9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

A few pages late but a couple of questions I wanted to put my two cents in on:

Originally posted by ANOK Yet the plane only made a hole about 10ft across. Do you see any sign of damage from engines or wings? pentagonexithole.0catch.com... Aircraft nose verses 2 FT. thick reinforced concrete (Reba), I would put my bet on the wall, no matter how fast the aircraft (which was 350mph apparently) was going.

You do of course realize this is an interior non-reinforced wall. You can look at that picture and see its not two foot thick. pentagonexithole.0catch.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> This was not the nose of the aircraft that went through this hole, the fuselage and the nose had long since broken into pieces. What hit this wall at 500Mph was a heavier piece of the aircraft. Since a car can put a similar hole in a brick wall going less then 46 Mph, I fail to see what is so difficult to discern about a solid piece of aircraft doing the same at high speed, as an example a piece from the APU, or a main gear wheel/brake assembly.

Originally posted by ANOK Blah blah blah Zaphod... So tell me again, which part of a 757 weighs the most?

Yeah the Fuselage most likely has the most weight, but it’s not a matter of weight but density. If you put the plane fuselage in a trash compactor and smashed it down, then shot it at a wall it would penetrate pretty far through. But since the skin is not dense, it broke apart and dispersed.

Originally posted by ANOK You claim the weight helped the A/C to penetrate the 2 Ft. thick reinforced (Reba) concrete wall, OK... Where does the weight come from? You said the fuel 61,200 lbs.... Now, where are those fuel tanks again?

It was not the entire plane, simply a heavy/dense part, for instance the main gear spar, the wheel assembly, or a piece of the engine or APU. Wheels are so dense and heavy that they are often used to ballast aircraft, since they are small and heavy. If you have worked on planes as you claim you should be aware of this factor.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas A Boeing 757 has 2 engines. They weigh in at nearly 6 tons each. Made from Titanium alloy and has a melting temp of 1688c and are 9ft in diameter and 12ft long. Jet fuel (Kerosense) burning in a pure Oxygen environment will burn at 1000c. Therefore it is physically impossible for 2 engines of that size to dissintegrate into thin air.

Yes it is, those engines are made of composite on the outside that is similar to fiberglass, then you have an air pocket though which all the tubing to different parts of the engine for fuel, electricity, etc, run. Those are attached to the interior wall which is made of some type of metal (might be titanium or could be Aluminum). The only dense solid parts to the engine are in the very center and they only have a diameter of about 2 foot. The area in between is simply blades, those blades are made to shear off, if they hit anything too hard, and disintegrate. So if that engine hit a large bird in flight those blades would be missing when that aircraft landed. Basically what I am saying is that though you may have a 9 foot diameter engine, 7 foot of that is empty airspace with thin blades in it. [edit on 7/6/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by CatHerder I'm pretty sure that they're Pentagon security. The white shirt, black pants and tie, people on the Pentagon grounds are all civilian employees with low level security clearance (so they can move around most low security parts of the Pentagon - i.e. the access points). These are the same people who guard the entrances (parkades, doors, etc) and patrol the grounds.

Ok, So if they were already patrolling the grounds, why are they shown to be getting off a bus (possibly federal) when the pentagon was specifically designed so you can get from one point to another in a short amount of time. So there really is no need for a bus.

I'd really like to find more of this particular video as it is one of the videos (I think) that shows them picking up various pieces of the fuselage incuding one substantial sized one (half as high as the man who is picking it up) and it has an "e" or a "c" on it in red paint outline with white. It's one of those images that I've seen low res crappy stills of and don't place any value to without seeing the original source. Although I may be mistaken and it might be from a different press recording. (really don't know)

Its a CNN live broadcast right after the attack with Jamie McIntyre. Its funny really I got the actual screen shot from a documentary "Loose Change" about 9/11 I have never noticed it before. But I remember watching a documentary about the pentagon where they say you could travel from any part to another in a relativly short amount of time. So why do you need a bus??? peace

