9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by HowardRoark 25thID, First, what does any of that have to do with the pentagon on 9/11? Secondly, All of those subjects have corresponding thread elsewhere on this site. In fact there are a couple of chemtrail/contrail debates going on right now.

Strange how you manage to be on every one Howard. You are indeed ubiquitous

I'm just chasing you around, dh. I can't let you have all the fun.

www.prisonplanet.com... "But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. ....... But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events." .......

25thID The popular mechanics piece has been debunk here ATS already What we need to talk about is the fact that the engine found at WTC was not from a 757, but infact from a 737 Snip

Ken Schwarz who now charges Bush administration complicity in 9-11. Schwarz has obtained a video tape proving that a Boeing 737 flew into the south tower of the WTC. There is corroboration in terms of recorded eyewitness testimony also obtained by CNN. And then there's the actual photo of a CFM56 engine on a sidewalk with the green and white "Murray Street" sign lying beside it. Other related photos have been shown on the Internet [Rense.com] proving the engine was in fact that of one of the airliners that crashed into the WTC, and thereby also proving that the plane was a 737, not a much larger 767, and that the government lied. www.karlschwarz.com... www.karlschwarz.com...

Since the engine landed 3 blocks away from Ground Zero the FBI can't say the engine was vaporized. Where is it today? Ditto for the Pentagon JT8D engine that was identified that was NOT from Flight 77 . Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry displays the Pratt & Whitney JT8D. These photos show that JT8D matches the Pentagon engine photographed at the crash site. Note the outlined bolt flanges for comparison purposes. The bolt flanges hold the sections of the engine together. Both engines have portions of the outer cover removed so the inner engine is clearly visible. Measurements: Fan tip diameter: 39.9 - 49.2 in Length, flange to flange: 120.0 - 154.1 in From: www.pratt-whitney.com... From J. Kaplowitz 3-2-5 Try 737. www.onlinejournal.com... (pdf) They are all jet engine components (past and present) on the A-3 Skywarrior twin-turbojet airplane and on older versions of the 737. The USAF only has a few of the A-3s left in operation and what was formerly Hughes Aircraft, now Raytheon, has a fleet of them at Van Nuys, Calif. This type of turbojet engine has never been used on a Boeing 757, so the debate on "type of plane" can end there. This is a jet engine component with fan, not an auxiliary power unit (APU) as some have speculated or dropped into the conversation as disinformation.

THE BOEING 737 TECHNICAL SITE

[edit on 15/5/2005 by Sauron]

Skybum wrote : perhaps if there was video confiscated there was nothing noteworthy about it. If there was nothing noteworthy about it, they would release the videos, don't you think? ~ The CITGO gas station camera: The FBI visited a gas station across from the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate a film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack but the film was confiscated within minutes of the crash (source National Geographic News) Here is a picture of that camera's view field Now, wouldn't you think this would reveal a lot? ~ The Sheraton hotel camera footage : The FBI on September 11th confiscated a nearby hotel's security camera videotape, which also captured the attack. So far, the Justice Department has refused to release that videotape. They claim that it might provide some intelligence to somebody else who might want to do harm to the United States. But officials (...) at the Pentagon say they don't see any national security or criminal value to that tape. (source CNN transcript) So why do you think that would be dangerous to release those videos? The purple line depicts the trajectory of the alleged aircraft and any camera of that roof would have surely caught the aircraft, don't you agree? ~ The pentagon roof top cameras : atop the pentagon, there is a numerous amount of security cameras which would have caught the aircraft plunging into the pentagon. Those camera were never released. Here is some pictures of those cameras in question Well, there's an other evidence confiscated for "national security" reasons! ~ The highway traffic cameras : A countless amount of traffic cameras scattered around the near by higheways would have captured the aircraft but none have been released. Why do you think that is? Skybum wrote : Most of us have seen the video of the security cam by the pentagon. IMO the pentagon video is not conclusive at all ,its very grainy and the only thing that is absolutely discernable from it is that there was an explosion. Most security cams are trained on a limited area (ie doorways, parking lots, hallways, cash registers etc...) and usually aren't high enough resolution or fast enough fps to pick up a very fast moving airplane. At best you may see a blur much like the pentagon video. The funny thing is that I have a 150$ webcam on my computer with two 120 GB hard drives at 100$ each and that set up would allow me to capture 640 x 480 resolution images with a frame rate as high as 30 fps (thirty times more than the 1 fps of the released footage) and with this set up, I could record as much as 4 months of footage on my two hard drives (if I delete all my porn that is ) Additionnaly, I have aquired well over fifty different video footages from security cameras in different applications and every single one of them shows better revolution and better frame rates than the pentagon footage It is my belief that the pentagon footage has been altered and revealing frames have been removed If you don't believe this, you have to explain how the pentagon has video cameras cheaper than the one I use on my personal computer, cheaper than any camera footage I have been able to get my hands on, cheaper than the standard issue cameras used around the train stations that captured the Madrid bombing One would think that a place like the pentagon, one of the most security intensive places in this country, would use kick ass cameras with extremly high revolutions and frame rates around 80 or 100 fps and vision in the dark capabilities but the opposite seems to appears here! Boggles the mind, doesn't it? But by any means, the camera footage clearly indicates a white smoke trail (which would not be possibly seen on a Boeing) So, please explain to me how you don't see that smoke trail! [edit on 15-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1] [edit on 15-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]

