9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird I also know someone with a piece of the plane. This is like seeing a bird hit a window, then someone who didn't see it try to tell me a chipmunk hit the window (with the bird still laying dead on the ground).

Sorry but I don't believe you either. So where's the big 757 bird laying dead on the ground in front of the Pentagon? Is this it? I also want to keep this thread in view as it makes alot of sense. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Lanotom

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird I also know someone with a piece of the plane. This is like seeing a bird hit a window, then someone who didn't see it try to tell me a chipmunk hit the window (with the bird still laying dead on the ground).

Sorry but I don't believe you either. So where's the big 757 bird laying dead on the ground in front of the Pentagon? Is this it? I also want to keep this thread in view as it makes alot of sense. www.abovetopsecret.com...

its a piece of it, the rest melted and decided to join heaven.

Originally posted by TheTruth123 You people think about it. 900Km, geting the plane level with the pentagon and hiting the region from the floor at 0m to 15meters. This requires precise timming, and i believe only, computer could do it. When people land planes, it's the computer does the timming, so they don't miss the runaway. Lets if i was to put a wall on run away 0 to 15 meter's high and asked the pilot to hit wall with nose, without touching the ground. He would most likley miss it like 40 times or kill him self in the process. To state arab's on microsoft flightsim could do this is clearly insane.

A couple of things spring to mind about your post. I am unsure what you mean by 'timming', do you mean timing, or the trim (trimming,) of an aircraft? Either way I believe you to be incorrect, when an aircraft lands I would suggest that it is always done under the power of a human unless in severe reduced visiblity (Rain, fog etc). where does the figure of 900kmph come from, is this a proven fact (I honestly dont know and am not trying to wind you up) I do know that these aircraft dont make their normal approach and land at that kind of speed, I would guess at least half of that - Help? are there any aircraft specialists out there ? And finally, There is such a thing in this world as luck ! (Im gonna reach a bit and use an American sport as reference as I assume it to be globally understood, so dont flame me if some of my assumptions are wrong) Pitch a fast ball (roughly 100mph?) at a world series batter and he will put it into the outfield, his bat will impact it at a goodly speed and the ball will shoot into the air at a guess, 150 - 200 mph ? It lands in the outfield and comes to a stop. Now ask him to hit that same spot again ! I bet if you pitched 1000 balls at him he couldnt get it within a few feet of it, let alone a few dozen ! Why? because of the multitude of unpredictable variables that came about to produce that one outcome. The aircraft that hit the pentagon prob wasnt aiming at that excat spot, instead he was aiming at the while building, if he had overshot, im sure he would have still managed to hit the other side, but as luck and chance would have it, billions of variables combined to bring about the result, You are right, no-one could rpeat that exact same feat, but I bet that someone could come close ! [edit on 19-5-2005 by Argus]

Originally posted by Lanotom Sorry but I don't believe you either.

That's the thing. I don't care if you believe me or anyone else who saw it or not. Living off of and believing everything you read on the internet is fun, and I don't want to take that away from you. Just as long as you're aware that there really is a real world. Here's a good timeline and details of what happened. It also shows the confusion and all the conflicting reports that were coming in. But you can go on believing that the plane magically disappeard and missles magically appeared all you want. I seriously don't care. Long, detailed 9/11 timeline Pentagon: Flight 77 timeline begins here Here's a picture showing the lamp posts that were damaged and the angle which the plane went in. I didn't see the C-130 that was following the plane, but I know people who did (I did see the fighters that came too late though)

Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it. [Guardian, 10/17/01, New York Times, 10/16/01 (D)] Remarkably, this C-130 is the same C-130 that is 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/02, Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/01] The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien, claims he took off around 9:30, planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He later describes his close encounter: “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything.” O'Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that.” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/11/02] The 9/11 Commission reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir.” [9/11 Commission Report 6/17/04]

The maximum speed of an F-16 is 1500 mph. [AP, 6/16/00] Had the fighters traveled straight to Washington at 1300 mph, they would have reached Washington at least one minute before Flight 77.

Originally posted by Lanotom Sorry but I don't believe you either.

Please refer to the above quote. And every time you post following this one keep referring to it until you clearly without doubt understand what it means. Thank you.

Originally posted by Lanotom

Originally posted by Lanotom Sorry but I don't believe you either.