Because they probably did a recall after the attack, and brought in everybody who was off duty to assist in any way possible. They would have them meet at collection points, get on a bus, and drive them to wherever they needed them to be, in this case picking up on the lawn. These are probably the first group to arrive. Or they could be from another part of the building, they met up, had a briefing as to who was doing what, and what group was responsible for what jobs, hopped on a bus and dispersed the teams to different locations. At least some of them appear to be military, but without their service coats on. There are several explanations for why they would be on a bus. There are almost definately contingency plans for an attack, involving meeting at a certain place, splitting into teams of responsibility, then dispersing. Each team gets on a bus to a different location, so there's no confusion about who goes where. I've seen military exercises where they got on buses to drive two streets over, where they dispersed. They could have walked there in five minutes, but to keep team integrity, they all drove on different buses to minimize confusion. sorry for the rambling, but I've had less than 7 hours of sleep in the last two days.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Because they probably did a recall after the attack, and brought in everybody who was off duty to assist in any way possible. They would have them meet at collection points, get on a bus, and drive them to wherever they needed them to be, in this case picking up on the lawn. These are probably the first group to arrive. Or they could be from another part of the building, they met up, had a briefing as to who was doing what, and what group was responsible for what jobs, hopped on a bus and dispersed the teams to different locations. At least some of them appear to be military, but without their service coats on.

But wait one minute. This is a crime scene. shouldn't ALL the 'evidence' be left in place so that investigative teams could conduct proper investigations. No?? Isn't it against the law to remove evidence from a 'crime scene' not to mention this is one of the biggest attacks ever carried out.

There are several explanations for why they would be on a bus. There are almost definately contingency plans for an attack, involving meeting at a certain place, splitting into teams of responsibility, then dispersing. Each team gets on a bus to a different location, so there's no confusion about who goes where. I've seen military exercises where they got on buses to drive two streets over, where they dispersed. They could have walked there in five minutes, but to keep team integrity, they all drove on different buses to minimize confusion.

Thats weird, I've never EVER heard of that before.

I went to the scene of a plane crash I witnessed when I was younger, and there were a lot of people there picking up pieces of the wreckage that wasn't behind the police line tape so they could take it home as a souvenier. Do you think they didn't think that would happen here? As long as it is documented where the evidence was located and how it was found, pictures could be taken, or sketches made, then the evidence could be moved. They probably had people taking pics of where each piece was found, and then they moved it to a central point where they could have guards on it, to make sure it doesn't get up and walk away. I know of at least two exercises that went so badly and had so much confusion going on, that they would get on a bus, by teams and be taken to where they were going, so there wouldn't be intermingling, and confusion on the other side. I don't remember where they were, or what they were about as it was when I was younger, but it happened on one of the bases I lived on.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas But wait one minute. This is a crime scene. shouldn't ALL the 'evidence' be left in place so that investigative teams could conduct proper investigations. No?? Isn't it against the law to remove evidence from a 'crime scene' not to mention this is one of the biggest attacks ever carried out.

With an airline disaster they usually grid the pieces and move them to a hanger to be reconstructed pretty quickly. I would imagine with GPS they can grid things even faster. They are usually looking for a mechanical failure in those instances, this being a hijack-ram thing they most likely had no protocol for such an event and started to get the debris collected. I would imagine that some of those guys are NTSB crash investigators. That is a guess, and only a guess though.

Just found something that should satisfiy you Zaphod58 this you can't dispute this www.tomflocco.com...

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas Ok, So if they were already patrolling the grounds, why are they shown to be getting off a bus (possibly federal) when the pentagon was specifically designed so you can get from one point to another in a short amount of time. So there really is no need for a bus.

"7 minutes" is referring to walking from point a to point b inside the building. The Pentagon sits surrounded by 200 acres of lawn, with 16 parking lots, 30 miles of access roads/highways, etc., and the section these people from the bus arrived as was currently on fire. You don't run through the middle of a building that is on fire -- you evacuate a building that is on fire. Not sure why it would be suprising to take a bus from one side of the building to the other considering you'd have to walk 900+900+900 feet (plus whatever other distances to go around exterior stairways and buildings) to arrive at the other side. Then again, maybe they're security staff from the capitol building who arrived to help out with securing a crime scene. It all seems pretty innocuous.