That is not a jet engine. It is all rusty and has square angles on it. It looks like an air handler unit from the buildning.

Here is a picture of that camera's view field

You assume that is that cameras view. You assume that is footage from a security camera. To me it looks like a photo taken from atop a ladder, possibly on the opening day of the gas station or some other promotional event. Photo quality looks alot better than any security camera I have ever seen which leads me to believe its not from a security camera.

The purple line depicts the trajectory of the alleged aircraft and any camera of that roof would have surely caught the aircraft, don't you agree?

I doubt it. Usually security aren't pointed into the air or out into the distance. Perhaps if the plane flew through the parking lot it might have picked it up.

If you don't believe this, you have to explain how the pentagon has video cameras cheaper than the one I use on my personal computer, cheaper than any camera footage I have been able to get my hands on, cheaper than the standard issue cameras used around the train stations that captured the Madrid bombing One would think that a place like the pentagon, one of the most security intensive places in this country, would use kick cameras with extremly high revolutions and frame rates around 80 or 100 fps and vision in the dark capabilities but the opposite seems to appears here! Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Actually it doesn't boggle the mind. The camera at the pentagon probably were not modern equipment. I'm a construction contractor in Northern Va. I've worked in many government buildings Including some with extremely high security. I have worked around the cameras they have ,and can attest that usually except in new buildings that they are usually quite old. They don't replace them when new stuff comes out. If they are doing the job they are intended to do why would they replace them? The footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon is more than likely from a parking lot gate and all it needs to be able to do is see the driver of the car and the area 10-15 feet in front of the camera clearly, it wasn't installed to get perfect pics of 400-500 mph airplanes.

One would think that a place like the pentagon, one of the most security intensive places in this country

I keep seeing claims like this, if you've ever been to the Pentagon you would see its not as tight as you would think. If you wanna say CIA headquarters has tight security I would absolutely agree with you.

But by any means, the camera footage clearly indicates a white smoke trail (which would not be possibly seen on a Boeing) So, please explain to me how you don't see that smoke trail!

I see the smoke trail, don't you think that an airplane clipping several lightpoles could sufficiently damage an engine enough to make it smoke? [edit on 15/5/05 by Skibum]

You assume that is that cameras view. You assume that is footage from a security camera.

Actually, I did know that this was not a security camera picture I simply stated that this is the view angle of the camera that was placed at the station But even if you want to disagree with this you still have to keep in mind the words of Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack But there is a few things here that strike me as weird, first of all, according to Joe Velasquez, the FBI came to confiscate the footage just mere minutes after the attack Now, in a situation of panic and emegency, I find it kind of odd that the FBI saw the removal and appropriation of that tape as a priority I mean, within minutes of the attack, the FBI had realised that the gas station might have a tape of the crash and rushed over to take it away Stangely enough, there is no more mention of this tape and I can bet my shorts this footage will never be shown Ask yourself why!

To me it looks like a photo taken from atop a ladder, possibly on the opening day of the gas station or some other promotional event. Photo quality looks alot better than any security camera I have ever seen which leads me to believe its not from a security camera.

I agree again that this picture was not from a security camera, it only shows the same angle and direction as the security camera and I repeat, the station employee did say that the camera would have caught the crash

PepeLapiu wrote : The purple line depicts the trajectory of the alleged aircraft and any camera of that roof would have surely caught the aircraft, don't you agree? Skybum wrote : I doubt it. Usually security aren't pointed into the air or out into the distance. Perhaps if the plane flew through the parking lot it might have picked it up.

