9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by Joey Canoli Good to bring that, Joey. I believe that in many, many cases, the proponents of a "Conspiracy Theory" involving the various aspects of the events of 9/11 use specific images, only those that support their opinions, and then keep repeating over and over again. I don't understand this mindset. Lots of times, out of context, you may begin to wonder about "Official Stories" ( whatever that is supposed to actually mean ) but on a closer examination and including ALL of the evidence and information it becomes clear that some people are lying --- or, just so determined to "prove" their pet notions, that they simply toss out anything that contradicts their pre-conceived concepts. Usually, when tossing, it's with a disparaging reference to the so-called "Official Story", yet again. Intent? To plant the innuendo that you "can't trust the Government" because that's the credo that works so well, especially when your target audience is predisposed to such thinking already. What is the motivation behind this concerted effort?? There seems to be a genuine opinion that these people think they have found something, and I suppose Human nature takes over, because people, deep down, want to be an investigative hero. Or is there something else at work, here? The psychology of it escapes me. Loads and loads of evidence, and a "true believer" will willingly discount it as "planted", or "fake", or part of some incredibly complex and elaborate "scheme" that just beggars belief, when it is looked at in a clear manner.

Originally posted by jprophet420 www.airliners.net...

Look at the hole in the building Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole.

The source was of course this thread, which i had already stated and you have already either ignored or were not able to comprehend. Either one is fine to me because you fail again publicly attacking me instead of the content that I post.

Your weaseling is your downfall. You wrote:

"The engines did not break the face of the wall. The engine debris was found on the inside. Physically impossible unless they were special ninja engines that can walk through walls."

Now, one more time, either back up your claims or admit you cannot, jprophet420.

all of you can can go back and forth all you want, but how many of you saw this with your own two eyes? only one engine was in the building. it was folded alongside the plane on intial impact with the ground. the other engine and right wing was 250 meters away where it had been taken off by a lightpole

reply to post by omahan So youre saying a 757 flew 250 meters with one wing while changing altitude and not rolling. Thats *******amazing.

it hit the light pole, hit the ground less than 75 meters later and was at an upward angle when the 757 went into the pentagon. listen you are not talking to someone who just researched the situation. i was there. i saw the whole layout, and spent the next two weeks in a proverbial hell cleaning that up

I like this, I had been thinking it was a Boeing drone aircraft launching a missile. I Have a few questions that need answered though. My first question is- Where were those pictures of the parts of the engines taken? The larger parts of the engine you show were most definitely not outside or I would have seen them in other pictures. Also, if those parts of the engine were INSIDE the pentagon, how did they get inside? Where are the holes in the wall where they got inside? They did not just get sucked into the hole after the plane flew in. My second question is where all of this fits in when you bring this into the equation. You have multiple witnesses, claiming 100%, they'd bet their lives on it that the aircraft did NOT come from the south side which would have meant that it did NOT follow the path that would have knocked over light posts. My final question is, IF it was a Boeing 757 then why was all footage of this event confiscated immediately after the crash? Couldn't they have released a video that CLEARLY shows a massive commercial airliner? You still have to agree that some fishy stuff is going on if they have 80 videos of this plane crashing and the only one they release is four frames of blur and stink.

reply to post by Hoodie_Ninja Stay tuned, ALL of those questions have already been addressed thoroughly. The answers have NOTHING to do with any "Grand Conspiracy", no 'drone' Boeings, no 'fly-overs'....and your citing of "CIT" and their 'video'?? IT IS total rubbish, it is a compilation of selected 'testimonies' ONLY from those who for whatever reason mis-remember the events of that day. The "CIT" people (all two of them) have invested so much into this, that by now they will ignore ANYTHING that contradicts their long-held beliefs. For, that's all they really have, is a set of beliefs. Hanging ONLY on poorly collected and cherry-picked "evidence", while discarding the vast amounts of other solid and verifiable real evidence that shows them to be incorrect. There are many, many threads here on ATS that show clear refutations to these "Truthers" claims. In fact, I'm a bit surprised you posted as you did, if you had read page ONE of this thread....

reply to post by weedwhacker Cherrypicked two police officers and and FBI agent. Besides that, STILL WHY WILL THEY NOT RELEASE ONE OF THE EIGHTY VIDEOS THAT WOULD PROVE IT WAS AN AIRPLANE!!!!!????? Whether it was an airplane or not is actually not that important but the fact that the official story claims the two engines for the most part vaporized in the impact while dna evidence remained intact to identify victims. If the CIA wants us to believe it was an airplane, I will entirely 100% believe it when they release the videos showing the airplane. The bottom line in the entire controversy is that 9/11 was an inside job and that out government is by definition the largest terrorist in the world. [edit on 8-9-2009 by Hoodie_Ninja]

Wow! How much time did you spend trying to make it look like a 757 fits in that gate camera video still? Not only does it not fit because where you claim the tail section of the plane is, I can see the outline a building in the distance right through the tail. Amazing, a transparent tail. What will they think of next? Not only that but when I compare your video still to the real video still they're not the same. It appears you have altered part of the image to make it look like there is the nose of a 757 in it. That does not exist in the real video still. Ya, you put a lot of effort into this alright. Too bad you're not interested in the truth. Only in convincing people of your point of view.

