9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by Pilgrum Pilgrum, like I said, the day was severe clear. NOT overcast. There were two guys in my backyard, building my deck extention. My partner called me from Philly, and told me to turn on the news (I was watching the SciFi channel, I think). So, I saw all the crap go down, on CNN, on the Today show, etc. I went outside and told the two carpenters to go home....to get to their families. My next-door neighbor was in a panic, asking me if I thought we should flee....I said 'No. You can go, but I don't think it will help, I'm staying here.' Again, not sure what shadows have to do with anything, but at our latitude the Sun's angle is essentially the same in September, every year....about halfway between the Summer and Winter Equinoxs.....

reply to post by weedwhacker It's just a little more trigonometry to work out the actual path the shadow of a low altitude descending plane would follow across the ground on that day and where the actual plane itself making that shadow would be

reply to post by Pilgrum I think I see where you're going with this.....but, is there video of the shadow?? I mean, that would go some distance to sort out the 'plane or no plane' debate, if there were a shadow caught on tape.

reply to post by Pilgrum Adam larson did an excellent rundown recently on all these issues. It has all the shadow angles, maths, etc in it. www.veoh.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker There was a recently released video from the Citgo cameras (last year I think and posted here by Caustic Logic) which shows what could be the shadow at the roadway but it's extremely inconclusive due to the frame rate and resolution of those cameras - intended to monitor low speed events on the driveway only. Thanks Seymour - you're faster than I . [edit on 24/7/2008 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by Seymour Butz It's times like this I wish the local telco would get their rear into gear and get broadband to my place. I'd spend a lifetime trying to download 150meg+ videos on dialup.

Originally posted by Pilgrum Possibly a horizontal high speed impact would do more widespread damage than a near vertical one which is just conjecture of course but it's the same technique as used twice before on that same day.

Basic common sense. A horizontal impact might have been good for the towers but a vertical impact would have casued a lot more damage to the pentagon. Please explain why the security camera shows a object in straight and level flight when the FDR from AA77 shows a nose down atitude?

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA, it has been explained over and over and over again, that the DFDR only updated every tenth of a second, or so. Straight-and-level, aiming at the target....well, probably not very straight, nor level, actually....but in any case, it just would have taken a split second, at the end, to dive into the target. Yeah, in hindsight, maybe more destruction would have been attained, at the Pentagon, if the hijacker had dove straight down from altitude into the top of the building. Fortunately, he didn't think of that!!!! Back to my eairlier comment, completely ignored so far....why in the hell are we arguing these details, 'Did they or didn't they'??? when, at the base of YOUR assertions, ULTIMA, is that it was staged anyway??? GO AFTER THE REAL criminals, if you're so convinced!!!! WHY waste time here? Just an ego stroke, or what????

Originally posted by weedwhacker is that it was staged anyway???

Please show me where i stated it was staged or be adult enough to admit you are wrong. I have stated since day 1 of being on here i am looking for the truth and not psoting any theories.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA.....what part of "stop dissecting and taking out of context other people's posts" don't you understand? YOU are questioning whether or not a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. YOU appear to claim that it WAS NOT a commercial jet. Ergo, you believe it was something else. When pressed, you NEVER state an opinion, just ask more questions to deflect. You've become quite adept at Taking Real Other Likely Listener's (please look at each capitalized letter, and you'll see the hidden message, since you 'work' for the NSA) posts and messages out of context. It is tiresome, and not worth anyone's time, anymore. I strongly suggest a mental evaluation, see if Medicare will pay for it....

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA.....what part of "stop dissecting and taking out of context other people's posts" don't you understand?

What part of trying to find the truth and there is no official reports or physical evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ? Either show actual evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon or state that you like all others who were not there to witness what actually happened "DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON" due to lack of evidence. [edit on 24-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Basic common sense. A horizontal impact might have been good for the towers but a vertical impact would have casued a lot more damage to the pentagon.

I'm not convinced on that. Please show me a detailed study involving the Pentagon construction that illustrates your point.

Please explain why the security camera shows a object in straight and level flight when the FDR from AA77 shows a nose down atitude?

I've shown the reason for that before in terms of the actual operation of the DFDR. All the data from analog sources on an aircraft have to be continually converted from analog to digital (processing time) and buffered in RAM so the CPU can assemble it into ordered packets to be written serially into the flash memory module. The packets are written as 4 second blocks and recovery of those blocks is dependant on the sync markers being intact. All this means that the last 4 seconds or possibly more of the actual flight were either not written at all or at least not decipherable due to loss of sync resulting in either garbled binary data or no data at all reaching the flash memory. 4 seconds of missing data places the plane at over 1/2 mile away from the Pentagon at the last readable entry in the memory module which is sufficient distance to level out from a 5-6 degree -ve pitch and match what the video recorded. It also explains the altitude discrepancy.

Originally posted by Pilgrum I'm not convinced on that. Please show me a detailed study involving the Pentagon construction that illustrates your point.

Maybe you should just look at the mock ups they did for the excercise they had to attack the Pentagon. (Operation Northwoods) Sorry i know that means you have to do a little research but i am tired fo doing it all for you.