I have a source that said the hotel employees wached the clip wth terror just before the FBI confiscated the footage but I know you would find that source unreliable so I won't bother Never the less, it boggles the mind as to why the FBI rushed to those places to confiscate those footages from both the gas satation and the hotel if those would not show anything

PepeLapiu wrote : If you don't believe this, you have to explain how the pentagon has video cameras cheaper than the one I use on my personal computer, cheaper than any camera footage I have been able to get my hands on, cheaper than the standard issue cameras used around the train stations that captured the Madrid bombing One would think that a place like the pentagon, one of the most security intensive places in this country, would use kick cameras with extremly high revolutions and frame rates around 80 or 100 fps and vision in the dark capabilities but the opposite seems to appears here! Boggles the mind, doesn't it? Skybum wrote : Actually it doesn't boggle the mind. The camera at the pentagon probably were not modern equipment. I'm a construction contractor in Northern Va. I've worked in many government buildings Including some with extremely high security. I have worked around the cameras they have ,and can attest that usually except in new buildings that they are usually quite old.

Well, like I said before, I have a very large amount of survealance footage from various other places and every single one of those use higher resolution and higher frame rate than the one single pentagon footage available Surely, you will have to admit that the pentagon is a higher security level than the Madrid train stations, the Toronto subway system and even any given elevator cams and underground parking lots or any shopping malls But hey! If the idea that the pentagon uses cameras very sub-standard in comparrison with most banks, shopping malls, elevators, nanny cams and web cams than so be it! Strangewly enough, the gate at my building's entrace uses a 24 fpm camera with night vision! but I guess my building has a better security budget than the pentagon ... duh!

They don't replace them when new stuff comes out. If they are doing the job they are intended to do why would they replace them? The footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon is more than likely from a parking lot gate and all it needs to be able to do is see the driver of the car and the area 10-15 feet in front of the camera clearly, it wasn't installed to get perfect pics of 400-500 mph airplanes.

At 10-15 feet away, the camera would have a field of vision of less than 20 feet wide A small car or even a rollerbladaer or a motorcycle travelling at only 13 mph could drive by without getting caught on any of the frames of that camera if the frame rate was indeed 1 fps That is to say that at only 1 fps, that camera would be completely inneficient at doing the job you think it was intended to do! Anyhow, on every security camera footage, you can see a time stamp indicating the camera number, the time of day and the date (and too often a frame count as well) But on the one and only available footage of the crash, the time stamp has been hidden behind some useless makings at the bottom Note the useless stampings where the original time stamps would have been It would be nice to view the original time stamp as that might possibly reveal the actual frame count and frame rate but hey, tuff luck! Any way, whoever covered up the original time stamp would be guilty of tampering with a crime scene evidence, don't you think? No one has been brough up on charges for that, I wonder why! I wonder where is the original footage with the original time stamp!

PepeLapiu wrote : One would think that a place like the pentagon, one of the most security intensive places in this country Skybum wrote : I keep seeing claims like this, if you've ever been to the Pentagon you would see its not as tight as you would think. If you wanna say CIA headquarters has tight security I would absolutely agree with you.

Do you consider the pentagon to have a looser security than Toronto's subway system, Madrid train system, New York susbway system, my appartment's gate, the mall near your house and even most corner store? Do you understand the difference between the pentagon and QuickyMart? Outside of that one pentagon camera, I invite you to show me any security camera applications that currently use a frame rate of a single frame per second!

I see the smoke trail, don't you think that an airplane clipping several lightpoles could sufficiently damage an engine enough to make it smoke?

Hydrocarbons, such as what is produced by kerosene (jet fuel) produces very little smoke with a properly maintained engine However, of the fuel/air mix is not perfect and controlled, some smoke can be visible However hydrocarbons produce a tin black or brun color smoke (such as a candles in the breaze or a car engine running rought) So what kind of combustion produces a thick white smoke? Well, rockets and fires to which water had been added do produce a thick white smoke The thick white smoke is created by the intense heat and the the smoke isn't really smoke, it's actually seam! Rockets produce such thick white smoke because they have their own oxgigene added to the fuel before it burns Let me put it more simply ~ If your car's engine is burning oil the smoke will be dark and rather thin But if coolant fluid is being leaked in the engine instead, the smoke will be thick and white because it is producing it's own steam So even if the turbines had been damaged, they would produce a thin dark smoke Here's a little picture for you to ponder when it comes to thick white smoke: Any way, you got the hotel camera, the gas station camera, the highway traffic cameras, the other very nomerous pentagon roof top cameras and so on and none of those have been released The heliport was on constent 24 hour survealance, including video monitoring but none of those footages have been released The only footage released is grainy and of dubious quality and frame rate The only footage released has been altered as the time stamps have been hiddden and that doesn't worry you? [edit on 16-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]

So what kind of combustion produces a thick white smoke?