Please refer to the above quote. And every time you post following this one keep referring to it until you clearly without doubt understand what it means. Thank you.

Like I said before, I don't care. But please keep refering to this as you continue to post: self-deception - n : a misconception that is favorable to the person who holds it and fan·ta·sy - n : the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need (this one applies to all who seem to need, for whatever reasons, the US and US government to be the sole evil on earth)

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by Lanotom

Originally posted by Lanotom Sorry but I don't believe you either.

Please refer to the above quote. And every time you post following this one keep referring to it until you clearly without doubt understand what it means. Thank you.

Like I said before, I don't care. But please keep refering to this as you continue to post: self-deception - n : a misconception that is favorable to the person who holds it and fan·ta·sy - n : the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need (this one applies to all who seem to need, for whatever reasons, the US and US government to be the sole evil on earth)

Well my ego does not need the last word but apparently yours does so I will leave you to add your words following this one comment. I for one would never try to beat a dead horse once I know someone wouldn't listen to or believe what I have to say. Quoteapplies to all who seem to need, for whatever reasons, the US and US government to be the sole evil on earth) I never said it was a sole evil of the US or it's government. I do agree however that a missle as seen in the video was shot into the pentagon and the plane that was seen flying over and away from the pentagon (and not into it) was the carrying source. I now pass the floor to ego and ask that you please remember my quote. Which by the way is now my sig. Edit to add the link to the other thread in case you readers skip to the end. www.abovetopsecret.com... [edit on 19-5-2005 by Lanotom]

*sigh* If it were a missle then please tell me why it has landing gear ?? www.abovetopsecret.com... Go back to the begining and please review the pics... [edit on 19-5-2005 by Jedi_Master]

Originally posted by deltaboy its a piece of it, the rest melted and decided to join heaven.

Do you know how hot the flash explosion would have to be to melt the titanium in the engines? Yet, they claim that there was plenty of DNA and body parts? Funny how DNA and body parts can survive an explosion hot enough to instantly vaporize aluminum and titanium, isn't it? They use titanium in bunker busters. If 6 tons of engine hit the wall at an angle, as claimed, it would either shower debris to the left of the contact point, or go straight through the wall. We know from the pictures that the latter did not happen. So, where did 12 tons of aluminum and titanium go? Do you really think titanium can be instantly vaporized by jet fuel?

Originally posted by Jedi_Master *sigh* If it were a missle then please tell me why it has landing gear ??

While we're asking questions that can't be answered, where did the parts come from that have been proven not to be parts from a 757? That would be a better question. Are you still going to claim that the engine pieces are indeed from an APU, when manufacturers have clearly stated that it's not? I'm sure this page has been posted here numerous times. Nobody ever seems to address the conflicting information it contains. Maybe we can get a few of the believers to comment? How did these parts get into the Pentagon, if they're not 757 parts? www.onlinejournal.com... [edit on 19-5-2005 by Moe Foe]

Originally posted by Sauron and guy I have a complaint, could yous resize you photos to fit into the perimeter

I would be very happy to do that because it bothers me too! However, I don't know how to resizew the pictures since they are links ... any help appreciated here!

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1

Originally posted by Sauron and guy I have a complaint, could yous resize you photos to fit into the perimeter

I would be very happy to do that because it bothers me too! However, I don't know how to resizew the pictures since they are links ... any help appreciated here!

I've already edited some of the very large images in this thread and others.. It is not as hard as you may think.. You can find some good instructions HERE Here is what I do... Right click an image, click properties, then look at the size. All you have to do is click edit.. find the image in the text [ img ]URL of Image Here[ /img] (without spaces) You should already know the properties of the image.. say it is 1250x814 and you want to make it smaller.. Pull up a calculator.. subtract the % in size you'd like to try from the two numbers in size.. this will make the image smaller without any warping of the image. Example: 1250x814 - 45% = 687.5x447.7 Round it off like this 690x450 then edit like this: [ img=690x450 ]URL of Image Here[ /img] (without spaces) Simple enough? When all else fails and you have problems with image size contact a moderator of that forum for edit help. Gazz [edit on 19-5-2005 by UM_Gazz]