I'm still a fence sitter on this subject. I'm smart enough to understand that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is just that, a theory. But I'm also smart enough to know that governments have done things in the past to hurt their own people and blame others for the tragedy. IE: Hitler burning the Reichstag to place blame on "undesirables" and leading to civil rights being taken from others. I believe this is just a theory also, but most agree it's fact. And it's now known as fact that we knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor at least 3 days beforehand and did nothing to stop it so that we could enter WWII, which got us out our largest recession. When you see things presented by people about conspiracy theories it's hard not to believe them because of the amount of information they present compared to the amount the government presents. But again it's just theory until proven otherwise. My biggest problem with this particular subject has to be the fact that our most prized military building only has about 8 frames of video for this tragedy. Where is the footage from the cameras on the side of the building where the plane struck? The frames released are from a parking lot at the Pentagon, not the cameras mounted on the building itself. There was only a small portion (compared to it's full length) of the building destroyed, so where is the footage from the cameras on either side of the area that was destroyed? Or even from the cameras that were destroyed. These aren't camcorders with a vhs tape stuck in them that could be damaged. Seems like they're saying Wal-Mart has a better security camera layout than the Pentagon. If I saw that footage I probably would at least be able to lean to one side of the fence or the other.

First off let me say that while I am new to this whole 9/11 conspiracy stuff I have as of late been reading up on as much of the material, both pro and con, as I can fit in among my other daily goings on. Secondly, fantasic job on your information CatHerder. Very well done and thank you for your time and effort. Thirdly I would like to reply to a few posts, mainly by "piboy", who seems to reply based on emotion more so than deep thought.

Originally posted by piboy Ok, so the metal wings burned up and the "2 inch thick" windows did not? They should make planes out of that stuff.

And............

Originally posted by piboy Wait. According to these reports, the windows melted: "American Airlines Flight 77 and its 20,000 gallons of fuel spread destruction, fire and death, killing 189 people in the plane and on the ground. The fire was so hot, Evey said, that it turned window glass to liquid and sent it spilling down walls into puddles on the ground." CBS News "On Sept. 11, Flight 77 sliced through the outermost three of the Pentagon's five concentric rings. Fires from the plane's 20,000 gallons of fuel melted windows into pools of liquid glass. The impact of the crash fractured concrete pillars well beyond the incisions in the three outer rings." Knight Ridder

In regards to the first reply those windows still intact did not "melt" because at that point there was no fire. They did not break upon impact because they are blast resistant products. We have a special 3M film installed on our shops glass that can withstand heavy damage and while it may break it won't shatter. This type of glass can withstand a close proximity dynamite blast and still hold intact. In regards to quote # 2, again the glass that did melt was past the impact area. Question is, did they break or where they removed whole and then melted? My apologies if this had already been answered

Originally posted by Hoodie_Ninja reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Cherrypicked two police officers and and FBI agent. Besides that, STILL WHY WILL THEY NOT RELEASE ONE OF THE EIGHTY VIDEOS THAT WOULD PROVE IT WAS AN AIRPLANE!!!!!????? Whether it was an airplane or not is actually not that important but the fact that the official story claims the two engines for the most part vaporized in the impact while dna evidence remained intact to identify victims. If the CIA wants us to believe it was an airplane, I will entirely 100% believe it when they release the videos showing the airplane. The bottom line in the entire controversy is that 9/11 was an inside job and that out government is by definition the largest terrorist in the world. [edit on 8-9-2009 by Hoodie_Ninja]

How much do you know about DNA recovery? Your statement seems to be based on emotion rather that critical thought. DNA can be gathered from small fragments and tissue. I lived in Cerritos California when two planes collided and crashed into a nearby neighborhood. A friend at that time was a police cadet and had the horrific job of collecting body parts. Not many whole bodies to be found. So he tagged and bagged fingers, ears, hands, feet, scalps, torsos, etc. It's as if people think this crash would leave behind large chunks of plane and whole bodies still strapped in their seats....perhaps they have watched LOST too many times. So it is far more likely that they would find DNA evidence more so than large plane engines still intact. The plane engines may weigh slightly more than 7k lbs with the exterior of them being a skin of aluminum....perhaps many more interior parts being aluminum also. I don't think the plane designers sat around the drawing table and thought...."Well what if the plane is flown into a concrete reinforced building at over 450 mph? We may need stronger nuts and bolts!" Lastly, *IF* this is an inside job why would the powers that be go to such great lengths of pre-wiring the New York buildings for demolition and fly into them drone planes but then get so sloppy when it comes to the Pentagon?

