9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Sorry but in the video stills from a Pentagon security camera shown frame by frame show nothing of a 757 in the pictures.. Clearly it was a missile deployed by our government to distract.. I ask this, what do the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers have in common? NOT 1 Damn Thing!! Why would you attack such diverse subjects? Seriously?? 911research.wtc7.net... check that link bozos

Originally posted by CameronFox Hey Golden... this is the Pentagon thread. I tell you what. Start a Loose Change thread.... what you think they got right....and I will join in there.

So Camo, are you one of those guys who prefers your screws "loose" then? Do you have a Pentagon/757 script perhaps? RH P.S. What is up with the stage-magician-groupie fascination(s) with cats and "NWO"? [Edit: can't get a linefeed/CR. Dunno?] [edit on 16-2-2009 by rhunter]

Where is the landing gear or engines? These are at all plane crashes no matter how severe.

why was there not just a 13 foor hole in the twin towers then? why did they fall at the speed of freefall? and why are there visible explosions BEFORE any plane hits the towers?? Why were all 80 security cameras surveilling the pentagon mysteriously taken by the government moments before the plane crash? why did NORAD not respond to the hijack attempts? How, in the twin towers did a hijacker's passport survive, when the largest remaining object foundd by firefighters in the rubbel was a 2-inch steel clip from a telephone? Why did Bush and Cheney INSIST on appearing together wheile being addressed about 911, with no transcript, recordings of any kind? answer THESE along with many other questions, including ones such as, how did the supposed "hijackers" survive, and if they were responsible, why were they all released from prison at all? let alone right after conveniently making it to the front page of the papers for everyone to see. I have a message for those of you who believe the media and the government, and believe for one second that Bush had NO part whatsoever; You can try to turn a blind eye, and tell yourselves the America we have come to know would NEVER sacrifice human life for more power, but as you sit in your living room, and corruipt governments get richer and richer (or more in debt with the central banking systems), take one moment to think to yourself "I am a HUMAN BEING DAMN IT, MY LIFE IS NOT WORTHLESS!! I HAVE VALUE!!!!

reply to post by johnlear I agree with ur statement. If the guy who wrote this lengthy artical wants to believe everything he's shovelling here then thats fine. I for one dont. It may have fooled millions into believing that terrorists did this but not me. If were supposed to believe the 2 photos, that clearly show a hole in a brick wall is 1, of the Pentagon, 2, that is the damage of a 757 hitting it with no wing damage to the sides. PLEASE !!!!!!, do you think we were born yesterday. Where are the black boxes? where is all the video evidence that was converscated. And how on earth did 3 skyscrapers all perfectly implode on 1 day from fire damage. Yes at the time it was shocking and horrid to watch these events unfold but the dust has settled and more and more evidence to coming to light to warrant another investigation into these events. This was done to shock the world, call it another pearl harbour. If this were terrorists,do you really think they'd want to encourage such a huge war against them from the rest of the world.No! It was so the West could get a foothold in the middle east.Whats in the middle east? OIL !

This isn't good research. These are not facts. You did not witness any of the evidence being presented. Any parts, which were very small, could easily have been planted inside the building or at any point. There is a reported who has been caught lying about what he saw that day, its the in the documentary "Ripple Effect". CCTV cameras are not that low of quality, and the pentagon is the most secure building in America, yet there is only one video which proves nothing? And the video has the wrong date and time and the word "plane" on the bottom right corner. The whole was 13 ft. But the wingspan is over 100 ft. There was no whole created by the wings or by the engines. Pieces of the wreckage dont match up with the plane. The plane was obliterated yet id's for the terrorist were found? THis is only a small part of the questioning of 9/11. Before you look at the pentagon take a look at the collapse of building 7. No plane hit it, yet it supposedly collapsed due to fire damage, when there was only small fires in a couple of the floors. Compare that to the research of other huge buildings that have burned and not collapsed. Those buildings were the first in the history of steel framed buildings to supposed collapse due to fire damage which was the official story. The fires burning were also proved to be much less than required to damage steel.

