9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Edit: Wrong thread. [edit on 20-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis Otherwise, why couldn't any plane just fly into the Pentagon again and again? Why doesn't it happen all the time?

Maybe the reason why planes don't crash into the Pentagon again and again has something to do with planes not being hijacked for the purpose of being used as missiles everyday..... Who knows?

Well lets just hope that next time it happens, the people in charge of hijacking proceedures don't sit on their hands and do nothing and assume future hijacked planes heading towards the Pentagon may just want to land at the nearby airport so they can't be used as missiles - there's a wild thought but hey, let's be crazy!

Originally posted by billybob i just don't think it was the act of mad muslims ALONE. they needed help and sympathizers from within the US. they had/have them.

Damn Right! Too bad not Many share this View of Yours. If they saw it from this Perspective, then Things would be Whole Lot Different in the States Today....

Of curse they had help and sympathizers... Their called Sleeper Cells...

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Of curse they had help and sympathizers... Their called Sleeper Cells...

Many of them were enrolled into Navy and CIA bases Even gave their addresses as such And none of them travelled on the alleged planes

Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Of curse they had help and sympathizers... Their called Sleeper Cells...

Many of them were enrolled into Navy and CIA bases Even gave their addresses as such And none of them travelled on the alleged planes

And you have proof of this?

Even if there WERE defensive missiles on the roof of the Pentagon when the plane was coming in, they probably couldn't have stopped it. Missiles don't cause planes to just explode like in the movies. They explode near them (hence the term "proximity fuse") which causes enough structural damage that they crash. The Stinger does have a penetration warhead, but with the parameters they'd have to get a shot off, wouldn't make a difference. A Stinger has a range out to 16 miles, and a reload/refire rate of up to 7 seconds. At 500mph that's not enough time for one or two missiles to take down a 757. If it was in landing configuration, or trying to land then yes, but at that speed if they DID bring it down the debris would continue in the direction of travel, and probably would have STILL hit the Pentagon. It might not have caused as much damage, but still would have hit. Another thing to remember is that they have to SEE the target, realize it's the target they want, acquire the target, lock up the target, then fire the missile. All this while the plane is heading towards them at 500mph. The chances of even GETTING a hit on a target in those parameters is pretty slim. The Singer MANPADS is a good missile, but it's not the silver bullet everyone seems to think. [edit on 22-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

ok frist off this is great thread... ok now to the brass tax ok first when dose a 757 have a white smoke tail ....hmmm it dosent rockets do A Global Hawk Drone, Cruise Missile or a drone made to look like a AA 757? i think so The Pentagon measures 921.6 feet along each external face, half of this distance, marked on the diagram between the central corridor and the upper-left corner of the Pentagon (cyan) is 460.8' Take this base measurement as a scale and measure the distance from the rear of the plane in the photo (red dot), along the approximate path of the jet (dark-green line) to the impact point. The distance the tail traveled between frames (heavy red line) is approx. 450', which is just short of the originally estimated 465' or 3 lengths of a 757, which is 155'. So, 450 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13500 feet/sec. = 2.55 miles/sec. = 153.4 miles/min. = 9204.54 mph = 7997 kts. = Mach 12.11 Even if you alter the path of the jet to a direct (90 degree) impact trajectory, (which introduces other unexplainable issues such as intact light-posts and trees, clearing the embankment, not to mention those anomalous hydro spools) you still end up with a final velocity exceeding Mach 6! "quote from freedonfiles" My point here is that a whoosh sound is made by explosions not by a plane engine. I guess it depends on the Whoosh type sound, perhaps it might also be a missile launching as well. Dick Eastman seems to think that the plane flew over the Pentagon and landed at a nearby base. Perhaps, it fired off two missiles at the Pentagon and flew over, but if it was being covered by a holographic projection from the C130 that was near by, then who really knows. It is all speculation right now. The other aspect to all this is that the Pentagon Defence System may have shot missiles at the incoming plane, which very likely was a Global Hawk painted to look like an AA 757. The other aspect was that the plane would have been flying mere few feet above the ground and few people saw it before it hit. Global Hawks make little noise and from what I understand it would have been descending from an altitude of about 60,000 feet. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hmm sound very interesting www.freedomfiles.org... www.freedomfiles.org... www.freedomfiles.org... www.freedomfiles.org... www.freedomfiles.org... make you go hmm ... oh also ... they say they recoverd black box ... no prof also why is it that AA asked what numbers where on BB goverment said we dont know was to burnt ... OPPS SORRY YOU JUST LOST ... all black boxes have numbers ingraved stamped by a lazer so it will always be visable or parts of it ...hmmm i have more info i have been researching 9-11 i truely think it was all a cover up ..

missile2.ram

Even if those figures were right, the only projects that could go faster than Mach 4 were the SR-71 and the X-43. There are only 2 X-43s out there, and they were developed or flown until last year, and there's no WAY that anyone could mistake an SR for anything else. There are supposed to be some missiles that are being tested that are hypersonic, but I don't know if any of them had been flown by 9/11.

Originally posted by HowardRoark dh: Of curse they had help and sympathizers... Their called Sleeper Cells... sorryiforgetwhichposter: Many of them were enrolled into Navy and CIA bases Even gave their addresses as such And none of them travelled on the alleged planes howard: And you have proof of this?

