have the an image simulating the distance that this piece traveled. So this 'plane' hit the wall,with all it's structure strength,and this 'piece' traveled all the way through the other walls,zig-zagging I might add,and created a large whole,larger than the object itself. Come on man. Every time this 'piece' hit a wall,by way of 'physics',it slowed down.It did not get faster. Think of using a baseball machine with 10 pieces of glass evenly spaced down the line.How many of those glass pieces would be shattered?Not all of them.Maybe 7-8.Every time the ball hits a piece of glass,the resistance would slow it down.And no,this is not apples and oranges.It's called an analogy. This piece went through how many walls? 8 or 9 actual walls? Please.To think that this lightwieght object punched through 8-9 walls leaving a big hole while zig-zagging and not loosing any speed,yet continuing to pierce through each one....................use common knowledge.Imagine in your mind what it would look like.It traveled around 250 ft,,,,dont go by that image above as the 220ft isnt accurate since this piece went at an angle. Now as for that image with the so called engine.That is not in any way from a 757.Not even the APU from a 757.The only thing that could have come from is the APU of a Global Hawk.It has been stated many times from all the manufactures what it is,who used it in what.There are plenty of sites that compare the engines and they do not match what they claim. And oh yeah,,,,so many people say that the reason there was so little left of this plane was due to the fact that the impact was so great,the plane literally disintigrated. This was one lucky small piece of debris to survive such an intense crash considering it's composition

A couple of points that you ned to consider.

1. The columns shown on that diagram are not to scale. There was a lot more open space in between those columns then that diagram indicates. Since that diagram is a map of the damaged columns, it is not that surprising that they enlarged the scale of the columns so that they could color code them.
2. You have to figure that there was also considerable blast pressure from the exploding fuel as well. This would have contributed to the inertia of the debris movement through the building.
3. There was another picture that clearly showed the landing gear assembly in the debris pile.
4. Note that the debris, including pieces of the plaster wall are pretty much just outside the hole. If this hole was made by your missile, this debris would have been blown all over the place.
5. Your claims about the engine debris not being from the plane have already been proven wrong earlier in this thread. I will not waste my time going over that again.

This document is beleivable to an audience who knows nothing about aviation, commercial or otherwise. The hub cap is not standard on all commercial jetliners, as the author inaccurately presumes. However, it is an important piece of intact evidence that entirely rejects the 757 plane crash theory. Any mechanic in the commercial airline industry can confirm that the hubcap found at the Pentagon is much smaller and non-existent within a 757 landing gear. However, if one looks at the wheels of various military aircraft (available through freedom of information act), one needn't go that far to recognize that the hubcap is the same (and unique) as a global hawk unmanned jet. If the debris taken from the aircraft that incorporates the "AA" paint job, it is strikingly evident that the paint job is a rather poor immitation design in order for the hawk to resemble that of an AA 757. Notice that there is absolutely no remains that suggest the presence of a 757. There is no black box, no engine parts are discovered, no luggage, nada. Additionally, despite the measurements presented here, a true 757 collision would have accompanied far worse damage, as well as plenty of remaining fragments to support such claim. With that all in mind, the damage is indeed consistent with that of an unmanned global hawk (no engines, no passengers, luggage, etc) and NOT an AA 757. On the issue of whether or not the firefighters would be compliant towards a cover-up, their field of expertise is not within that of aviation techtonics. They are simply there to carry out their job, not to launch an investigation. Recent events in modern history all reveal erie similarities. Witnessess from the grassy knoll were hushed and threatened by Dallas police force as well as the mob, while all cameras within the vicinity of the shootings were immediately confiscated. Video cameras that captured the Pentagon event on 9-11 were likewise confiscated by the FBI. Note the lack of security at Dealy Plaza when JFK was killed, the absence of secret service outside the Washington Hilton when Hinkley zeroed-in on Reagan, and the lack of security at the Pentagon on 9-11. More striking yet is that the Pentagon, the most highly surveillanced building on earth, coincidentally had all its cameras 'shut off' at the time of collision. The chances of this happening is very, very, very slim. The only footage provided to us, however, is an unreadable clip inexplainably dated as 9-12-2001 (bottom screen). When Diana was assassinated, the cameras inside Point d'Alma Tunnel were mysteriously on leave as well. Make no mistake that the forces behind these accidental tragedies are also the party that designates the official reports. Immediate 9-11 footage in NYC was flooded with first-hand accounts that NO commercial airliners crashed into the towers. Even the NYC firefighters reported isolated fires within the buildings followed by consecutive and uniform explosions that preceeded the demolitions. There is even a CNN live recording of building 7 collapsing in a controlled manner without any sustained damages that may have led to its demise. These initial eye-witness reports as well as the bizarre demolition of building 7 captured by CNN, had been quickly pulled from the media as the Lee Harvey Oswald-type scenerio soon pointed its finger at Islamic terrorists as the perpetrators. From Bush to Gulianni the fix was in, and each had been rewarded handsomly for their complicity in the events that occurred that day. "Nothing in history occurs by accident. If it does, you can be sure it was meant to be that way." -FDR