Wow that was a lot of interesting information. I sat here for an hour reading all of it. I was just watching video's on youtube. I always thought a plane hit and your information and diagrams are amazing. I cant believe you took the time to do this. Now I will have to forward this thread to friends of mine who insist something else hit the Pentagon. I bet they will think otherwise. Nice work!

Nice to see this thread is still around And of course, people still thinking gobermint' agents are behind it. New and interesting stuff posted, will be helpful when arguing later that a Boeing did hit the Pentagon. The no Boeing theory always stank of deliberate disinformation to cloud and confuse the legit questions about 9/11 and the oddities of the whole offical story.

[quote] Evidently those responsible for the release of the Pentagon security videos to Judicial Watch had assumed that, accompanied by repeated strong doses of suggestion, the billowing smoke trail of a rocket engine would be seen by one and all as the fuselage of a Boeing 757. [unquote] See www.odeion.org... for a full analysis of the SMOKE TRAIL seen in the Pentagon security videos.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by SylviaPlath Really? I must have missed the vehicles I was in flipping over when we drove behind those planes running engines on the ground. Or all those people dying when they walked behind the same plane. A large parked plane running engines at power, under the right conditions CAN flip a vehicle. That same large airplane in flight won't do anything but rock a vehicle back and forth. It CERTAINLY won't kill someone on foot or anyone else.

posted by Zaphod58 reply to post by SylviaPlath

 

Really? I must have missed the vehicles I was in flipping over when we drove behind those planes running engines on the ground. Or all those people dying when they walked behind the same plane. A large parked plane running engines at power, under the right conditions CAN flip a vehicle. That same large airplane in flight won't do anything but rock a vehicle back and forth. It CERTAINLY won't kill someone on foot or anyone else.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c161d1e54ddd.jpg[/atsimg] How can you possibly know that? Evidence please. How often do Boeing 757 sized commercial aircraft fly within 35-50 feet over cars and pedestrians at 535 mph with both turbofan engines allegedly at full throttle? Where would this evidence have occurred, besides at the Pentagon where the actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and Over the cars and pedestrians and light poles at a much slower speed and 50 to 80 feet above ground level?? [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a2e8b95bc31.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston A 747 at full power trying to take off (with about 56,000 lbs of thrust) with more thrust than ANY 757 ever built, doesn't even knock people over when they're standing less than 100 feet away from the end of the runway, directly behind it. You don't have to fly a 757 over a road at 530 mph to prove that. If a plane with a higher thrust rating doesn't knock everyone over and roll them down the beach, when sitting still, at full power, then you can conclude (there's that logic thing again) that a 757 in flight, with a LOWER thrust rating, isn't going to flip cars around.

reply to post by Zaphod58 Oh really? This vehicle is over 100 feet behind the jet engine and weighs over a ton. Seems like it was bowled over and thrown for quite a distance into the water, wasn't it? These cars are about 150 feet behind the engines. I wouldn't want to be standing back there. Would you? The alleged aircraft engines scripted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY allegedly at full throttle, were supposed to be a lot closer than 150 feet from the cars and pedestrians the aircraft allegedly flew over. But nothing. Not one pedestrian reported being hurled for several hundred feet across the road and not one car reported being overturned. Why is that? Because no aircraft struck the Pentagon and because no aircraft knocked down the five light poles and because no aircraft flew down the hill and low above the cars and pedestrians? Is it because the real aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo and far to the north of the staged light poles? [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07ab3f3dc0fa.jpg[/atsimg] [edit on 4/14/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston Oh really? This vehicle is over 100 feet behind the jet engine and weighs over a ton. Seems like it was bowled over and thrown for quite a distance into the water, wasn't it?

