9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS To me, the 2 photos of the hole tell the whole real story. You are telling us that an airliner, wings, engines and tail section went through that one hole without so much as knocking out, or damaging ONE BRICK on either side of the hole? That is utterly unbelievable! Where is the damage that the wings and engines would have caused? Where is the damage that the taller tail section would have caused? Please explain to me why there is NO damage on either side of the hole. And why didn't you give a reason why there is no wing/engine damage? Instead of putting a caption about the lack of damage to the wall, you highlight pieces of wreckage, why? It just DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. And, as Judge Judy always says...If it doesnt make sense, then it probably isnt true! IMO those 2 photos of the hole totally refute every other argument you have made that it was an airliner.

It's too bad original poster missed couple of photos that show damage from wings, engines and tail. Mostly around windows. But I am sure you can find them. They didn't create the gaping holes in the stone face, but the damage is quite evident. And it looks just like an imprint of the airliner. Some are obscured by the smoke and water from the fire engines, but if you look at them all, you can figure it out. It's all there. And as wings are concerned - their structure is very lightweight made out of rigid aluminum alloy ribs and relatively light aluminum ally skin that is much weaker then stone and concrete. So it disintegrates into small pieces on high speed impact.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx I have to say I disagree with the above for two reasons. The first being, in the event that they have no damning evidence,why not release the security camera from the hotel overlooking the entire scene as proof of such? ...

Why do you think such video exists? And why hotel's camera should be focused on Pentagon? Security camera is not even a traffic camera. It covers only the immediate area of interest like entrance, parking lot, etc. Looking down at places of possible security risks. Same as traffic cameras, BTW. They only look down at the sections of some particular highway. Besides they usually use like 2 frames per second or so. Use your brains.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS I've been told the plane locked onto the beacon at the Pentogon Heloport which is right where it skidded before impact. Seawolf

Don't know what they mean by that. ATC beacon system is completely different story. Just Goggle for it. Aircraft can't be "locked" on it. And Pentagon heliport has no evidence of any radio navigation aids whatsoever. If it's VOR, it's a large size round structure. But they don't have any. And they don't need one, because they can use signals from other stations, that's even better.

Originally posted by syeager9 They didn't create the gaping holes in the stone face, but the damage is quite evident.

If the wings and engines did not creat holes then the debris from the wings and the engines should have been found outside the wall. So where are the engines and where are the wings or the wing debris? Where is the tail or tail debris? [edit on 6-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by syeager9 They didn't create the gaping holes in the stone face, but the damage is quite evident.

If the wings and engines did not creat holes then the debris from the wings and the engines should have been found outside the wall. So where are the engines and where are the wings or the wing debris? Where is the tail or tail debris? [edit on 6-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Part of them went in. As I said, there are more pictures and there are more holes especially around the windows. It's obvious imprint of the airplane. You can see marks left by the tail, wings and engines. Engines, though look huge, are in fact small. You see a duct surrounding the fan that is big. And fan is made out of flimsy blades that can be snapped by the bird's strike. And core itself has relatively small compressor and turbine wheels that are made out of very hard alloys. And they went in, leaving small holes in the building. And I think there are enough pictures of debris. Most of them are small lying all in front of the building. And at this speed aluminum does brake into small pieces. It's not a very flexible metal and it breaks easy. Again, for comparison, you can find on the net pictures of other high speed crashes and you will hardly see any debris on them. You just have to look for more pictures, if you are really interested. But conspiracy theory guys won't show them to you. But most important is that 130 people saw this plane approach or crash into Pentagon. Most identified it as AA airliner, several as 757 and only one said it was a commuter plane and and one that it was a "small" plane. Nobody saw missile or anything else. [edit on 6-9-2008 by syeager9]

reply to post by Kellter 757 is two flying engines with a fuselage suspended on wings attached to these engines The engines are doing the flying, not the fuselage The engines are pulling the wings! Fuselage just hangs on to the wings Where are the impact holes from these two engines?