One simple observation and one simple question.... If it was a B757 that made the impact, it appears the impact to a significantly strengthened (beyond normal concrete walls) wall resulted in impact damage from a fuselage traveling level at approximately three feet agl (above ground level)........ Now, I have approximately 7000 hours in a B757 and was an examiner.....Considering the speed and ground effect, I doubt that I could have leveled from a dive and maintained level flight long enough in ground effect to be that precise......And, please, no posts about my skills and experience, this is just an observation...........

I can makes such an article as well. This article of this topic was done professionally. This ain't normal. I can come up with written testemonies of peoples saying that it was a flying tree that entered the pentagon. Article is nothing worth, WHER ARE ALL THE VIDEOS OF THE SURVEILLANCE CAMERA OUTSIDE THE PENTAGON ??????????????? Let's begin with that, than resume with a testemonie of a man that could see perfectly what it was and says this on camera, third let's take a look at the "giving" (under force by a court of law) video of the pentagon where frames of the video were gone into thin air ??????? (frames and not flames), fourth the frame doesn't match with a video taken by a policecar... it was manipulated (as we are used to know when it comes to the gouvernement and it's organisations) I can put parts of a plane next to the pentagon too. Be fair, everything the pentagon says cannot be taken seriously, just take a look who runs the damn thing ! Enough said. ATS has been infiltrated OR is in coorporation with one of NWO organisations to spread disinfo. I think that this might be the case. When I subscribed I signed a statement that I was a Illuminati, you cannot take that name and consider that it will be understood as in "enlightment" . Not these kinda days ! So I say it once again, I am not that stupid to be a satanist ! Oh boy, when will they ever learn ? The consequences their will have to bare... euh... nothing religious. The article of this topic doesn't mean a thing.

reply to post by habu71 Hey, habu:

I doubt that I could have leveled from a dive and maintained level flight long enough in ground effect to be that precise...

I have several thousand hours in the B757/767 Obviously, I've never suicided into a building at near ground level. BUT, I don't understand why you think that it leveled off just prior to impact. There haven't been any quality images released (if they even exist) that can conclusively point to any level flight segment at that point. I can certainly imagine a continued shallow dive, aimed at the ground floor (approximately). Doesn't require any unusual pull-up, high g force or anything. Based on the NTSB recreation video, when it stops (prior to impact) I see about 6 degrees right bank, and about 5 degrees nose down. I expect it just continued at about the same pitch attitude...maybe a slight pull-up in the last split second...but certainly not impossible. Anyway, at that velocity (IAS 462 kt) about 775 fps...it eats up distance rather quickly.

I have several thousand hours in the B757/767 Obviously, I've never suicided into a building at near ground level. BUT, I don't understand why you think that it leveled off just prior to impact. There haven't been any quality images released (if they even exist) that can conclusively point to any level flight segment at that point. I can certainly imagine a continued shallow dive, aimed at the ground floor (approximately). Doesn't require any unusual pull-up, high g force or anything. Based on the NTSB recreation video, when it stops (prior to impact) I see about 6 degrees right bank, and about 5 degrees nose down. I expect it just continued at about the same pitch attitude...maybe a slight pull-up in the last split second...but certainly not impossible. Anyway, at that velocity (IAS 462 kt) about 775 fps...it eats up distance rather quickly.

I have the ultimate respect for my friend, Weedwhacker, we have discussed a few threads here and I respect his knowledge and experience. I still question the NTSB recreation, sorry, it does not look accurate. I base my skepticism on a few things. These were alleged to be non pilots trained in light aircraft and a bit of time in heavy sims. It is easy for those of us that have flown turbine aircraft for years to forget the transition issues into jets. The inertia, speed, velocity, and planning issues were part of the difficulties of the transition into jets. A few hours in a heavy jet sim would most likely not be enough for a low time pilot to properly execute a high speed descent culminating in a precise impact. I also base my questions on the impact hole. The impact "hole" itself appears, from the photos (no, I did not view it directly), appears to be very symmetrical, often found in level, or close to level, high speed impacts. From my experience, had the aircraft been in a shallow dive, at that level AGL (above ground level) at impact, the velocity and explosion would have created not just an impact hole in the reinforced wall, but a massive crater in the ground (because there would have been a downward component to the impact AND explosion) And, to those of you (welcome to ATS) that impugn my knowledge, airline experience, mil experience, and accident investigation experience through U2U's, I have no need to defend myself. I am offering opinions, based on my experience, and never claim them to be the real story. So, don't waste your time......