So they crashed a military plane or missile into the Pentagon and just sat back and prayed that no random person would catch it on a camcorder or camera? That's a big risk to take. I know there's less chance of it being captured as there would be in NYC, but it's still a strong possibility. I'm not saying it's 100% impossible.......just extremely far-fetched

Comparative quality of video footage output During the last 3 years, I have spent a considerable amount of efforts and time trying to gather as many security camera footages from diffferent applications I have gathered well over 50 video footage clips, anything from car cams used in cop cars, nanny cams that caught a baby sitter masturbating, corner store cameras that caught a hold up, the Madrid train station footage of the Madrid bombing, a few footages of different places in shopping malls, gas station footage of a guy that caught fire, elevator footage of a girl who stipped for her boyfriend and the list goes on and on... Every single one of those camera footages were from security cameras, they were all from a fixed station and many where hidden Every one of them, and I mean EVERY one of them had a time stamping on the footage indicationg the time and date and often there was also a frame count as well or the time was indicated in 10th or 100th of seconds. Also, every one of them were of far faster frame rates than the pentagon video footage shown in the head message here. Not everyone was in colour (about 3 out of ten were in B&W) but they were all of at least as good resolution as the pentagon footage as well. I looked everywhere on the net and in my area of town and nowhere could I find anyone using frame rates of 1 fps. The lowest frame rate I could find was in a corner store with a frame rate of about 5 to 7 fps (manually estimated). In addition to this, I set out to install a web cam on my computer and here is what I installed: 3Com HomeConnect Webcam ~ Still Image Capture Resolution: 640x480 ~ Video Capture Resolution: 640x480 or 1280x960 (software enhanced) ~ Digital Video Capture frame rate: 60 frames per second maximum ~ On the market since 2000 but I bought it 2 years ago for around $100 (not sure) however, it has been discontinued for some time now! ~ Number of colors: 16.8 milliion It is capable of taking high resolution JPEGs every half second (thought that would not be the most compressible output). Together with two 120 hard drives for less than $100 each and you got a set up that can capture 640x480 resolution 30 fps video for well over 4 months non-stop, all for less than a $300 upgrade to any computer. As you can guess, my own $300 set up at home produces far better results than that of the one and only pentagon video camera footage available to the public. So I conclude that if the footage submitted at the beginning of this message is the actual unaltered footage, it is very sub standard in comparrison with the many many given applications I have found. Are you buying into the idea that the pentagon (a high security level place) uses monitoring equipment far cheaper than the average corner store or mall or even a simple nanny cam or even my own $100 webcam? Me neither! Appropriate quality for it's intended purpose It's been argued that the pentagon gate camera only needed be good enough for the purpose of capturing any vehicles driving in and out of that area within the first 15 feet or so of the camera's field of vision. So let's examine this assertion for a second: At 10-15 feet away, the camera would have a field of vision of less than 20 feet wide. A small car or a rollerblader or a motorcycle travelling at only 13 mph (20 foot/second) could drive by without getting caught on any of the frames of that camera if the frame rate was indeed 1 fps. Geez! Even a fast runner could run by and not get caught on any of the frames! That is to say that at only 1 fps, that camera would be completely inneficient at doing the job you want to think it was intended to do! However, the idea that a place like the Pentagon would use sub standard security equipment is simply ridiculous, especially when you consider my $300 desktop set up would be far more efficient that what the footage proposes the pentagon uses.... especially when you consider the fact that at one frame per second, the footage would be virtually useless for it's alleged intended purpose! I don't buy it and I know you don't buy it either! Now I bet you start to have some serious questions about the weird date that seems off on the footage and the authenticity of the tape ... or don't you? Bare in mind here that I do not rely on "conspiracy theory" stuff or any wild allegations As you have seen in this post, simple logic does not fit with the official story! More on this in my next post ...... (and thanx to those who expressed their possitive critisizim of my posts here)

Well... One thing you are forgetting here is that this "film" is actually an animated .gif, made from still frames and a lot of quaility is lost in a .gif format versus say a mpg or avi format... [edit on 19-5-2005 by Jedi_Master]

By the way, if anyone can locate any security camera footage that would use a lower frame rate than the pentagon gate camera (around 1 fps) and lowere resolution, please submit it to me at [email protected] Thanx and don't eat yellow snow .... just trust me on that one, ok? [edit on 19-5-2005 by PepeLapiu1]

Well... Like I said this is an animated .gif, I would like to see the .avi or .mpg that these frames were taken from, and that's probably why you are seeing 1fps...

