9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

You are nothing but a govt kiss-ass hypnotizing the sheep into believing what the govt run media said. Go f**k yourself and take the idiots that believe your story with you

reply to post by CatHerder WHERE DID THE WINGS ENTER THE BUILDING??? I AM A AVIATION TECH AND A PLANE COLLIDING WITH A BUILDING WILL NOT LEAVE A SYMMETRICAL HOLE...

I do not agree with your picture of the plane before impact if you closly at the background before the boeing appears you will clearly see that what you have dipicted as a "plane" is nothing but the outline of buildings

reply to post by CatHerder I recently began reading this thread and its too long to respond to everything but on the very first page I wanted to tell Catherder that you did an excellent job gathering this information in an attempt to prove a 757 hit the pentagon. But instead of spending so much time doing so why didn’t you put your efforts towards producing the video footage which proves a 757 hit the pentagon? The pentagon is the most surveyed building on the planet, 86 cameras were focused on the pentagon during the crash and yet only few have been released none of which prove that a 757 hit the pentagon. We see the footage of the WTC crashes all the time on television and in documentaries, just recently the history channel did a show which aired the WTC footage on 9/11. So just show the footage of the 757 hitting the pentagon… we have 24 hour satellite footage of the pentagon, there is not 1 second that an inch of the pentagon goes without being filmed. So if a 757 crossed restricted airspace in route to the pentagon then it was captured on film. And anyone can scale a 757 to fit your photo, the fact you even showed that degrades your argument. Don’t place images in the video footage which don’t exist. Just explain too me why we cant see any evidence of a 757 immediately after the crash, photos of small pieces of what might be from an airplane do not prove a whole lot. The most proven argument which suggest a 757 did not hit the pentagon is that the planes wings extend far past the size of the hole that was left after the 9/11 attack. So the wings would have broke off if the hole is not wide enough for them to fit… so why don’t we see the wings of a massive 757 which snapped off during the impact just moments after the crash? wouldn’t they be lying in front of the pentagon? There were no Boeing 757 wings or large pieces of wings recovered… what does this suggest? If there is a 757 in the video footage that was released and we just cant see it because of poor resolution then explain why the front lawn of the pentagon is not mangled from the low approach the 757 supposedly took. Going that fast at such a low altitude would have ripped a clear path in the ground easily visible but as photos have proven there is no significant ground damage directly in front of the pentagon.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS The pentagon is the most surveyed building on the planet, 86 cameras were focused on the pentagon during the crash and yet only few have been released none of which prove that a 757 hit the pentagon.

Your information is incorrect. 85 cameras from around the area of the Pentagon, including those from hotels, were taken as potential evidence. Only 1 camera was focused on the area of impact and that video was released. None of the other cameras were pointed toward the impact area. Truthers here have said all along that it doesn't matter if all 85 cameras were pointed at the impact site and showed definitively that AA77 hit the Pentagon. They said that there is "so much proof that 9/11 was an inside job" that it would be obvious that any videos would have been "doctored." If you don't believe me you can ask Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Rob Balsamo, or SPreston.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS Exactleee...

If everyone would have followed the links provided in the first few pages and checked everything out they would have come to the conclusion that catherder is correct in his conclusion. Here us another link with lots of pictures showing pieces and parts of the plane. It was on the second page of the thread I believe. 911research.wtc7.net...

I suppose that this article about flight 77 is an old one, because most of the information in it was disproven long ago. If you would like to see the information gathered by pilots and engineers, please check out this site: pilotsfor911truth.org... Also, it would have been absolutely impossible for a 757 to have made a 270 turn, missing countless obstacles, while leaving the lawn in remarkably good condition. The plane piece you showed was planted there (and though it was bent, was not burned at all). Please remember that it would also be totally impossible for the wings to vanish into thin air - with no marks on the building, and no wing debris on the lawn. Finally, from the brief frame that the FBI did release, it's easy to see that it was not a 757.

reply to post by johnlear

posted by Anonymous ATS I recently began reading this thread and its too long to respond to everything but on the very first page I wanted to tell Catherder that you did an excellent job gathering this information in an attempt to prove a 757 hit the pentagon. But instead of spending so much time doing so why didn’t you put your efforts towards producing the video footage which proves a 757 hit the pentagon? The pentagon is the most surveyed building on the planet, 86 cameras were focused on the pentagon during the crash and yet only few have been released none of which prove that a 757 hit the pentagon. We see the footage of the WTC crashes all the time on television and in documentaries, just recently the history channel did a show which aired the WTC footage on 9/11. So just show the footage of the 757 hitting the pentagon… we have 24 hour satellite footage of the pentagon, there is not 1 second that an inch of the pentagon goes without being filmed. So if a 757 crossed restricted airspace in route to the pentagon then it was captured on film.

