9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Hey Zap what do you say about my question????

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I still don't see it. I see lens flare, and I see clouds, but I don't see a smoke trail in that picture.

Notice its there, then it moves into the building. Lens flare, lol. Thats a good one

Peace

I still don't know why the animation you're showing jumps around like that, but I do know why the 2nd frame "flashes" brighter than the other frames -- it's the one that was altered by the french website originally (by their own admission). Even still, I don't think it's smoke, I think it's probably water vapour from air pressure (ground effect), because it just doesn't appear the same in the frames following it. What I do know is the US Department Of Justice had to respond to a court order on or before June 21, 2005. Their original court order (above, click either to view larger versions) was pushed back to July 31st after a request for continuation by the civil division attorney of the DOJ was going to be out of town on a family matter. But, perhaps we'll actually hear what the official result is for the videos from the gas station and the hotel in the next month. The above court order was in response to a FOIA request to the FBI, which was in turn an appeal to the DOJ, which was declined, which was then a lawsuit filed against the DOJ, which was responded to by an appeal to dismiss from the DOJ based on 4 arguments, which was ignored by the courts due to no filing of dismissal, which was then a demand to answer by the court. Now, my experience of the way the courts work means this will turn into an official filing of dismissal (on the 31st of July) by the DOJ. Then the courts will decide if it should be dismissed, and if so the plaintiff will then appeal that decision. Conversely, should the courts deny the appeal (by the DOJ) then the DOJ will be ordered by the courts to release any video evidence from Sept 11, 2001, in relation to the Pentagon attack. I hope we will eventually see the videos from both the hotel roof and from the Gas station, and I hope it is made available (unaltered) by the party that filed the FOIA request. (There is also a second FOIA suit by one of the news media but by who exactly slips my mind at the moment, possibly the Washington Times).

Originally posted by CatHerder The 5 frames of blurry video is not good supporting evidence for anything. It's not good evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon; it's not good evidence of something other than a 757 hitting the Pentagon. I've always said that, and anyone rational would agree with that assessment. But... since you'd like to discuss it I'll offer some counterpoints to your post(s). -=- So a jet engine that hits 4 or 5 light poles on the way in and takes damage doesn't smoke?

Ok, So why doesn't ANY of the eyewitnesses claim to see smoke?

A jet engine operating at near full throttle at under 100 feet altitude isn't operating outside of normal parameters and shouldn't smoke?

Near full throttle, I would say according to the speed it was travelling which you quoted was going over 500mph. Please do tell how you can control a 100 ton boeing 757 (Yes I have played MS Flight sim as an experiment). That does not mean I can fly a boeing. The many attempts I had doing this massive turn is just daunting. If it really was travelling at over 500mph how can it bank as sharply without crashing.

The airliner was going over 500 mph when it hit the building, 757-200s and 300s land at about 130-135 kts (150-155mph) and take off at about 140-145 kts (161-167mph). This aircraft was going over 350mph faster than one normally flys at this altitude!

Again how can a guy who can hardly fly a sesna manage to pull such a massive scale turn at maximum speed without crashing into the ground.

But then I personally don't think its smoke from a jet engine or a missile... Water vapor is what it probably is (and this is just my best "guess"). It's probably moisture from the ground, or sprinkler heads in the lawn, forced into the air by the tremendous air pressure caused by the aircraft (ground effect). That would certainly explain why it is not prominent in any of the frames that follow.