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction Notice that there is absolutely no remains that suggest the presence of a 757. There is no black box, no engine parts are discovered, no luggage, nada.

So my buddy who was working recovery down at the Pentagon on 9/11 and in the weeks after just imagined the luggage and other personal effects he had to comb through while pulling body parts from the rubble? Whatever, dude.

Originally posted by HowardRoark A couple of points that you ned to consider.

Who's "Ned"?

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction This document is beleivable to an audience who knows nothing about aviation, commercial or otherwise. The hub cap is not standard on all commercial jetliners, as the author inaccurately presumes. However, it is an important piece of intact evidence that entirely rejects the 757 plane crash theory. Any mechanic in the commercial airline industry can confirm that the hubcap found at the Pentagon is much smaller and non-existent within a 757 landing gear.

Wrong, as it has been shown in this very thread.

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction However, if one looks at the wheels of various military aircraft (available through freedom of information act), one needn't go that far to recognize that the hubcap is the same (and unique) as a global hawk unmanned jet. If the debris taken from the aircraft that incorporates the "AA" paint job, it is strikingly evident that the paint job is a rather poor immitation design in order for the hawk to resemble that of an AA 757.

Again, that has been disproved time and time again within this very thread.

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction Notice that there is absolutely no remains that suggest the presence of a 757. There is no black box, no engine parts are discovered, no luggage, nada.

Ah, Contraire, but they were recovered. Just because the FBI doesn�t think that you are important enough, to reveal the data to doesn�t mean that it does not exist.

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction . . . On the issue of whether or not the firefighters would be compliant towards a cover-up, their field of expertise is not within that of aviation techtonics. They are simply there to carry out their job, not to launch an investigation.

That�s nice. You have just called all the firefighters that responded to the Pentagon attack idiots. How nice.

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction Recent events in modern history all reveal erie similarities. Witnessess from the grassy knoll were hushed and threatened by Dallas police force as well as the mob, while all cameras within the vicinity of the shootings were immediately confiscated. Video cameras that captured the Pentagon event on 9-11 were likewise confiscated by the FBI. Note the lack of security at Dealy Plaza when JFK was killed, the absence of secret service outside the Washington Hilton when Hinkley zeroed-in on Reagan, and the lack of security at the Pentagon on 9-11. More striking yet is that the Pentagon, the most highly surveillanced building on earth, coincidentally had all its cameras 'shut off' at the time of collision. The chances of this happening is very, very, very slim. The only footage provided to us, however, is an unreadable clip inexplainably dated as 9-12-2001 (bottom screen). When Diana was assassinated, the cameras inside Point d'Alma Tunnel were mysteriously on leave as well. Make no mistake that the forces behind these accidental tragedies are also the party that designates the official reports. Immediate 9-11 footage in NYC was flooded with first-hand accounts that NO commercial airliners crashed into the towers. Even the NYC firefighters reported isolated fires within the buildings followed by consecutive and uniform explosions that preceeded the demolitions. There is even a CNN live recording of building 7 collapsing in a controlled manner without any sustained damages that may have led to its demise. These initial eye-witness reports as well as the bizarre demolition of building 7 captured by CNN, had been quickly pulled from the media as the Lee Harvey Oswald-type scenerio soon pointed its finger at Islamic terrorists as the perpetrators. From Bush to Gulianni the fix was in, and each had been rewarded handsomly for their complicity in the events that occurred that day.