See the thick white smoke in the next images: www.airliners.net... The white smoke is created by the combustion of the oil in the engine fuel system. More images of comercial jets with a lot of white smoke. www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... The white smoke can be produced in a jet engine.

In addition, as it was pointed out in the begining of this thread (remember that? :lol It was very likely that it was the engine that struck the light pole as the plane passed over the high-way full of cars and eye witnesses.

All the while flying low didnt blow over one vehicle on that overpass 500mph low enough to clip the poles,but not have any effect on the people or cars just feet below it......riiiiight

Originally posted by SMR All the while flying low didnt blow over one vehicle on that overpass

500mph low enough to clip the poles,but not have any effect on the people or cars just feet below it......riiiiight

SMR, you get sillier and sillier. Have you ever looked at a light pole on an overpass? They are at least 40 to 50 feet over the pavement. Have you ever flown in or out of Midway Airport in Chicago? The end of one of the main runways is only a few dozen yards from a busy intersection, yet I have never heard of any cars or people getting blown over by jet blast.

Really now? Lets see,,,here is an image of the poles looking towards the Pentagon. Image link Dont look 40-50 ft to me.Lets look at another shall we? This pole look 40-50ft in height to you? ...not me..... Lets also look at your airport here Do you really think they land and take off at the very begining and end of the run ways? Please Howard,,,look at images before you ramble on about things. Some of these poles were almost level with that of the Pentagon and were knocked out.At the height of 20ft give or take,a 757 at 500mph that low around cars,people,would do some damage no? Look at the first pick,the pole is about the same as the cars length!And seeing plenty of cars of that model,a SATURN. Looking at that one I will say it is around a 98 model which is 4 572 millimeters which = 15 feet So looking and comparing the two,we can say the pole is about 20ft in height.If the plane was able to get that low at 500mph and not do anything to that car or others around there,then we have something very odd here.

quote: See the thick white smoke in the next images: www.airliners.net... The white smoke is created by the combustion of the oil in the engine fuel system. Actually, I don't know what is producing that white smoke in the picture you provided but if you look closely, it is clear that the smoke isn;t coming out of any of the engines Looks to me like it's coming out from around the landing gear area Any way, just to make sure, just look at the truck parked just in front of one of the engine's inlet. They would NEVER EVER start up an engine like this with a truck or some other kind of equipment placed in front of it in this manner quote: More images of comercial jets with a lot of white smoke. www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... The white smoke can be produced in a jet engine. Every single one of those pictures are showing a cold engine start up (most likely in the morning) during a cold day The "smoke" is produced by the hot steam released by the start up as it collides with the cold ambient air Once the engines are hot and the moisture gone out of the system, there is no more steam visible, it's a process that last about 2 or 3 seconds before no more steam is visible and moisture have been dislodged by the increasing internal temparature of the engines. Even on a very rainy day, a warm engine would not produce such white steam, just go to your airport on the next rainy day and find that out for yourself Also, you might want to look at this following clip to see a smoking Boeing : www.flightlevel350.com... Note that an engine would have to be very poorly maintained or damaged to produce such smoke But in any case, this smoke is rather very thin and of black suet colour, nothing anywhere remotely consistant with the thick white smoke seen in the pentagon footage But even so, you are not adressing the other questions I have brought up in my post #1387188 ~ Why do you think so many footages that would very likely have clearly shown the aircraft crashing were confiscated and never to be seen again? ~ Why do you think that only mere minutes after the crash, the FBI was already on the task of taking those footages out of circulation? ~ Doesn't it seem odd to you that mere minutes after the crash, they already had established that the highway traffic cams, the gas station cam and the Sheraton roof top cam would possibly have caught the action and rush to take those away? ~ Doesn't it seem odd to you that my desktop webcam would record better resolution and better frame rate than those cameras of the pentagon? ~ Doesn't it bother you that any camera used in any other applications (mall parking lots, mall entrances, bank buildings, nanny cams, train station cameras, subway station cameras) all show far better resolution and frame rate than the one single available crash footage? ~ Doesn't it seem odd to you that while every security camera footage would show a time stamp and possibly a frame count but those have been hidden from us in the only crash footage? For the Sheraton hotel footage, they claimed that it was withheld from the public for reasons of "nation security" but we both know that is a ridiculous and unfounded excuse! [edit on 18-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]

Have you ever flown in or out of Midway Airport in Chicago? The end of one of the main runways is only a few dozen yards from a busy intersection, yet I have never heard of any cars or people getting blown over by jet blast.