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas Ok, So if they were already patrolling the grounds, why are they shown to be getting off a bus (possibly federal) when the pentagon was specifically designed so you can get from one point to another in a short amount of time. So there really is no need for a bus.

"7 minutes" is referring to walking from point a to point b inside the building. The Pentagon sits surrounded by 200 acres of lawn, with 16 parking lots, 30 miles of access roads/highways, etc., and the section these people from the bus arrived as was currently on fire. You don't run through the middle of a building that is on fire -- you evacuate a building that is on fire. Not sure why it would be suprising to take a bus from one side of the building to the other considering you'd have to walk 900+900+900 feet (plus whatever other distances to go around exterior stairways and buildings) to arrive at the other side. Then again, maybe they're security staff from the capitol building who arrived to help out with securing a crime scene. It all seems pretty innocuous.

Ok so the building gets evacuated but when a building or ANY industrial complex is on fire are you not told to leave in a quiet orderly fashion leaving any possessions behind. Yet all these people seem to be carrying bags, if they evacuated from the pentagon wouldn't they have left their bags behind.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger Just found something that should satisfiy you Zaphod58 this you can't dispute this www.tomflocco.com...

I can dispute a lot of it. He claims a square box, with a blue tarp over it is "clearly a wing" -- clear to whom? Somebody with xray vision? He cites "the soft nose of a 757 would have had difficulty piercing through three Pentagon wall rings"as further 'evidence' -- there aren't 3 sets of walls, there is 1 external wall and 1 interior ring wall. He even uses a photograph of a piece of the landing gear found at the WTC and claims it's from the Pentagon... Just like so many of these conspiracy sites, he isn't able to stick to the facts to prove his case, he manufactures evidence to suit his story and alters or takes out of context other evidence to fit with what he says. It's one of the worst website as far as "evidence" of a conspiracy that I've seen. The majority of his facts are flat out wrong. All his witness testimony is made by anonymous persons, and he twists facts to suit his purpose. Websites like the one you've indicated do more to hurt the conspiracy camp than help.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger Just found something that should satisfiy you Zaphod58 this you can't dispute this www.tomflocco.com...

From your link:

The part sheet at left shows a diffuser case design for the 757 jet engines and it's quite different from the one found at the Pentagon

Of course it's different! Why show plans from a General Electric engine when everyone knows (or should know) that 757s only use Rolls-Royce or Pratt&Whitney engines? Also, the piece of wreckage seems to be from the combustor case of an RB211 engine, not the diffuser case. The 757 that crashed into the Pentagon was equipped with RB211 engines. Plans of RB211 combustor case:

All you dissenters please stop with your weak, Government loving excuses. You believe in the magic bullet theory, and smoke went down from an elevator shaft of the WTC center "because it couldn't be bombs" despite all logic pointing otherwise, and you probably believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too. A crime was commited on 9/11, and it was perpetrated by our own Government. You are really doing your country a disservice (if you're even American, if not you shouldn't worry about it) by taking the side of the Government vs the people. You're not a Patriot by being a Government lackey. Our country was founded by people that were sick of Government tyranny and wanted freedom to do as they please, which we are losing today because of your weak excuses. So please explain why there are FBI agents blowing the whistle on the corruption if there's no conspiracy? Are they making money off some conspiracy site, too? Are they risking their jobs and livelyhood to make this stuff up? Among numerous FBI whistleblowers being helped by the Center is Jane Turner, a 24-year veteran special agent who exposed possible theft by FBI agents at the World Trade Center’s “Ground Zero.” Dr. Frederic Whitehurst became the first major whistleblower from the FBI. Represented by attorneys for the Center, Dr. Whitehurst’s public exposure of fraud and abuse in the FBI crime Lab led to numerous reforms, including the outside accreditation of the crime lab. FBI VIOLATED NEW YORK AND FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS AT GROUND ZERO FBI Confirms Agent Thefts from Ground Zero DOJ Still Refuses to Release Investigatory Report Washington, D.C. February 26, 2004. A confidential report by the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG) confirmed the numerous FBI agents violated federal and New York criminal laws when they stole various items from New York’s 9/11 Ground Zero site. However, the Department of Justice, which investigated the criminal theft allegations, has refused to release a detailed report documenting FBI criminal activities at the Ground Zero crime scene and for two months attempted to keep the report secret. www.whistleblowers.org... Whistleblower complains of FBI obstruction : A government watchdog and FBI counter-terrorism agent are accusing the agency of prohibiting him from conducting his probe into terror financing activities because he complained about obstruction by bureau superiors. www.prisonplanet.com... Robert Wright, an agent for 10 years, was a member of an FBI counter- terrorism taskforce. He alleges that active agents were threatened and impeded in anti-terrorism investigations. www.scoop.co.nz... For the RealVideo broadcast of the C-SPAN press conference with FBI whistleblower Robert Wright see... video.c-span.org:8080... FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds sues Ashcroft and DOJ for the second time, asserting that re-classification of her 9-11 allegations was illegal and unconstitutional tomflocco.com... Lawyers Try to Gag FBI Worker over 9/11 The Bush administration will today seek to prevent a former FBI translator from providing evidence about 11 September intelligence failures to a group of relatives and survivors who have accused international banks and officials of aiding al-Qa'ida. www.commondreams.org... FEMA was in New York the Night Before 9/11 A statement made by FEMA spokesman Tom Kenney to Dan Rather on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001. In this interview, Kenney states that FEMA was deployed to New York on Monday night, September 10th, to be ready to go into action on Tuesday morning, September 11th. Kenney: "We're currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site." Needless to say, this recording caused quite a stir. The official reaction was Kenney was simply confused about the dates. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has said it did not have urban search and rescue teams in place in New York City prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, contrary to an Internet-based rumor alleging otherwise. ... FEMA officials said Kenney, in the heat of the moment, misstated his team's arrival date. [WorldNetDaily 11/15/01] Long Debunked "Rumor" Validated by Giuliani FEMA in NYC prior to 9-11 for Project TRIPOD terror drill, scheduled for 9-12 As of this writing, June 2, 2004, the transcript of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's testimony to the 9-11 Commission during the May 18-19, 2004 hearings in New York is the only transcript of that hearing omitted from the Commission website (www.9-11commission.gov...). Did Rudy say something wrong? Was he a whistle blower by accident? "... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed." www.whatreallyhappened.com... Why wasn't the drill explained by the FEMA agent, after he said the "wrong date" and had to correct himself. The so called drill would of been a nice excuse to have been there before 9/11, but wasn't mentioned. [edit on 6-7-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by NoJustice All you dissenters please stop with your weak, Government loving excuses. You believe in the magic bullet theory, and smoke went down from an elevator shaft of the WTC center "because it couldn't be bombs" despite all logic pointing otherwise. [much cut out]

And this has what exactly to do with a 757 hitting the Pentagon? What? You've lost me completely.

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by NoJustice All you dissenters please stop with your weak, Government loving excuses. You believe in the magic bullet theory, and smoke went down from an elevator shaft of the WTC center "because it couldn't be bombs" despite all logic pointing otherwise. [much cut out]

And this has what exactly to do with a 757 hitting the Pentagon? What? You've lost me completely.

So, no response to the whistle blowers? Yeah, it's better to keep it simple, things you can debunk. Actual Government employees saying it's true though, that's gonna be a tough one. That's why none of you bother. I'd say it has everything to do with everything, you started this topic to prove a 757 hit a Pentagon, but not just that. You wanted to prove the Government wasn't lying and that there's no "conspiracy" Regardless of a 757 hitting the Pentagon or not, it doesn't erase many other questions that are out there. I mean is the overall point of any 9/11 discussion to discuss what happened on that day? I showed you how an FBI agent stated that evidence was removed from the scene. The same evidence that's been discussed for the last couple of pages. Yet you don't ask them what that has to do with a 757 hitting the Pentagon. [edit on 6-7-2005 by NoJustice]

The point of THIS thread is to show that a 757 hit the Pentagon. No more no less. It has nothing to do with the WTC, or the FBI removing evidence, or planting evidence at the WTC site. It has to do with the PENTAGON. Where did you hear someone say "If I can prove that a 757 hit the Pentagon, it will prove that there is no conspiracy at the WTC." Oh wait, I forgot. Because we believe the evidence in front of us from the Pentagon, we're sheeple.

