9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

There are five extremely sophisticated anti-missile batteries in place to protect the Pentagon from an airborne attack. These anti-missile batteries operate automatically.

cassiopaea.org... Planes do not fly over the Pentagon on a daily basis. If there's any evidence to contradict this....I'd like to see it.

therfore that is why the Pentagon is defensless from an air attack??

No they were defenseless because there was nothing there to defend with.

Originally posted by Skibum

therfore that is why the Pentagon is defensless from an air attack??

No they were defenseless because there was nothing there to defend with.

So the Pentagon is defensless is what your saying? The $400 billion the Government spends on the Pentagon each year doesn't account for any kind of air defense? That is ridiculous.

So the Pentagon is defensless is what your saying?

Among the questions being asked here: How could the Pentagon, the center of the U.S. defense establishment, not be prepared to defend itself against an attack by an airplane? Spokesman Rear Adm. Craig Quigley said the Pentagon has no anti-aircraft defense system that he is aware of. The White House is assumed to have surface-to-air missiles available for protection. The problem, according to past and present government officials, is who makes a decision to fire a missile at an incoming airplane in the midst of downtown Washington

www.usatoday.com...

Planes do not fly over the Pentagon on a daily basis. If there's any evidence to contradict this....I'd like to see it.

Ever been to the area, if not you can come watch planes fly down the Potomac right next to the pentagon.

WASHINGTON — U.S. counter-terrorism and emergency management specialists feared a day like Tuesday would come. Precautions were taken. Possible disaster scenarios were devised and practiced. But in the wake of the terrorist bombings of New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon, government officials and security experts said nothing could have prepared the country for a day unlike any in U.S. history. "You try to prepare for emergencies," said a shaken New York Gov. George Pataki, who said he was still trying to get news about friends who worked in the two demolished World Trade Center towers. "But there's no way you can prepare for anything like this."

Lol, wtf?? USAToday saying this? Or governor Pataki? lol... I would also doubt the guy saying such systems do not exist or need authorization to use. These systems would be in place for emergency defense, and taking time out to ask for permission to fire would not be in their best interest. The military has refused to acknowledge were such anti-aircraft sites are in Washington, but in doing so has acknowledged that there are defensive sites around Washington. It would be foolish to think that these systems did not cover protection for the Pentagon, the nerve center of the US military.

Where are they? There are hundreds of sattelite pics of the Pentagon out there, someone show me ONE missile launcher. It's not like you can easily hide something like that. The only truly mobile system we have is Avenger which is on top of a Humvee, and again you would notice groups of Humvees parked around the Pentagon. And if they aren't parked there already, it would take time to get them there. A Patriot system or even a Hawk or I-Hawk system is HUGE. You have to have a pretty impressive radar system to id the targets, so they would stand out like a sore thumb. And Stingers are man portable, so they wouldn't be automatic. I'd like to see ONE picture of the Pentagon with a missile radar that was taken BEFORE 9/11/ [edit on 22-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

Oh and another thing about military air search radar, and ESPECIALLY missile radar is that it interferes with ATC radar. When a military ship near an airport is going to fire up the air search radar, they have to coordinate it with the ATC guys, and let them know when they're going to fire up, how long, and why. If a missile radar was going to be constantly operating at the Pentagon it would be at least occasionally interfering with the ATC radar at one of the busiest airports in the DC area, just a couple of miles away.

The world is running out of energy - within our lifetime no more automobiles. The government orchestrated these attacks as the justification for EVERYTHING. The War on Terror has conveniently been reborn by another false-flag terrorist operation on London These are the facts, let’s move on. The issue now is to plan for the looming energy transition and further government oppression... Patriot Act extension to give FBI sweeping powers: www.earthtimes.org... A missile hit the Pentagon - everyone knows this. Rumsfeld even said so. Dammit.

This article is a very great and busy work to begin with. However, it's utterly flawed. Did it occur to anybody that this photo is in absolute contradiction to this great piece of scientific work? Oh so scientific? If the LS-Dyna or whatever animation were right, both wings entered the building and were literally shreddered by the steel reinforced concrete columns. Could any kind sould please explain to me (I am just a poor Electronics Engineer, so bear with me) how the wings could possibly have tunneled or beamed through the outer walls of the building? They must have - the photo above is the evidence. There were no two large horizontal slots poked into the wall by the wings in order to be able to enter the building to begin with. Just a 16-20 ft. hole. Oh, the 757 is a sweepback wing plane. Aaah - this explains it. Sort of. And then, this 16-20 ft. hole is situated directly on the ground. The 757 is a low wing aeroplane with the engines below the wings. If this hole is from the 757 poking through the wall, the wings must have stayed outside, and so must the engines. Has anybody seen any RB211 remainders on the outside? No? Just the APU turbine? No two RB211s? Oooops. This is utter nonsense. And nowhere is any evidence when the animation was made. Before, or after the event. Next thing is the RB211 engines. We've seen a couple of photos what such an engine looks like after a plane crash. There were no big pieces of any such engine to be seen on any of the pictures. The only thing we see is shreddered metal, just as if the plane was detonated. Where have all the parts been taken to, and has any independent commission conducted a plane crash survey? Normally this is the FAA's job, right? Just curious. Utter nonsense. This article does not support any notion of a real plane crash. Whatever crashed there -- if it was a 757, it was brought to an explosion when hitting the building. Or it was something else carrying some parts of a crashed 757. Any maybe some bodies. The whole thing reminds me of Sept. 1, 1939. This whole 9/11 thing.