I worked for the BOEING Co. for 30 years... if a wing had hit the building, it would have penetrated the outer wall. Where are the parts of the wings? Where is the left wing? Where are the dead bodies of the passengers? Your essay doesn't hold water & I am very sorry that it doesn't.

Originally posted by syeager9 Part of them went in.

But you just stated they did not make holes, so how did part of them get in?

It's obvious imprint of the airplane.

Please show me an photo that shows an imprint of a plane because all the photos i have sene only show a single hole.

You can see marks left by the tail, wings and engines.

Please show me photos of marks left by the tail, wings and engines.

And I think there are enough pictures of debris.

Debris that is not identified as belonging to AA77.

But most important is that 130 people saw this plane approach or crash into Pentagon.

You mean the 130 that could not agree on what they saw and the fact that witnesses even stated they were TOLD LATER IT WAS A 757? [edit on 6-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Why do you think such video exists? And why hotel's camera should be focused on Pentagon? Security camera is not even a traffic camera. It covers only the immediate area of interest like entrance, parking lot, etc. Looking down at places of possible security risks. Same as traffic cameras, BTW. They only look down at the sections of some particular highway. Besides they usually use like 2 frames per second or so. Use your brains.

Several hotel employees of the hotel reported men in suits flashing badges and demanding the tapes from the security camera that were placed atop the building over the parking lot facing in a direction which allowed the camera a good vantage of the incident in question.Even if the frame rate is bad its not useless to have when proving or disproving the official story.Why confiscate the tapes and deny access by the public to them if they DONT counter the official story's parameters? The Pentagon security camera is compelling evidence in opposition to the official story despite its bad frame rate; The whole nonsense about the engines and casings disentegrating or plowing into the building without making huge dual gaping holes is proposterous....Just compare the photos of the crash area to other typical crashes of the same model planes you'll see what I mean....

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx It's quite simple and routine matter - anyone robbed your shop a day before? Nope. Can I have you security tape? - sure. Have good day! You too! Now just give me single reason for FBI or whoever took these tapes to publish them? They didn't contain any useful information and were simply discarded as usual trash. And certainly they care less about the Conspiracy maniacs.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx

Why do you think such video exists? And why hotel's camera should be focused on Pentagon? Security camera is not even a traffic camera. It covers only the immediate area of interest like entrance, parking lot, etc. Looking down at places of possible security risks. Same as traffic cameras, BTW. They only look down at the sections of some particular highway. Besides they usually use like 2 frames per second or so. Use your brains.

Several hotel employees of the hotel reported men in suits flashing badges and demanding the tapes from the security camera that were placed atop the building over the parking lot facing in a direction which allowed the camera a good vantage of the incident in question.Even if the frame rate is bad its not useless to have when proving or disproving the official story.Why confiscate the tapes and deny access by the public to them if they DONT counter the official story's parameters? The Pentagon security camera is compelling evidence in opposition to the official story despite its bad frame rate; The whole nonsense about the engines and casings disentegrating or plowing into the building without making huge dual gaping holes is proposterous....Just compare the photos of the crash area to other typical crashes of the same model planes you'll see what I mean....

Use Google Earth and find out how far these cameras are from the Impact. Just do some research.

Originally posted by syeager9 They didn't contain any useful information and were simply discarded as usual trash.

Why were they taken if they did not contain any useful information? I mean most CCTV systems i know have a monitor so you can see if there is anything on the tape. Its like that memo that the FBI posted about nothing being on a video in 2005. 1. Why did they take it if there was nothing on it? 2. Why did they wait 4 years to come out and state there was nothing on the tape?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by syeager9 They didn't contain any useful information and were simply discarded as usual trash.

Why were they taken if they did not contain any useful information? I mean most CCTV systems i know have a monitor so you can see if there is anything on the tape. Its like that memo that the FBI posted about nothing being on a video in 2005. 1. Why did they take it if there was nothing on it? 2. Why did they wait 4 years to come out and state there was nothing on the tape?

