9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by dereks You can? Then why dont you? So far, you have posted nothing at all that shows any doubt in the official story!

Statement from witnesses that they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757. Which raises 2 questions. 1. Who told them it was a 757? 2. How many other witnesses were told it was a 757?

reply to post by REMISNE I don't know where you are now, but I'm sitting in an office in London. If a plane was flown at 500 mph into the building next to mine I'd probably survive but there's no way I'd be able to state definitively straight away what it was. I might even reach for terms like "missile". Naturally I'd run out and look, and I'd spend a frantic time trying to find out what it was. At some point, as news of (say) the hijack came in, and more information became available, I'd learn that it was a plane. Later, a TM website would call me an eyewitness, and claim that my initial statement - where I said I didn't know what hit the bldg - is evidence of it not being a plane. [edit on 25-2-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade I don't know where you are now, but I'm sitting in an office in London. If a plane was flown at 500 mph into the building next to mine I'd probably survive but there's no way I'd be able to state definitively straight away what it was. I might even reach for terms like "missile".

Which raises 2 questions. 1. Who told them it was a 757? 2. How many other witnesses were told it was a 757? These and other witness statements would be easlily brought into question in a court. [edit on 26-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE Originally posted by TrickoftheShade I don't know where you are now, but I'm sitting in an office in London. If a plane was flown at 500 mph into the building next to mine I'd probably survive but there's no way I'd be able to state definitively straight away what it was. I might even reach for terms like "missile".

Which raises 2 questions. 1. Who told them it was a 757?

Probably heard it on the news, a witness statement that they saw a blue sedan in a hit and run is not negated because the witness doesn't know the make, model, year and manufacturer.

2. How many other witnesses were told it was a 757?

Probably most of them. Why? Very few people can determine by sight, the model and manufacturer of a moving plane. This does not negate their testimony in the least. At least not in the real world, maybe in "truther" world where grasping at straws of incredulity is a way of life.

These and other witness statements would be easlily brought into question in a court. [edit on 26-2-2010 by REMISNE]

And the "questions" would be laughed out of court.

Originally posted by hooper Probably heard it on the news.

So then they are a very good eyewitnesses. Thier statement would be laughed out of court

2. How many other witnesses were told it was a 757?

Probably most of them. Then most of thier statments would be laughed out of court since they would not hold up under questioning.

- Santa slides down the chimney to leave presents on 24th December. - Leave your tooth under the pillow and the tooth fairy will replace it with a sixpence. - A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon on 9/11. - Sail too far around the world and you will fall off the edge. - Masturbation makes you blind. - Everytime you say that you don't believe in fairies, one of them dies. The one with least evidence to support it is the third premise on this list. [edit on 27-2-2010 by aristocrat2]

Originally posted by aristocrat2 The one with least evidence to support it is the third premise on this list.

Then how do you explain the 757 engine, the 757 FDR, the 757 wheels, the 757 undercarriage, the external damage done by a 757 sized aircraft, the DNA from the passengers and crew of flight 77....... Like all "truthers" you just ignore all the facts and physical evidence

Originally posted by dereks Then how do you explain the 757 engine, the 757 FDR, the 757 wheels, the 757 undercarriage, the external damage done by a 757 sized aircraft,

You have no proper evidence that the engine, wheels or undercarriage are from a 757 of AA77.

the DNA from the passengers and crew of flight 77.......

If the fire was hot enough to destroy the plane it would have also destryed DNA evidence.

"truthers" you just ignore all the facts and physical evidence

Becasue you have no facts and physcial evidence. [edit on 1-3-2010 by REMISNE]

bauer.imgur.com... Some perspectives that show just how impossible it would be to fly a commercial jet level with the grass without touching and hit the building.... it's down in a big bowl! There is an obvious forest of signage and trees in the way, not to mention the hill. Note also the closeups of the damage areas. Consider that the plane allegedly struck at an angle of ~45DEG to the building facade, this will direct ~1/2 the forward energy and materials outside the building heading parallel with the front wall (the parts that did not go through a hole of some kind). Where is the evidence for this? Note in these new pics, window glass is still partially in place in the window directly next to one of the big holes, amazing! Note also that the fuel in the wings should obey this assumption and hence make an asymmetric fireball (which also did not appear to happen). Further there is developing evidence that witnesses saw the plane exit the area overhead of the building toward Regan's runway. Reference Pilotsfor911truth.com data. Some of these new pictures show the difficulty flying anything down into the bowl the Pentagon resides in, not to mention the field of various poles and trees in the way. There is currently no FDR data that agrees with the OS.

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6 Pentagon is not "down in a bowl". I am here, can see with my own eyes. It is a fallacy, perpetuated by those who are desperate, to claim that the airplane skimmed close to the ground for any length of time before impact. Finally, as to the FDR....the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" information has been shown to be incorrect, it has been shown over and over again, right here on ATS. The fact that they still put up already discredited info, and/or they do not take it down, speaks volumes toward their lack of credibility. It is important to understand, also, some facts about "P4T". It is run by only ONE man. He lists himself as 'co-founder'....but he is the 'Grand Poohbah' over there, and has total control. It is his pet ego project, nothing else....not at ALL as credible as this site, ATS. Not by a long shot..... Anyone who disagrees with him, even to the slightest degree, is unmercifully ridiculed and disdained, and almost immediately "post banned". He brooks no arguments, only allows boot-lickers to comment. The entire site is a complete joke. Evidenced by the continued appeal for cash "donations"....you will NEVER see such crass behavior at ATS.

reply to post by Alfie1 The video was a plane crash into a solid wall at 90Deg. Change the angle to 45DEG, ~1/2 the energy is directed parallel to the wall and ~1/2 normal to the wall. This assumption will apply in any section where the wall is intact to act like a reflector, especially in the area of the wings and fuel contained therein. Do you see any evidence for this? This means fuel and airplane of ~50 to 80tons should have moved at great speed to the right of the strike area. I don't see this. There are trees to the right still standing and many windows still intact. Fishy at best.