Indeed. and yet not one of those FBI confiscated videos would include those video cameras atop the Pentagon roof, overlooking the helipad, and looking in the direction of the alleged approaching aircraft. The FBI would not have jurisdiction over the Defense Department would they? There would also be cameras on the Naval Annex facing the Pentagon. Perhaps several of these Defense Dept cameras captured the decoy aircraft flying over the Naval Annex and overflying the Pentagon. So why have we not seen any of those rooftop videos, which would have been hardwired and stored in the Pentagon basement security room? Come on one of you insider military types; have a streak of patriotism and leak some of those videos. You will be much appreciated. There were other Pentagon rooftop cameras looking out in every direction; perhaps as many as 15 total. No sign of an aircraft at the Pentagon? [edit on 12/4/08 by SPreston]

Nice 1. But plz explain 1 thing. How did those engine parts manage to end up INSIDE the building? There are no smaller holes on the sides of the "big one". Compare this to WTC where the engines acctually managed to pass straight through the ENTIRE buildings. It still just dont add up: to quote the great William Shakespeare "Somethings rotten in the state of Denmark".

None of catherders OP, and any subsequent dialog with those that believe a 757 hit the Pentagon, has convinced me that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I'm not saying that it (flt 77) didn't, just saying I want more proof. The idea that other security cameras didn't pic up anything is preposterous. The National Security angle I can buy to a certain extent, but then why release the guard shack video? [snip] Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link. [edit on 15-12-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS This is the most important question. Why did the engines pass straight into the WTC which was totally steel structured and not into the mostly not steel structured pentagon? Why only a single hole? The engines and the fuel laden wings were denser than the body!!!!!!!! Without answering this all of the other evidence is circumstantial and eyewitness.

reply to post by johnlear Nobody here said they "disentagrated." They snapped off and were dragged inside. Why do you think they would punch through the wall and leave an outline of themselves?

So, in case i missed something, i should believe that a carbon fiber and aluminum fuselage went thru 8 concrete and steel rings but the steel and titanium jet engines didnt? [Mod Edit - replace all caps with lowercase] [edit on 22/1/2009 by Sauron]

reply to post by guinnessford What carbon fiber fuselage? The 757 is made of aluminum and other normal aircraft materials with very small amounts of carbon fiber. Airbus builds their planes out of carbon fiber, but the only Boeing plane made of carbon fiber is the 787 which hasn't even flown yet. All it really had to go through was the exterior wall. The interior on the ground floor was essentially hollow. [edit on 12/17/2008 by Zaphod58]

ok, sorry. im an auto mechanic, and planes are a little out of my expertise. and im here to learn not cause any conflict. just think im missing the point. what ive gathered from this "argument" because its not a thread anymore, is that aluminum, wich is less rigid than the titanium and steel, went thru 4(sorry thought it was 8) rings of the pentagon, but the engines didnt make a dent. or disintegrated upon impact. am i gathetring this right? keep in mind i havent formed an opinion about it all, besides someone is hiding something.

posted by Anonymous ATS The pentagon is the most surveyed building on the planet, 86 cameras were focused on the pentagon during the crash and yet only few have been released none of which prove that a 757 hit the pentagon.

posted by jthomas Your information is incorrect. 85 cameras from around the area of the Pentagon, including those from hotels, were taken as potential evidence. Only 1 camera was focused on the area of impact and that video was released. None of the other cameras were pointed toward the impact area.

Area of impact? Really? Are you certain jthomas? I don't think these three cameras nor any other cameras on the roof of the Pentagon are incliuded in those FBI confiscated 85 videos. Do you? Could these cameras possibly be directed at the alleged Official Flight 77 Flight Path jthomas? Why does it have to be the area of impact only jthomas? Wouldn't any photos or videos of the surrounding sky and grounds be potentially useful? Do these questions clash with your programming jthomas? Are your circuits about to shut down? [edit on 12/17/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston If there were something on the video (i.e: plane slamming into the pentagon), of course they're going to show it. clearly theres something they don't want people to see (the plane not hitting, or deferring from the offical flight path) else they'd have shown it... obviously it's not some "protect people from the harsh reality of war" type thing, how many times have you seen the planes flying into the twin towers?

can anyone shed light on this "thing" that im missing? you know, the one hole for the thin aluminum, crushable fuselage, and no holes for the 2 huge whatever ton titanium and steel jet engines?