ahhh, we've had Zaph say its a smudge and you say its moisture from the ground. But it is followed, right into the building but in NONE of the frames does it show the ACTUAL aircraft. So we have no conclusive proof that a 757 hit the pentagon and no way on earth can a pilot with such little flying skills manage to do a near 360 spiral downward without crashing into the ground and saying that it was 500mph 100ft above the ground. And the bright white flash IS very different to the flash that happened when WTC crashes occur. [edit on 8/7/05 by Hunting Veritas] [edit on 8/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Actually, if you had read my next post, you would have seen where I said this...... I see it now, but it looks like it's on the ground right before impact. Like an engine hit the ground and started smoking because something broke inside, then the plane hit the building. There's no way you could tell what that is from that split second it shows up. I've seen reports that the plane actually hit the helipad before the building, then "skipped" into the building. Or maybe it was just an engine that hit the helipad. That's also AFTER the engine bounced off of lightpoles, and cars, and god knows what else. Hitting things like that would PROBABLY damage something inside it, which could cause it to smoke like that. A broken oil line would leave a nice smoke trail.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Actually, if you had read my next post, you would have seen where I said this...... I see it now, but it looks like it's on the ground right before impact. Like an engine hit the ground and started smoking because something broke inside, then the plane hit the building. There's no way you could tell what that is from that split second it shows up. I've seen reports that the plane actually hit the helipad before the building, then "skipped" into the building. Or maybe it was just an engine that hit the helipad. That's also AFTER the engine bounced off of lightpoles, and cars, and god knows what else. Hitting things like that would PROBABLY damage something inside it, which could cause it to smoke like that. A broken oil line would leave a nice smoke trail.

Fair enough, Still doesn't explain how a pilot that cannot fly a sesna very well managed to fly a Boeing 757. So to fly it from Idaho unspotted for 45+ minutes even though air traffic controllers were trying to find it and NO FIGHTER jets scrambled in the ENTIRE escapade then when he got to the pentagon why didn't he hit the obvious front or top the direction he was coming from, instead he does a near 360 spiral spin downwards travelling in excess of 450mph then trys to level of at 30ft. Then hits the side which had the least amount of people. Now I noticed you said the engine hit "may" have hit cars and lamposts, Do you know of any eyewitnesses that claim a boeings engine bounced of their car. Yes there is plenty of evidence that an engine hit a generator on the right hand side but with the plane going at such velocities wouldn't the engine rip away from the wing hitting a stationary object a 500mph. 6 tonnes of steel, titanium alloy and much more hit a generator but didn't break the engine off and it still went into the pentagon. Why don't the FBI release the videos from the garage and all the many videos inside the pentagon. I did notice that FOIA that Catherder posted but I'm not going to hold my breath. Peace

The priest "looked out just as the plane clipped an overhead sign and then toppled a light pole, injuring a taxi driver a few feet away," recounts investigative author James Bamford in his new book A Pretext for War. "A second later, American Flight 77 smashed into the gray concrete wall of the Pentagon. The jet hit with such force that it penetrated four of the five concentric rings of corridors and offices surrounding a gazebo in the center court, long nicknamed Ground Zero." www.prisonplanet.com... " "I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon." As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge. One hill is at the Navy Annex and the other is Arlington Cemetery. The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap. Why the plane did not hit incoming traffic coming down the river from the north to Reagan Nat'l. is beyond me. Strangely, no one at the Reagan Tower noticed the aircraft. Andrews AFB radar should have also picked up the aircraft I would think. Nevertheless, the aircarft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building. The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage. www.whatreallyhappened.com... I agree with what was said in an earlier post. They hit that side, because it was the only "open" side of the building. There were so many obstacles on the other sides, they couldn't be sure about hitting the building. This wall they hit had no parking structures, or trees, or anything else blocking it, so it was the easiest target. As far as the turn, all of that is quite easily controlled by the autopilot. You can control rate of descent, altitude, heading, etc all through the autopilot. It's simple to just turn dials and set everything that way. The entire flight, they only time they might have needed manual control would be to line up on the wall of the Pentagon. And even then they could have used autopilot to help hold altitude. I know this probably won't convince you, but it's one possible explanation.