You answered the question: There is Nothing on Tape. And why FBI should for any reason satisfy demands of conspiracy advocates? Simple. They either payed a lot or got shot like in the terminator movies.

Originally posted by syeager9 You answered the question: There is Nothing on Tape.

Please be adult enough to answer the questions. Why were the tapes taken if thier was nothing on them? Why did the FBI wait 4 years to state thier was nothing on the tape?

reply to post by CatHerder Great post, well researched, must have taken alot of work. It is alot of information. I see a photo of an "engine part" that is not identified by the OP. I have also seen that same pic several times with a statement from rolls royce stating that is not the engine they make for the plane they were told hit the building. But the OP does a nice job of going 'see, plane engine on lawn, case closed.' Hardly. How about the plane's wings. I am still waiting for someone to tell me where the wings went. Please do not repost the tired pic with whit scuff marks that could be wing impact zones. I want to know where the plane's wings actually went. [edit on 7-9-2008 by Azrael75]

how high off the ground was the plane flying? how high off the ground was the impact hole on the building?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by syeager9 You answered the question: There is Nothing on Tape.

Please be adult enough to answer the questions. Why were the tapes taken if thier was nothing on them? Why did the FBI wait 4 years to state thier was nothing on the tape?

FBI doesn't have to answer idiotic claims that AA 757 didn't hit the building. They know it did. Tapes were taken just in case something will show on them. And these tapes had no value to their owners as no robberies or carjackings happen that day. So they probably just junked them after they didn't find anything of importance.

Originally posted by Azrael75 reply to post by CatHerder

 

Great post, well researched, must have taken alot of work. It is alot of information. I see a photo of an "engine part" that is not identified by the OP. I have also seen that same pic several times with a statement from rolls royce stating that is not the engine they make for the plane they were told hit the building. But the OP does a nice job of going 'see, plane engine on lawn, case closed.' Hardly. How about the plane's wings. I am still waiting for someone to tell me where the wings went. Please do not repost the tired pic with whit scuff marks that could be wing impact zones. I want to know where the plane's wings actually went.

Perhaps wings look big, but in fact they contain very small amount of material. That's the idea behind any aircraft design. Make it rigid, but lightweight. They are made of some framework of ribs and longerons covered with a thin aluminum skin. At the impact with stronger objects at speed of 500 miles per hour, this material compresses and brakes into small fragments. That's exactly what we we see at Pentagon pictures. You can also look on Internet for photographs of other high speed airplane crashed and you will hardly see any significant fragments there. Just a scattered small pieces of what looks like the aluminum foil. That's exactly what you see in front of Pentagon building. There are no good pictures taken at the day of the attack because of smoke and water from fire engines, but there are some taken later where you can see all the airplane debris piled up by the side of Pentagon wall.

Has anyone though about the idea that if it really was an inside job then how hard would it be for them to load up plane parts inside a drone so when it exploded there would be"evidence" of a 757 on the site. I just find it hard to belive a 757 could go that fast that close to the ground coming down from 30000 ft with a guy that couldnt even fly a cesna. I mean thats some kind of flying skill right there....just hard to belive. [edit on 7-9-2008 by Reevster]

Originally posted by Reevster Has anyone though about the idea that if it really was an inside job then how hard would it be for them to load up plane parts inside a drone so when it exploded there would be"evidence" of a 757 on the site. I just find it hard to belive a 757 could go that fast that close to the ground coming down from 30000 ft with a guy that couldnt even fly a cesna. I mean thats some kind of flying skill right there....just hard to belive.

Know what? Next time you take an airline flight, go to the cockpit after landing and talk to the pilots. Ask them how difficult it is to fly airplane. They are usually very happy to answer any questions. So I did ask this question and they told me that it's not any more difficult to fly the airliner then to fly small Cessna. Difficulties are in operating different aircraft systems, doing take offs and landings, etc. However just flying in cruise is very simple. Navigation is very simple too, as they have inertial navigation system as well as GPS that is very intuitive and simple to use. [edit on 7-9-2008 by syeager9]