Can you please watch the video you posted again.....then please tell us how much it weighs? Please pay close attention to the missing engine under the hood.

reply to post by SPreston I couldn't care less if you believe me or not, but I've been in a truck and car behind a C-135 with one, two, and four engines running at full power, driving slowly behind it. And yet, we didn't flip once. We didn't lean any more than you would taking a turn too fast, and we were never in any danger. And that was with as many as four 18,000lb thrust engines. Here are videos of heavy planes taking off at St Maarten. The runway is across a road from the beach, and people stand right behind the planes watching them take off, and cars drive right behind them on take off and landing. The people get blasted, but they don't (always) get thrown, and they don't get hurt. Yes, there are some people that get blown away, but look at how close those people are holding onto the fence in the first video. They don't have much trouble standing there watching the take off. Some of the people on the beach have some trouble standing there, but they're not thrown.

posted by SPreston Oh really? This vehicle is over 100 feet behind the jet engine and weighs over a ton. Seems like it was bowled over and thrown for quite a distance into the water, wasn't it?

posted by CameronFox Can you please watch the video you posted again.....then please tell us how much it weighs? Please pay close attention to the missing engine under the hood.

Sure CF. Normally a truck that size would weigh about a ton and a half; so without the engine and the gasoline, I guessed over a ton. Has the self-destructing 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY caused you loss of sleep and made you irritable? Or have your masters decided to pull your paychecks until you get your act together and shut us toofers down? Can you explain how the aircraft proven Over the Naval Annex knocked those five light poles down? Did you find any south flight path eyewitnesses on your trip to Arlington and videotape them describing the light pole through the windshield and the heavy white smoke trail? Did you get a chance to talk to your federal agent buddies who were guarding Lloyde England and the taxi, and videotape them supporting your religious beliefs?

posted by Zaphod58 reply to post by SPreston

 

Here are videos of heavy planes taking off at St Maarten. The runway is across a road from the beach, and people stand right behind the planes watching them take off, and cars drive right behind them on take off and landing. The people get blasted, but they don't (always) get thrown, and they don't get hurt.

Those people in your 1st video are about 300 feet behind the engines (much further than the truck was) and in the 2nd video about 400 feet behind the engines. It didn't sound like the engines went to full throttle until after the 747s were rolling down the runway. The pilots knew full well those people were back there. Regardless, there was no 535 mph 90 ton 757 over the superturf Pentagon lawn and staged light poles to bowl people and cars over, because the aircraft was actually flying Over the Naval Annex at a much slower speed. Your 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is collapsing faster than you guys can prop it back up.

reply to post by SPreston If you haven't noticed, responses to the Flyover nonsense has been very limited. Our handlers at NWO Headquarters have declined payment to NWO operatives for showing the ridiculousness of the flyover theory and those that happen to buy the snake oil. Thanks for playing.

reply to post by SPreston So planes with MORE thrust, and MORE wake turbulence in a configuration where wake turbulence is the strongest don't prove anything..... Ok got it. A Boeing 757 in a clean configuration at high speed, would actually produce LESS turbulence on the ground than a 747, DC-10, 757, or 767 in a dirty configuration would. Engines in flight produce LESS effect on the ground than engines on a parked plane are. They are pushing the plane forward in flight, where the ones on the ground aren't pushing anything. The effect on the ground is mostly from wake turbulence. Wake turbulence is highest in a take off or landing configuration, when the planes are slow and nose high.

Wake turbulence is turbulence that forms behind an aircraft as it passes through the air. This turbulence includes various components, the most important of which are wingtip vortices and jetwash. Jetwash refers simply to the rapidly moving gases expelled from a jet engine; it is extremely turbulent, but of short duration. Wingtip vortices, on the other hand, are much more stable and can remain in the air for up to three minutes after the passage of an aircraft. Wingtip vortices make up the primary and most dangerous component of wake turbulence. Wake turbulence is especially hazardous during the landing and take off phases of flight, for three reasons. The first is that during take-off and landing, aircraft operate at low speeds and high angle of attack. This flight attitude maximizes the formation of dangerous wingtip vortices. Secondly, takeoff and landing are the times when a plane is operating closest to its stall speed and to the ground - meaning there is little margin for recovery in the event of encountering another aircraft's wake turbulence. Thirdly, these phases of flight put aircraft closest together and along the same flightpath, maximizing the chance of encountering the phenomenon.

en.wikipedia.org... The exhaust from the engines wouldn't react against the cars long enough to flip them over. Not even at close range, because the plane is moving away from them at high speeds. The strongest point of the exhaust is directly behind the engine, at close range. [edit on 4/14/2009 by Zaphod58]