Oh, and as far as finding it, if they stayed above 18,000 feet it wouldn't have been picked up on radar. A Primary Radar set may have detected them, but the ATC Centers don't use them over 18,000 because it shows too much clutter. A Secondary Radar set, which is used over 18,000 wouldn't pick up the skin paint off an airliner, so it wouldn't show up on radar, or if it did, it would have been so tiny, they might not even have been able to see it. Without a transponder, it would have been a tiny blip on the screen. [edit on 8-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Oh, and as far as finding it, if they stayed above 18,000 feet it wouldn't have been picked up on radar. A Primary Radar set may have detected them, but the ATC Centers don't use them over 18,000 because it shows too much clutter. A Secondary Radar set, which is used over 18,000 wouldn't pick up the skin paint off an airliner, so it wouldn't show up on radar, or if it did, it would have been so tiny, they might not even have been able to see it. Without a transponder, it would have been a tiny blip on the screen. [edit on 8-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

So the "suposed" most advanced military in the world just happened not to see a commercial airliner above 18,000ft. So 4 planes turn off transponders and do not contact towers. And no jets were scrambled. Its a joke. A UFO is smaller than a comercial airliner yet they manage to get picked up easy enough.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas So to fly it from Idaho

Idaho ?? Flight 77 flew out of Washington Dulles International Airport located in Dulles, Virginia...

Planes leave smoke trails but they do not produce ones as dense as the one from the "apparant" flight 77

Blue smoke ---> oil burning Black smoke ---> low oxigen(=low speed), a lot of fuel White smoke ---> high oxigen (=high speed), low fuel, oil leak or coolant 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.

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas So to fly it from Idaho

Idaho ?? Flight 77 flew out of Washington Dulles International Airport located in Dulles, Virginia...

The plane dissapeared from air traffic controllers at 8:57am near Ohio. Sorry my mistake.

Originally posted by nospam The white smoke can be produced in a jet engine.

Under certain condition such as cold weather. Sure there are going to be white steam trails (contrails) some people like to call 'em chemtrails. The weather wasn't exactly cold enough to produce that much steam on 911. Almost every picture you posted, the aircraft is in cold conditions. It still doesn't explain the smoke/steam trail.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Originally posted by CatHerder The 5 frames of blurry video is not good supporting evidence for anything. It's not good evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon; it's not good evidence of something other than a 757 hitting the Pentagon. I've always said that, and anyone rational would agree with that assessment. But... since you'd like to discuss it I'll offer some counterpoints to your post(s). -=- So a jet engine that hits 4 or 5 light poles on the way in and takes damage doesn't smoke?

Ok, So why doesn't ANY of the eyewitnesses claim to see smoke?

Maybe because the timespan between the impact with the lightpoles and the building is approximately 5 seconds?

A jet engine operating at near full throttle at under 100 feet altitude isn't operating outside of normal parameters and shouldn't smoke?

Near full throttle, I would say according to the speed it was travelling which you quoted was going over 500mph. Please do tell how you can control a 100 ton boeing 757 (Yes I have played MS Flight sim as an experiment). That does not mean I can fly a boeing. The many attempts I had doing this massive turn is just daunting. If it really was travelling at over 500mph how can it bank as sharply without crashing.

What? Just because it was going 514mph when it impacted the Pentagon does not mean it was going 514mph from the time it was wheels up... The "difficult turn" (according to sensationalized news reports and NOT according to Boeing or any commercial pilot I've talked to) was a 270 degree turn, which decended 7,000 ft, and took over 2.5 minutes, at an airspeed under 400mph. (It didn't impact the Pentagon for another 2+ minutes.) How does this apply to the 2.5 minute 270-degree spiral turn? The G forces produced by such a turn can be calculated using the following formula. RCF = 0.001118 * r * N^2 where RCF = Relative Centrifugal Force (gravities) r = rotation radius (meters) N = rotation speed (revolutions per minute) If the plane were traveling at 400 miles per hour it would travel 16.666 miles, or 26,821 meters, in 2.5 minutes. Assuming it was traveling in a circular arc, it would trace out 3/4ths of a circle with a 35,761-meter circumference, giving a rotation radius of 5,691 meters and rotation speed of 0.3 rotations per minute. Plugging those values into the above equation, we obtain a centrifugal force of 0.5726 Gs -- hardly a problem for a 757 whose rated G limits are over two. The reason you have an airtraffic controller quoted as saying "...we all thought in the radar room ...that it was a military plane" is because a commercial passenger jet would not perform such a turn. Passenger jets have strict operating parameters set forth by the FAA to ensure only slow methodical maneuvers while flying with passengers (no bumps and gforces on the passengers). The SAME aircraft (a 757) when used as a cargo plane (FexEx/UPS/etc) does not have to adhere to these same parameters. It's not a matter of aircraft operating within safety parameters for the craft's structure or design, it's a set of rules so you don't injure passengers or make your customers all puke.