'grover norquist'. why is nobody listening to me, HAHA! he's our paradigm of a powerful player, ultra-right wing, terrorist mole. this guy is the most obvious connection, and his connections to the funding of radical muslim groups are remiscient of the old bush/farben/krupp days, except this time it's radicals within the 'muslim brotherhood'. the 'muslim brotherhood' are the followers of the philosophies of the grand mufti and, yes, hitler. [edit on 22-6-2005 by billybob]

Do you want me to put an end to this thread? Here goes. Where’s the forensic evidence from the Pentagon???? Oops! I might of touched a nerve with that question. Watch this thread disappear just like the WTC thread in which I also asked for the forensic evidence of the steel. Got some strange responses like “where are these people coming from” VERY STRANGE RESPONSE!!! Once I asked for the most logical piece of evidence to end all this conspiracy talk all I got was SILENCE!!! the thread vanished and that was the end of that. Coincidence??? P.S. Please DO NOT refer me to the FEMA report. I want an independent investigation into the forensic evidence not some “yes” Bush tank. Say what, you can’t investigate it because it was destroyed? Why? Why would you destroy the most critical forensic evidence you had???

Originally posted by mdefab01 Where’s the forensic evidence from the Pentagon????

Where is IT? Somewhere in a Big Box, togther with Stoles Camera Videos from 3 Different Cameras, that recorded the Impact to the Pentagon. Will we Ever see it? Nope.

Originally posted by mdefab01 Say what, you can’t investigate it because it was destroyed? Why? Why would you destroy the most critical forensic evidence you had???

Why did you do it if you wanted to see it?? You oversaw or participated in destroying the evidence right? How else would you know it's been destroyed... Also are you a detective in a 9/11 case? Or a lawyer in a 9/11 case? Otherwise...good luck in trying to gain access to any forensics.....

As far as it being a Global Hawk with a hologram of a 757 projected by a C130, You have to have something for the hologram to be projected onto. A 757 is MUCH larger than a Global Hawk, so you would only see part of the hologram, and a hologram is usually quite seethrough, and obvious that it's a hologram. It has to have something to interact with, such as special film, or a plate, so you can't just project a hologram into mid air and have it magically appear. If you watch a hologram show you will notice that they're all projected onto something, usually smoke.

Originally posted by mdefab01 Do you want me to put an end to this thread? Here goes. Where’s the forensic evidence from the Pentagon????

What in particular are you looking for?

Watch this thread disappear just like the WTC thread in which I also asked for the forensic evidence of the steel.

wtc.nist.gov... www.tms.org... wtc.nist.gov...

ok also why is there a wgite smoke trial behind the so called 757 also why was there no skid marks on grass...also hwo can the 757 hit poles go though a apt building and then into the pentagon and still have wings seemd fishy to me .... ok black boxes have engraved numbers in them ..also if the so called BB was found why the hell would they distroy it ....maybe because they never had it and its in 100,000 le's under the sea .. just guessing but tell me no one has ever been able to test the metal goverment distroyed all finds and peace's ... also why was there a military frie truck parked over by the gas station ... it was closed also never known a fire truck to just sit and wait to see if a building catch's fire...anyway to much info leads to the facts gatherd why is it everytime someone find info they should'nt get taken destroyed or goverment shuts down web site that post the findings im not right wing and no part of any group.. i'm someone that wants to know the truth...i know someone that was killed in 9-11 so maybe this is a hunt for the truth something isnt right here we know it u do to...i also think it was above even Bush.. something has been happing to are goverment for long time know what make you think this any differant.....

what apartment building? It hit light poles, which would have damaged the wings, but not taken them off, and then impacted the Pentagon. The white smoke trail could have been a problem developing with the engine or engines. They aren't meant to be run constantly at high speed as these were for long periods of time before they fail. There was a good talk about why it didn't hit the ground in another thread. It's called ground effect. When a plane gets to a height equal to its wingspan above the ground it "bounces" in the air for lack of a better term. The amound of air being displaced under the wings balances so that if you don't have flaps/slats/gear/spoilers deployed the plane will stay at that height until you do something to either climb or force it to descend. When the aircraft is close to the surface -- in ground effect -- coming into contact with the surface modifies the almost cylindrical vortex-induced circulation around the wing. This flattens the cylindrical circulation pattern and reduces the downwash angle of the air behind the wing. This flattening of the cylindrical circulation spreads the pattern outwards below the wing and increases the effective span of the wing. The aerodynamic aspect ratio of the wing is also increased. (The aerodynamic aspect ratio of the wing is measured between the cores of the vortices, which occur at about 80% of the geometric wingspan outside of ground effect. This aerodynamic aspect ratio has a strong inverse effect on lift-induced drag.) When the aircraft flies close enough to the ground that the sag of the vortices trailing the wingtips is restricted by coming in contact with the ground, the backward-tilting angle of the total lift vector is reduced, thereby reducing its horizontal component and reducing induced drag. The combination of the reduction in the downwash angle of the air behind the wing and the increases of both effective wingspan and aerodynamic aspect ratio of the wing occur when the wing is close to the surface. These increases in aerodynamic efficiency of the wing are what we call ground effect. When an aircraft enters ground effect during the landing flare, the aircraft may tend to float because the lift-induced drag is reduced quite dramatically as the aircraft descends below one wingspan distance from the ground. Any excess speed at all -- you know, the 10 knots for Ma and the kids -- will cause this float to become excessive. This can cause an inexperienced pilot to grope for the ground and possibly induce pitch oscillations. At any rate, the bent nose gear and the excess wear on the tires and the brakes are of no use to anyone except the folks who sell spare parts.

This whole debate relies mostly on the bogus frames from the Pentagon security camera. Of course, we know from the past that they never ever tamper with photo or video evidence. Oops, well, not counting the Zapruder film! Come on people, let's face it. This is all just a game they are playing on us with these frames. Don't put any credence in this so -called "evidence" - it's purposely been released as blurry and non-conclusive. Without the genuine videos they confiscated, it's a big waste of time. They could have done ANYTHING to these frames before their release. You cannot do any kind of proper analysis on manipulated evidence like this.

Um, no, the whole debate rests on people's gullibility in believing the half baked theories of a U.S. hating left-wing, Frenchman.