Wow You sure have a warped and tainted view of the world. All of those people were in on it. How many was it, a hundred, a thousand? Ten thousand? How many. Tell me because I really want to know.

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction Notice that there is absolutely no remains that suggest the presence of a 757. There is no black box, no engine parts are discovered, no luggage, nada. Additionally, despite the measurements presented here, a true 757 collision would have accompanied far worse damage, as well as plenty of remaining fragments to support such claim. With that all in mind, the damage is indeed consistent with that of an unmanned global hawk (no engines, no passengers, luggage, etc) and NOT an AA 757.

Then how do you answer for the fact that several employees (flight attendants and pilots) were able to clearly identify pieces of the aircraft that they were familiar with? I am not talking about structural pieces, I am talking about seats, tray tables, and various other pieces of equipment that they used every day? Are you going to claim that the pieces found were somehow duct taped to the side of this supposed military craft that you claim hit the pentagon?

The blackboxes weren't presented as evidence because there were none. Secondly, any remains could have easily been planted aboard the Global Hawk. Thirdly, the firefighters are not idiots - you are; nor were they called such. No DNA testing was performed to identify the 'bodies." Of course, when all of the puppet masters conspire against the public, it is easy for the story to end up as they please. The American people will believe anything so long as a man or woman in a dress-suit in front of the TV tells them so. Anyone who supports GWBush out of sheer ignorance is one sad individual. Lastly, follow the money trail. People will say whatever so long as the price is right.

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction The blackboxes weren't presented as evidence because there were none.

Wrong, they were recovered on the scene just a few hours after the crash.

Secondly, any remains could have easily been planted aboard the Global Hawk.

Where did those remains come from? Are you going to assert that the government was able to procure the DNA and place it onboard.

Thirdly, the firefighters are not idiots - you are; nor were they called such. No DNA testing was performed to identify the 'bodies."

Now who's being an idiot. DNA testing was used to ID the remains of the crew, passengers, and people at the pentagon. Without it there would have been no other way to ID the remains.

Of course, when all of the puppet masters conspire against the public, it is easy for the story to end up as they please. The American people will believe anything so long as a man or woman in a dress-suit in front of the TV tells them so. Anyone who supports GWBush out of sheer ignorance is one sad individual.

Or in your case, you will believe what any conspiracy theorist will put out as you have provided zero credible evidence to back up your claims.

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction Thirdly, the firefighters are not idiots - you are; nor were they called such. . . . People will say whatever so long as the price is right.

So, they are not idiots, they are just soulless greedy people who do anything for a buck, huh? You are a sick twisted misanthrope

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by strangerthanfiction Thirdly, the firefighters are not idiots - you are; nor were they called such. . . . People will say whatever so long as the price is right.

So, they are not idiots, they are just soulless greedy people who do anything for a buck, huh?

Nooooooooo,,,,,,never What world do you live in?

The columns shown on that diagram are not to scale. There was a lot more open space in between those columns then that diagram indicates.

Proving my point even more that the volocity of the object has plenty of time to slow down. - Smash - travel - slowing down - smash - slowing down - smash - slowing down ................ get it? It did this for around 250ft The diagram is accurate in the length of 200ft,but since it was going at an angle,I think it is safe to say that the total distance it traveled was around 250ft give or take.

You have to figure that there was also considerable blast pressure from the exploding fuel as well. This would have contributed to the inertia of the debris movement through the building.