Oh look someone else who thinks the C ring punchout is where the plane initially hit.

The question is still legitimate, despite the misconception with the image. Have you guys seen this article yet? 911research.wtc7.net... The idea that the wings were snapped off and then sucked into the hole doesnt quite strike me as being very possible.

Great work, totally convinced me, thanks alot. What i cant understand is that when all the facts are laid out like this why people still wont agree. Yes there are still some facts that arent crystal clear, but surely you can understand theres not much previous data of passenger planes being flown into highly re-inforced concrete/steel structured buildings to work from. As someone in a very high position in the US intel once said "the simplest and most common sense answer is usually the correct one" How can you disregard the facts and say the wings cannot do this and cant possibley do that? what proof and previous knowledge of this sort of accident do you have? can you really comprehend the speed and force of the impact compared from an engineering point of view how weak an airliner is? the way some of you speak its as though planes are cut from a billet block of steel!!! the reason the hole is so small is because the only weight and strength in an airliner able to cause such damage is, as mentioned, due to the heavy structure being mostly around the lower fusalage, i'm no aircraft engineer but i do work with aluminium and even i can see why it just vapourised, its just glorified tin foil. what do you want? a 757 on the grass infront of the pentagon with a snubbed nose and a couple smoking engines?? get real, the impact would of been colosal, and is only down to the extraordinary strength of the building that you cant seem to grasp this.

what proof and previous knowledge of this sort of accident do you have?

The same as everyone else. It does not take proof to ask a question. The question is: what happened to the wings?

My point wasnt you cant ask questions without proof, my point was how and why can someone say this CANT happen without proof of why it CANT happen. post some pictures of other planes going into buildings showing where the bits of plane SHOULD end up, its not an exact science, i'm sure accident investigators find amazing and logic defying stuff all the time when dealing with crash's like this. Why the wings in particular anyway? are they made of stuff that shouldnt break up the same as the rest of the plane? on the grand scheme of things an aircraft wing is not one of the things that spring to mind when one talks of strong structural objects. If i was a sceptic/naysayer i wouldnt be bleeting on about the wings, i'd be asking questions about the engines, as these have more steel/titanium construction and are less likely to be destroyed to the extent of a tin foil plane, even so you can quite clearly see bits of engine scattered around, and bareing in mind it would of had maximum fuel flow due to the plane being flat out, they could of exploded on impact shattering most of the internals all over the place. If anyones seen a simple turbo setup on a car engine go bang you can understand the mess an engine on this scale would make. [edit on 24-7-2005 by Ernold Same]

Why the wings in particular anyway? are they made of stuff that shouldnt break up the same as the rest of the plane? on the grand scheme of things an aircraft wing is not one of the things that spring to mind when one talks of strong structural objects.

The explanations I've read of what happened to the wings have been along the lines of the wings being snapped off and then sucked into the hole created by the plane. That's just not something I see as very realistic. It has nothing to do with how the wings were constructed or what they were made of; it has to do with where the hell they went and how they went there. There is no -proof- either way. Can you prove the wings were sucked in after the plane? Exactly. It goes both ways. I'm still wondering what happened to them.

I see your point now, but again, wheres the written law of planes crash's that says wings should just shear off in one piece with this sort of impact? I dont think proof goes both ways because like i said these sort of crash's cant abide by any rule of thumb or act the same as a similar crash somewhere else at a different time, its a one off event that nobody can predict where bits of plane will land, i'll agree that the wings being sucked through the whole behind the main body seems strange, but they didnt go through whole, they would of gone through in bits, maybe the majority of debris from the wings ended up through the the hole i dont know, but as much as i cant exactly explain what happened to the wings its not a big enough factor for me to disregard the other strong evidence and facts to change my mind. I can understand that parts of the crash wont make sense, this doesnt mean there not true or didnt happen.

Originally posted by Ernold Same I see your point now, but again, wheres the written law of planes crash's that says wings should just shear off in one piece with this sort of impact? I dont think proof goes both ways because like i said these sort of crash's cant abide by any rule of thumb or act the same as a similar crash somewhere else at a different time, its a one off event that nobody can predict where bits of plane will land, i'll agree that the wings being sucked through the whole behind the main body seems strange, but they didnt go through whole, they would of gone through in bits, maybe the majority of debris from the wings ended up through the the hole i dont know, but as much as i cant exactly explain what happened to the wings its not a big enough factor for me to disregard the other strong evidence and facts to change my mind. I can understand that parts of the crash wont make sense, this doesnt mean there not true or didnt happen.

Do you think you can fly a Boeing 757 a couple of feet above the ground without touching the lawn. Can you show me a picture thats shows without doubt it was flight 77 that hit the pentagon. Wings, tail, fuselage, wheels, landing strut, engine parts, luggage, people etc. Or even the plane itself before it hit the pentagon. Peace [edit on 25/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

For the assorted skeptics, debunkers, malcontents, and apologists for the government's version of the 9/11 Pentagon tragedy and subsequent cover-up...what do you say about Jamie McIntyre's unequivocal observations ( he was up close and personal at the crash site ) that no plane crashed in to the Pentagon, no large pieces...that the floor collapsed 45 mins later etc. etc. I am sure he has been near the site of many plane crashes and large building fires to know what he is talking about.... thewebfairy.com... Larry

I know there have been many, many posts on here regarding aircraft engines. I believe this article which compares the engines found on the streets of NYC on 9/11 with the supposed airliner engines at the Pentagon on 9/11 is worth the times it takes to read it and would like to hear what CatHerder's and Howard's views are on it.... www.rense.com...