The airliner was going over 500 mph when it hit the building, 757-200s and 300s land at about 130-135 kts (150-155mph) and take off at about 140-145 kts (161-167mph). This aircraft was going over 350mph faster than one normally flys at this altitude!

Again how can a guy who can hardly fly a sesna manage to pull such a massive scale turn at maximum speed without crashing into the ground.

Once again... something that has been pointed out, explained, etc., many times in the this thread: ground effect. He was not performing any turns at low altitude - see above. I think you've confused his flight path with his approach.

But then I personally don't think its smoke from a jet engine or a missile... Water vapor is what it probably is (and this is just my best "guess"). It's probably moisture from the ground, or sprinkler heads in the lawn, forced into the air by the tremendous air pressure caused by the aircraft (ground effect). That would certainly explain why it is not prominent in any of the frames that follow.

ahhh, we've had Zaph say its a smudge and you say its moisture from the ground. But it is followed, right into the building but in NONE of the frames does it show the ACTUAL aircraft.

I do not see that bright white blotch follow anything anywhere. I see it in one frame and then I do not see it in the next frame. It looks like a white puffy cloud in frame 1, and then it's gone in frame 2.

So we have no conclusive proof that a 757 hit the pentagon and no way on earth can a pilot with such little flying skills manage to do a near 360 spiral downward without crashing into the ground and saying that it was 500mph 100ft above the ground.

You appear to have absolutely no knowledge of what you're talking about here. The plane DID NOT PERFORM A 360 ANYWHERE NEAR THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH. The plane performed a 270 degree decending turn, which spanned almost 3 minutes, to decend to 2,000 feet from 9,000 feet. At this point he continued a decent targeted at the Pentagon (over hundreds of witnesses in cars, on the ground, in buildings, and ahead of Lt Col Steve O'Brien and his flight crew in a C-130 who tried to follow but couldn't keep up, etc.). This is a pretty good approximation of the flight path into the side the building. There was no turn anywhere in his final approach. He was lining up and decending along this path, and he also throttled up.

And the bright white flash IS very different to the flash that happened when WTC crashes occur. [edit on 8/7/05 by Hunting Veritas] [edit on 8/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

"Very different" based on what? Some conjecture from a conspiracy site? Of course the initial explosion is going to be different, the explosion from the aircraft impact on the Pentagon took place against the wall, the explosions from the aircraft impacts at the WTC took place INSIDE the WTC after they penetrated the building. How can you compare the two and expect to arrive at any logical conclusion other than: "Some planes crashed into buildings"? And besides, when you look at both the 2nd WTC impact and the Pentagon impact frame, what do you know... both are a yellow fireball followed by a red and black sooty fireball.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas So the "suposed" most advanced military in the world just happened not to see a commercial airliner above 18,000ft. So 4 planes turn off transponders and do not contact towers. And no jets were scrambled. Its a joke. A UFO is smaller than a comercial airliner yet they manage to get picked up easy enough.

If you bothered to do ANY research into radar around the US, over 90% of the radar systems are CIVILIAN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL radars. There are defense radars in Alaska, Florida, and at points along both coasts. Almost EVERY OTHER radar in the United States is Civilian. Civilian ATC radar uses 2 types. Primary, and Seconday. Secondary can not see a skin paint over 18,000, Primary is not used over 18,000 because it would show too much clutter. Almost ALL of the military radars are used to look OUTWARD for missiles, and bombers coming INTO US airspace. They don't look INTO the US for airliners that are flying without transponders. A MILITARY radar would probably have been able to track the planes, IF there had been a military radar looking for them. Many military radar installations, tie into the ATC radar to keep track of planes and see the same thing the ATC sees but no more than that. Here are good eyewitness account of what happened with the engines and wings as well. "The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart." "I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke." "He saw the right engine take out "the chain-link fence and posts surrounding the generator." The left engine, he said, "struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building." "The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage."