Weird how last night in a deep sleep I was dreaming of actually seeing the 757 hit the Pentagon, almost like the US Government were about to release a video from a high viewpoint overlooking the impact site as the plane went in. I dont know wether this was Lucid dreaming or mind control, but it was extremely vivid almost like I was looking at it through the eyes of someone there 8 years ago.

reply to post by habu71 Yes, it is an interesting topic to discuss, and nice to know there is an actual pilot to chat with.

I still question the NTSB recreation, sorry, it does not look accurate.

Well, just speaking to AA 77...the video made of the last few minutes, starting at 8,000 and just West, before the wide turn, fits perfectly with the NTSB report showing the autopilot, nav radio and fuel consumption activity...in graph form the airspeed, heading information fits. Could be a chicken/egg situation?? Meaning, the graphics first, THEN the video...but what I'm trying to say is that would require a COMPLETE false SSFDR data read...and you know how many things it looks at, and records. I just can't picture technology capable of creating all that "false" data. If there is someone with actual knowledge, verifiable, to show how that can be done I'm all ears....

It is easy for those of us that have flown turbine aircraft for years to forget the transition issues into jets. The inertia, speed, velocity, and planning issues were part of the difficulties of the transition into jets.

Under normal circumstances, perhaps. IN the sense of a full syllabus involving the aspects you speak of, and an ability to incorporate AND perform to acceptable standards (I.E., altitude/heading/airspeed control, showing a good "feel" and mastery of the airplane). These guys mostly used the autopilot and MCP...I pointed out how on AA 77 Level Change was used, but never V/S...while the guy in UA 93 did use V/S occasionally. None of them, of course, used VNAV. Nor LNAV...they just heading selected to steer. I don't know if they put waypoints into the FMC, or just used the VOR and put the HSI into full or expanded mode...full HSI mode is something they'd be more used to, than Plan.

A few hours in a heavy jet sim would most likely not be enough for a low time pilot to properly execute a high speed descent culminating in a precise impact.

I'm not so convinced of that. You know how forgiving the B757/767 are.

From my experience, had the aircraft been in a shallow dive, at that level AGL (above ground level) at impact, the velocity and explosion would have created not just an impact hole in the reinforced wall, but a massive crater in the ground...

Those are just assumptions, and much of the photographic evidence needs to be taken into full account, and full context. I've seen more than my share of selected views to "prove" a certain point... Some later photos showing a lack of significant damage to the floors below the Ground Floor may indicate that AT IMPACT the forward momentum of the airplane had a mostly horizontal component, parallel to the ground, with very little of any previous descent motion. A pitch change of just a few degrees would have accomplished that, especially at high speeds. But, pure speculation at this point...because there is a lot of conflicting information, possibly coming from many of the CT side too.... The exact possiblity of airplane path stays cloudy. The cessation of the SSFDR moments before impact doesn't help, either. That is a clue, perhaps. Did Gen #1 drop of the Bus? (Engine damge, FOD ingestion?) Did the cross-tie not pick up the load on Bus #1 fast enough?? Power interruption to the SSFDR....how long for it to recover and begin recording accurately again? What time sequence would be involved in that scenario?? Wish someone could examine that more closely.

I'm sorry OP, but I don't buy this story, It's just unsubstantiated guesses!?? There's entire wings missing.. and you are pointing to a few piles of metallic fuselage and rubble and a bit of an engine? cmmon! Almost as bad as the plane driving 250 meters with one wing! Hillarious! I know pilots that would have to be held back from hitting you with a trout. They know the truth!! In this case, at least what it ISNT. It may have took 5 years to get that far, but the disinformation campaign seems to spur on! ufoabductee

Originally posted by omahan it hit the light pole, hit the ground less than 75 meters later and was at an upward angle when the 757 went into the pentagon. listen you are not talking to someone who just researched the situation. i was there. i saw the whole layout, and spent the next two weeks in a proverbial hell cleaning that up

then show some evidence and facts to support what you claim. Show how other evidence such as whats been put forth about the NOC flightpath, is wrong. you were there means WHAT EXACTLY? where were you EXACTLY? WHEN? you claim to have such an accurate memory down to 75 METERS etc? really? did the FEDS interview you? Wheres this interview? if not, WHY? making a statement the plane hit the lightpole without any other context or evidence only puts you in the same category as all the rest who make such claims and end up refusing to give any other details. its one thing to make a claim, and another to PROVE IT and back it up. or are you like the rest of deniers and disinfo spreaders? probably...