As far as the bags go, how long after the impact was that taken? It could be that they had come in on a recall, or they could have passed the bags out to put smaller pieces of debris into.... there could be several reasons they have bags when they got off the bus.

Originally posted by NoJustice I'd say it has everything to do with everything, you started this topic to prove a 757 hit a Pentagon, but not just that. You wanted to prove the Government wasn't lying and that there's no "conspiracy" Regardless of a 757 hitting the Pentagon or not, it doesn't erase many other questions that are out there. I mean is the overall point of any 9/11 discussion to discuss what happened on that day?

Nonsense! My original post was in response to the rediculous flash video claming something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. Through the course of the past 18 months there have been numerous people who insist that it was someting other than a 757 (including the rediculous assertion that it was a tiny Global Hawk, a high altitude composite materials recon plane). My sole purpose in creating this post was to see if indeed something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. Only after I spent weeks checking into it for myself, and not taking the rantings of one website, or the bent truths of a flash presentation did I arrive (for myself) at the conclusion (after viewing hundreds of websites, over 50 news sources, dozens of government sites and information sources, viewing/reading thousands of Boeing pages, phone calls and discussions with Boeing managers, etc.) that it was indeed a 757 that hit the Pentagon. Any other conclusions you arrive at as to how the 757 got there, why it was allowed to get there, and who was responsible for getting the 757 to the Pentagon are entirely your own. To paint me with the same brush you desire to paint anyone that doesn't share your views is not only silly but a dangerous way to go through life. How will you ever learn anything? How will you ever experience anything new and exciting with such a closed mind? How will you ever learn the truth of any situation if you make up your mind before learning all the facts? If you want my personal opinion regarding the whole conspiracy I'd be happy to post it in a different thread. This one was, and is, for the sole purpose of dealing with whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. I'm positive one did, and based on the original post, and supplimental posts I've included in reponding to questions, and as new information was made available from other sources, I can't see how anyone could arrive at a different conclusion. And seriously... How can you possibly expect to cover the breadth of information from 9.11 in one topic? There is so much information out there (both real and made up) that it would take 2,500 page posts and 2,500 page responses to deal with it all in one thread.

Here Zap you were saying you wanted proof of radiation from micro nuke well read these two articles part 1 and part 2 look at the pcs and you'll see the have Radiation detectors these articles are about a certian subject and the 1982 Lebanon bombings, you have to read both parts in oder to understand Part 1. www.vialls.com... Part 2. www.joevialls.co.uk...

ok since catherder is shedding many tears, probably because I asked a question he couldn't debunk, and even though he didn't bother to do this with ANYONE ELSE who didn't specifically comment on the 757 on this topic (why don't you read through this entire thread again?) I'll delete my post and start a topic on it. I would appreciate any dissenters to stop making excuses and come to said topic and debunk the fact that FBI agents blew the whistle on the Government's corruption. EDIT: Well I'm sorry I guess there's a time limit on Editing it won't let me, but regardless, here's the topic www.abovetopsecret.com... [edit on 6-7-2005 by NoJustice]

Originally posted by NoJustice ok since catherder is shedding many tears, probably because I asked a question he couldn't debunk, and even though he didn't bother to do this with ANYONE ELSE who didn't specifically comment on the 757 on this topic (why don't you read through this entire thread again?) I'll delete my post and start a topic on it. I would appreciate any dissenters to stop making excuses and come to said topic and debunk the fact that FBI agents blew the whistle on the Government's corruption. EDIT: Well I'm sorry I guess there's a time limit on Editing it won't let me, but regardless, here's the topic www.abovetopsecret.com... [edit on 6-7-2005 by NoJustice]

Shedding tears? lol I have read through it all, there are 4 or 5 people who are unable to discuss rationally or intelligently this topic, for the most part the majority managed to stay on topic. But your posts are just thinly veiled delusional rants and I don’t have the time or compulsion to humor you. I find posts like yours to be a waste of time responding to. You never want to discuss a specific topic and instead you want to randomly generalize about a breadth of topics because you lack the ability to debate on any level and feel the need to hop randomly from topic to topic to hide that fact.