CatHerder Thanks for the great work. It is well thought-out, referenced and articulated. I agree with the other member that suggested your monograph is of publication quality. I would even rank it above the Popular Mechanics article. This is the best 9/11 government conspiracy debunking written for a lay audience I have seen to date. Great effort! If I may presume to offer a very minor suggestion in the spirit of contribution to your efforts...

...it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid...

I suggest actually using (or maybe even briefly defining) the term fluid dynamics in the text. I know you mention the term in relation to the RA file. Something to the effect of a condition where particles (or pieces, in this case) of matter which move relatively freely in relation to one another. The landslide analogy was spot-on. Thanks again for your concise arguments.

. Actually if you look closely at the frame just after seeing the white shape, there is a white looking shape on the opposite side of the post as the fireball explodes. You know, like a moving object. The fireball also seems to be funnel shaped towards/out-of that white shape. Not sure what to make of that. Could it be some kind of small projectile that is fired from the white shape that creates the fireball? Would/could that give it a sort of funnel point like that? .

I am going to chime in a bit here on the smoke subject. I have looked around the net for a picture of this, but have yet to find one. The only time I have seen white smoke come from the back of an aircraft is when it looses the ability to properly mix the fuel with air. On the ramp we would call this a “Hot Start”. This used to happen when you loose pressure while “ground starting” and engine, or the engine suffers some problem that causes it to fail to start completely. If the fuel, and sometime oil, that has pooled into the bottom of the engine housing is still present when the pilot tries to start again, you get a 12 foot flame out the back of the engine, and white smoke. I have also seen this happen to varying degrees if there was not enough pressure being output by the air-start unit or APU. Some times we would get white smoke, and some times white smoke and a flame. So once this engine was damaged, and the fuel from the tank above is burning, or the engine is getting too much fuel, or burning oil (SkyDrol), this kind of cloud is going to appear. Edit to add Sorry…. I missed nospam’s post above, that is exactly what I am taking about though… [edit on 7/16/2005 by defcon5]

file of a clip from CNN coverage on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there. Clip archived by TheWebFairy.com; Transcript by Total911.info "JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed." www.legitgov.org... [edit on 16/7/2005 by Sauron]

Sauron Why not start at page one of this thread. I believe that the lack of visible wreckage has been more then covered… Over… And Over… And Over… And Over… And Over… To infinity….

zaphod58, are we supposed to forget the norad excercises that were tracking as many as 22 'hijacked' aircraft, some 'actually hijacked', and some 'simulated'? your analysis has a glaring omission in this regard. (as nearly ALL the 'debunking' arguments must ignore relevent data in ordo to not pancake on themselves.) the only way one can believe the official bulldoodoo is by embracing cognitive dissonance. well done. deny systems theory. deny common sense. deny fuzzy logic. deny downing street. deny PNAC's 'new pearl harbour'. deny the torture and murder being carried out based on these lies. deny freedom. deny treason. embrace 'security'. deny the takeover of the sith lords, ....just a little bit longer. soon we will all be tagged like animals, and can enjoy our new 'freedom' from 'terrorism', and the 'peace' of eternal war. sorry, 'OFF TOPIC', right? we're not supposed to connect the dots. think of the truth as a giant skyscaper. think of it being built with a 'mosquito net' ability to transfer load in the event of local failure. think of the true parts of the lie as holes in the truth. the truth still stands, despite the holes caused by facts that have been twisted to fit into the pillar of truth, and the natural tendency of people to stare at the smoking hole, instead of seeing the whole tower. [edit on 16-7-2005 by billybob]