I've shown the reason for that before in terms of the actual operation of the DFDR.

So please explain to me why the camera shows straight and level and the DFDR and witnesses state a nose down atitude? [edit on 24-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 So please explain to me why the camera shows straight and level and the DFDR and witnesses state a nose down atitude?

I already did that from a DFDR viewpoint. I hate to bring up 'ground effect' again but how do you think a plane would maintain high speed in close proximity to the ground? IE what control inputs would be required to overcome that cushioning effect and what would that do to the attitude (pitch) of the plane?

Originally posted by Pilgrum I hate to bring up 'ground effect' again but how do you think a plane would maintain high speed in close proximity to the ground?

Thats is funny. I wish you believers would make up your minds if there was or was not ground effect. If there was or was not wake turbulence. If there was or was not jet blast. You keep chainging your minds almost every post about this.

reply to post by LL1 LL1 -I disagree with what you said concerning "The engine of passenger jets are made to within stand a rock thrown into the blades, and still keep kicking. There are multi-blades in an engine. Just like the rows in a sharks jaw. If one rowof blades goes the other rows will keep the engine going to stay in flight." I was a jet mech with the Navy back in the 70's and they showed a demonstration of a J-79 engine (from an F-4 Phantom) mounted on a test stand. They had a 3/8" bolt suspended by a wire which was attached to an explosive bolt. They turned up the engine, kicked in the afterburner let it stabilize for about 30 seconds, then sent an electical charge to the explosive bolt to release the 3'8" bolt down the intake. It was a matter of a couple seconds after the engine flexed a couple times then literally dsetroyed itself, parts went everywhere. The intake side of the engine consists of stators and rotors. The stators are stationary (generally 6 to 8), and are part of the engine framework, and its the rotors that rotate. The tolerances between the stators and rotors leaves very little room for error. One slighty bent or disturbed rotor impinges on the adjacent rotor, causing it to bend or break, which causes an imbalance, and worse yet another piece of debris to impinge on the next set of rotors, and so forth. Doesn't take long for the whole thing to end up in a snowball effect, causing eventual destruction. Unless things have changed over the years, and maybe they have, but the principle is still the same. It's the close tolerances that creates the high pressure stages required to run these engines, and if that's disturbed, total destruction of the engine is inevitable. And your statements of "they kick of (sp) the blades, and bonce (sp) around the outer engine inside it." and "The engine of passenger jets are made to within stand a rock thrown into the blades, and still keep kicking." are totally false. I don't know where you got this information - if the negative pressure in front of the engine is enough to literally suck a man down the intake (which I have seen), the "bouncing around" theory totally sucks. The item has to go somewhere, and the only thing it's going to do is impinge on the rotors. In response to your claims, I'd like to see the videos that you've said concerning birds, and especially rocks, I certainly would like to see them for myself. Just wanted to add my 2 cents to and clarify your statements.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA, the comment from Pilgrum was slightly incorrect, since the term 'ground effect' mostly refers to an airplane that is in the landing config, full flaps and slats, and low speed (sorry Pilgrum). A high-speed, low pass in the clean config is entirely different, just to clarify. But, in any event, that is not topic of discussion. ULTIMA, you have sometimes cleverly, sometimes not so cleverly, continued to obfuscate with the repeated double-talk, about 'lack-of-proof', when you actually provide no 'proof' at all, just innuendo and supposition. When challenged, you dodge, weave, and parry, with your words....never a direct answer. Not very much display of real character, there. ULTIMA, I saw with my own eyes, for months after 9/11, the damage to the Pentagon. I am tired to death of those silly pictures of the 'tiny hole' that keeps popping up....and, thence the crapolla begins.....a foolish picture, hinted at as the 'actual impact point' then fuels the incredibly stupid debate....

humm im whery sceptik in my thinking but below the TEXT: Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled. i se a hole wher the "plane" hit the building? corect? i cant iven se eny evidenc of dmg to the walls by the wings or the tail, i can buy that the wings and tail vudent cut the wall, but atlest eny wisuel dmg shud be present right?

reply to post by weedwhacker No problems It just seemed a likely possibility explaining how a plane could be maintaining an essentially level flightpath while very close to the ground at high speed and, at the same time, having a slightly nosedown pitch. That pitch also fits the observed turbulence at the road crossing (main blast directed into the air and missing the cars). I'm just looking for what fits the observations here.

reply to post by Pilgrum Oh....yes, I see what you mean. Since I live here, and can see the terrain with my own eyes, I know that the B757 would not be that close to the ground for any great length of time, for 'ground effect' to be apparrent. Usually, the term we call 'ground effect' is prevalent within a height of one-half the wingspan, over a smooth surface, such as the runway. A nose-down pitch attitude just prior to impact is likely the result of the last-second dive from just a few hundred feet altitude, as the airplane was flown towards the target. AND, these were hacks, and excited on adrenaline....you can't compare their ability to fly with a professional. Professionals are smooth, and anticipate....hacks just jerk it around to achieve their purpose.