And also take into account that it was hitting walls along the way slowing it down considerably.This was a lightwieght object as we can see from these photo's.

There was another picture that clearly showed the landing gear assembly in the debris pile.

I know of a STRUT in the images which has NOT been proven to come from a 757.Infact,on the first page it has the image and it says "Landing gear strut - appears to be from the nose gear - note how charred the area around it is." Notice it says 'appears to be from the nose gear' is that what you call proof?

Note that the debris, including pieces of the plaster wall are pretty much just outside the hole. If this hole was made by your missile, this debris would have been blown all over the place.

Physics once again needs to be applied here. Throw a baseball at a window from 20ft away.The glass will break and most likely shatter the glass all over the place. Now take a baseball and a pitching machine.Load the ball up and from the same distance,let her rip.The glass will break,but the debris around the damed area will be much smaller. Point being is that a missile would NOT have blown more debris all over the place than what you see in the image.

Your claims about the engine debris not being from the plane have already been proven wrong earlier in this thread. I will not waste my time going over that again.

100% conclusive? I think not.Maybe you should read the post I did that CH left out of the quote to make his look like proof.I will paste it here since you dont want to waste your precious time.

quote: CatHerder said What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel. There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.)

Things left out: AFP contacted Honeywell�s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent high-resolution photos for their examination. �There�s no way that�s an APU wheel,� an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: �That turbine disc�there�s no way in the world that came out of an APU.� American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, manufacturers of the 757�s turbofan jet engines to try and identify the piece. �If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine,� Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP. John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.�

Beautiful job on the research and relaying the information in laymen terms! Well written and I loved the counter point attacks made on the false information that is currently being spread via interturds on the internet! Bravo!

Originally posted by SMR

The columns shown on that diagram are not to scale. There was a lot more open space in between those columns then that diagram indicates.

Proving my point even more that the volocity of the object has plenty of time to slow down. - Smash - travel - slowing down - smash - slowing down - smash - slowing down ................ get it? It did this for around 250ft The diagram is accurate in the length of 200ft,but since it was going at an angle,I think it is safe to say that the total distance it traveled was around 250ft give or take.

I am not disputing your distance, I haven�t measured it myself, but I�m willing to accept your value for it. The point that I ma making is that the sizes of the columns are much smaller than indicated on that drawing. If that drawing were to scale, the columns would be 10 feet wide. They were not. The artist who made up that drawing made the columns bigger then they actually are so that he or she could color code them to indicate the damage. If they were to scale you would barely be able to see them. So your contention that the debris had to smash its way through the columns is incorrect. I am willing to bet that there was probably a clear line from the impact hole to the exit hole. Remember also that this wedge was undergoing renovation at the time, so that there were no desks, filing cabinets, rooms full of people, etc. in the way. And, like most modern buildings, the interior partitions were probably drywall. Hell. I could smash through drywall with my fist. Don�t forget also that the debris was slowing down from a top speed of around 400 mph.

However, rather than address the question of the unidentified disc, Johnson launched a verbal attack on this reporter for questioning the government version of events at the Pentagon on 9-11. �You are the only person in the world who does not believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon,� Johnson said. �The idea that we can have a reasonable conversation is beyond your wildest dreams,� Johnson said and hung up the phone.

Hey, I like Mr. Johnson�s style. So, it boils down to this, you believe it would have been impossible for any of the debris from an airplane traveling at around 400 mph, penetrate the building and travel approximately 250 across the floor of a building of a relatively open and empty space and make the exit hole shown earlier. You also believe that the engine part could not be part of the 757 engine, because the manufacturers representative thought that the �reporter� from AFP was a crank and refused to talk to him, realizing that the reporter wasn�t after the truth, but was trying to confirm his own cockamamie theories. Counter this with the countless eye witness accounts that confirm the presence of the AA plane, the photos of the plane debris, ect. Yeah, right. You are the one living in a delusional world of half baked plots out of bad "graphic novels." At any rate, this thread has gotten ridiculously long I am tired of arguing the same points over and over again. Later.