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6 I'd crack open your physics textbooks, again. Doesn't work the way you think, inthe oblique angle of impact, not at those extreme velocities. You are forgetting momentum, and one of Newton's Laws of Motion. Objects with great momentum don't suddenly charge off into a different vector direction. We aren't talking billiard balls, here.......

reply to post by weedwhacker Try google earth, the building is in the Occoquan River Basin. It sits right on the river. I called it a bowl as pilot talk for airports with hills around may be refereed to. This is true for the alleged direction of flight. This set of new pics shows the perspective quite well. It was also shown you can't follow the vertical flight path of the OS without greatly exceeding the max loads of the aircraft, you simply can't get down and level off in time at the reported speeds. Can you argue the physics of impact? One person can make a difference in history, big deal. I evaluated the information and facts. Why attack the person?

reply to post by weedwhacker Caveat, if the wall is still intact, you may assume the energy was directed based on trig rules, if there is a hole, then obviously not. The wings and fuel (wing tank fuel) were well in areas with minimal damage. Where is this material? Needless to say, if the wall is intact, the material is outside, even if force was applied to the normal to the wall during the collision.

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6 I'm sorry to tell you, you aren't getting the picture, not based on the photos. I am physically HERE...live here. See it. When you se it in real life, it's obvious. Here, as to the FDR...like I said, the 'Pilots' website is complete hogwash. This thread from ATS explains it more accurately --- it is full of the regular deniers, so you have to sort through their nonsense, which isn't easy... www.abovetopsecret.com... BTW....you may also be interested to learn that 'P4T' also subscribed (maybe still do? I don't know, their story changes so often) to the so-called "North of Citgo" theory, first advocated by the "Citizen's Investigation Team", headed by Craig Ranke. Another wild 'conspiracy' take on this topic, and completely off-base. But, he/they continue to sell DVDs and T-shirts and ballcaps I suppose...which is why they're in this "business". Of course, for the "NoC" ground track to be true then the ~45-degree angle of impact that you agree with goes right out the window...baby with the bath water kinda thing. The "CIT" claim that AAL 77 flew over the Navy Annex. Well, take a look at Google Map, and take note of the Sheraton Hotel, just west of the Annex. It is quite a bit higher than the Annex rooftops...which you can see if you go into the "street views" and look around for a bit.....

Hi folks... been following this whole Pentagon "mystery plane/missile" topic for a while now and here are some thoughts I had about it all: 1)The Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 in the middle of NOWHERE in Jefferson County, Colorado more than 2 years before the 9/11 attacks. The school was able to produce actual security video of this horrible event... keep in mid we're talking about a "High School" in the middle of nowhere, yet the most important military building in the entire planet (The Pentagon) can only provide 4 or 5 frames of grainy time lapse video from a tiny security post???? 2)If this plane/missile attack was in fact "planned"... did they not know and/or expect that the public was going to demand visual evidence in the form of security video footage considering this was "The Pentagon"??? Wouldn't that have been pretty obvious to those planning the attack if it was in fact our government that was behind it all?? 3)How does a jumbo jet "dissolve" in the impact, yet manages to make a perfectly round hole in the inner most ring the "plane" was able to reach?? I'm no scientist, but if something dissolves, how does it make a near perfect circular exit hole?? I'm really on the fence about all of this... I know the government has produce almost NO clear evidence to back up the jumbo jet theory, but at the same time I ask... are they really that dumb to plan something like that and expect to get away with almost no video evidence at all??? I'm confused.

reply to post by musikman Hello, "musikman" Cameras at Pentagon versus a High School? Just a wild guess, but perhaps there were legal libility concerns, on the part of the School District Administorators that prompted the video surveillance. Covering their butts, from potential lawsuits. But, your number 3? This is a pretty likely explanation: www.911myths.com...

There were plenty of cameras on the Pentagon roof and on nearby buildings and even a traffic camera. Funny thing is that some of the cameras were removed the FBI confiscated videos from the cameras. i114.photobucket.com... i114.photobucket.com... i114.photobucket.com... i114.photobucket.com... i114.photobucket.com... i114.photobucket.com... i114.photobucket.com... Removed cameras, i114.photobucket.com... i114.photobucket.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker Happy to look a GE and explore various perspectives of the site, which I did. Not sure what's so obvious to you about the terrain, it's definitely not flat, and it's definitely down hill to the river basin from the area of around the Annex. Further from the perspective in a cockpit doing 500+kts, the down slope will be very tough to follow. Why not aim for the big bulls eye in the middle? Much easier than skimming along the grass till you hit the building. It is true that the pressure wave from the wings and aircraft body makes actually touching the ground in level flight difficult. I quite often fly a few feet above water in GA craft and the extra lift is noticeable, sans obstructions. While it appears something hit the building, it's not clear what it was to me. The damage and debris field needs to match a large jet as described in the OS, including the incident angle of ~45DEG. Loads of questions remain. Where is the tail section? Where are the wing sections that did not go into the building? Where did the fuel from the wing tanks go? What was the total mass of the recovered parts and cargo? Can the plane fly at the reported speeds at sea level?... and on and on. I also get suspicious when people pick a point of view for personal financial gains. Break-even may be a different story.