Yeah Um_Gazz closed the thread so more then likely it's his belief that it was a plane that hit and not a missle. The other thread was about a missle not a plane.

Actually, I believe it was most likely a fighter jet armed with a missile and it fired the missile into the building just before the fighter hit to open up the hole Just imagine this, a F-16 travelling at 1150 MPH only a few feet of the ground (unlike a Boeing, a F-16 can easily do this) while a slower much bigger Boeing is flying toward the pentagon At 1150 MPH a few feet off the ground, a small plane like a fighter is barely visible while everyone would have their eyes riveted to the huge Boeing Just as the fighter and the missile hit the building a very bright and blinding flash occurs as many military explosives produce such a bright flash Moments after, the Boeing flies into the billowing smoke just above the wall and keeps on going toward the Reagan airport only a mile to the other side of the pentagon This would be consistant with the many many witnesses who saw a Boeing going TOWARD the pentagon while only two people reported seing the plane crash and I have to say, those two witnesses have had some very peculiar behavior and innapropriate statements which make me strongly suspect they are either lying or they were both tricked (more on those two witnesses later) This would also be consistant with at least 15 witnesses who reported a shockwave (sahockwaves occur with many explosives but not with kerosene explosions) This would also be consistant with the pentagon footage in my last post which shows the tail end of what was most likely a bright flash and also you can clearly see the camera had been shoock up at the second frame when the explosion first occured indicating a shockwave. Furthermore, this would be consistant with the two witnesses who reported the smell of cordite inside the pentagon (cordite is a smell that occurs in firecraker use and many military issued explosives) And even further, this would be consistant with the finding of a single aircraft seat in the debris and a single landing gear along with a single engine (fF-16's only have one engine, one or two seats and a nose landing gear very similar to that of a Boeing) But just in case some witneses were to report the Boeing having flown above the pentagon and missing completely, they dispatched a C-130 to follow the Boeing and fly right into the samoke plume as well as the Boeing so if somebody came out and said "the plane flew right over and missed" than they could be discarted as just having mistaken the Boeing for the the C-130 Furthermore, an F-16 was also made visible just a few moments after the crash so if anyone was to have seen the first F-16, they could have been dismissed as simply having seen the second one ... makes sence? So now you ask, why would they use a fighter and missile instead of the Boeing? Well, I think there was a very precise target they wanted to hit as they might have installed explosives in that location so that it would colapse and reduse the chances of finding any relevant evidences Bodies and fake aircraft parts mmight have been planted before the fact as well and some documents they wanted destroyed and perhaps even some people who might have been perceived as rogue elements to the cover up might have been possitioned in that specific area. But you see, you can't fly a 120 ton Boeing thru light poles and the likes, fly the thing a few feet off the ground and hit a precise target, Boeings just aren't that agile and accurate Furthermore, the attack took place in a renovated area of the building not yet fully occupied and that side of the pentagon is the least busy with far less possible compormising witnesses on that side as clearly seen in the next picture: But any way, it does not really matter what hit the penagon, all that matters is what didn't hit the pentagon, namely a Boeing 757! What matters is who really benefited from all this mess!

Kinda unfair to close that thread. I think I smell bias.

So do I! I was very proud of that thread and I think it's a shame that it has been closed down. If there is an admin who is willing to reverse this decision, please do!

typi cal systems on the market note the cheaper ones run at slower frame speeds. and can store much more data before servicing. another one

Originally posted by Jedi_Master Well... Like I said this is an animated .gif, I would like to see the .avi or .mpg that these frames were taken from, and that's probably why you are seeing 1fps...

Making an AVI file out of those 5 frames would be easy, I can do it if you want but you see, a 30 fps footage would have revealed the actual aircraft and the visible blinding flash associated with explosives and the full force of the shockwave also associated with explosives. This is why you will never get to see the full footage with the original time stamps and all the frames in their original resolution!

Actually, I believe it was most likely a fighter jet armed with a missile and it fired the missile into the building just before the fighter hit to open up the hole

A missel again, please go to the begining and review the pics, why would a missel have landing gear... www.abovetopsecret.com... You're grasping at straws here...