Each engine of a Boeing 757 (one of the smallest in the series of Boeings) produce a push of 43,000 pounds so I very highly recomment you don't stand anywhere near the back of an airliner I own a little two seater Sonex airplane with a single 75 HP VW engine. Of you were to tie it down and stand behind the tail while the engine is pushed full throttle, you would not be able to stand there for very long unless you could find something very sturdy to hang on to! You'll get a very bad hair day as a result for sure! And my airplane is very pathetic in comparrison with any airliner Trust me, it takes a lot of air displacement to push forward a 120 ton airplane at 500 MPH

The thrust from a jet engine extends in a narrow cone bacwards. If the airplane was 50 feet overhead, in a shallow dive, I would not expect much effect from the thrust on the cars bellow.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1 quote: See the thick white smoke in the next images: www.airliners.net... The white smoke is created by the combustion of the oil in the engine fuel system. Actually, I don't know what is producing that white smoke in the picture you provided but if you look closely, it is clear that the smoke isn;t coming out of any of the engines Looks to me like it's coming out from around the landing gear area Any way, just to make sure, just look at the truck parked just in front of one of the engine's inlet. They would NEVER EVER start up an engine like this with a truck or some other kind of equipment placed in front of it in this manner

It looks to me as if the truck is hooked up to the inboard engine and that engine is producing the smoke.

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1 ~ Why do you think so many footages that would very likely have clearly shown the aircraft crashing were confiscated and never to be seen again?

It is your speculation that they show the crash. They probably didn’t.

~ Why do you think that only mere minutes after the crash, the FBI was already on the task of taking those footages out of circulation?

10 minutes? You are basing this claim on the recollection of a gas station attendant. Given the confusion and excitement of the day, I suspect that that statement is subjective, without any corroborating witnesses or evidence.

~ Doesn't it seem odd to you that mere minutes after the crash, they already had established that the highway traffic cams, the gas station cam and the Sheraton roof top cam would possibly have caught the action and rush to take those away?

Again, the part about the “mere minutes” is suspect. That day, for sure, but “mere Minutes” after the crash? I doubt it. Besides, I imagine that looking for security cams in the area is probably a standard investigative technique. In addition, I would expect that they wanted to get those footages before they wound up in the media’s hands in case there was any other evidence that could be obtained from them.

~ Doesn't it seem odd to you that my desktop webcam would record better resolution and better frame rate than those cameras of the pentagon?

your desktop webcam is only, what, a year old? The camera resolution wa perfectly adequate for the job the camera was put there for: Monitoring the parking lot gate.

~ Doesn't it bother you that any camera used in any other applications (mall parking lots, mall entrances, bank buildings, nanny cams, train station cameras, subway station cameras) all show far better resolution and frame rate than the one single available crash footage?

Those security cameras at the parking lot are probably much older. Have you ever watched “Real Police Videos?” The cameras in connivance stores and police cars are even worse. We are lucky it was in color.

~ Doesn't it seem odd to you that while every security camera footage would show a time stamp and possibly a frame count but those have been hidden from us in the only crash footage?

What difference does it make if you could see the original time stamp or not? We know when the plane hit. The time stamp on the video was probably off anyway and had to be recalibrated after the fact.

For the Sheraton hotel footage, they claimed that it was withheld from the public for reasons of "nation security" but we both know that is a ridiculous and unfounded excuse!

So, foia them for it or for any other evidence.

Originally posted by SMR Really now? Lets see,,,here is an image of the poles looking towards the Pentagon. Image link Dont look 40-50 ft to me.

How tall is that light pole in the upper right corner of the picture. It is at least 15 to 20 feet higher then the highway sign. The one in the midde of the picture is on the lower raodway, not the overpass.

Lets look at another shall we? [url=http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1.jpg]This pole look 40-50ft in height to you? ...not me.....

To me, that looks like the top arm of the pole, the part that hangs out over the road. other views external image In any event, there is no reason to expect that the cars would have been "bown over" by the jet wash. Mod Edit: Image size only. [edit on 19-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1 Each engine of a Boeing 757 (one of the smallest in the series of Boeings) produce a push of 43,000 pounds so I very highly recomment you don't stand anywhere near the back of an airliner I own a little two seater Sonex airplane with a single 75 HP VW engine. Of you were to tie it down and stand behind the tail while the engine is pushed full throttle, you would not be able to stand there for very long unless you could find something very sturdy to hang on to! You'll get a very bad hair day as a result for sure!

And my airplane is very pathetic in comparrison with any airliner Trust me, it takes a lot of air displacement to push forward a 120 ton airplane at 500 MPH

And at 500 mph, the plane would travel over 200 feet in less than a third of a second. How is a car supposed to flip over from that again? [edit on 18-5-2005 by HowardRoark]