9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I'm going to assume you aren't talking to me, because I've tried very hard to be civil, and keep things calm and polite during all of my posts. Unlike some of the people I've debated here, *I* try to keep some respect for other peoples opinions, and beliefs. I believe that it was a 757, and when they finally release the videos you'll see a 757 impact the pentagon. There are too many eyewitnesses that saw a 757, and other evidence, in my opinion, leads me to conclude that it WAS an AA 757.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I'm going to assume you aren't talking to me, because I've tried very hard to be civil, and keep things calm and polite during all of my posts. Unlike some of the people I've debated here, *I* try to keep some respect for other peoples opinions, and beliefs.

No, I wasn't referring to you, man. You have kept it civil, and hats off to you for that. I can be an ass, but hopefully I haven't given you much trouble. I think I mostly just reciprocate it anyway, unless I'm already irritated or something, and I apologize for those occasions.

I believe that it was a 757, and when they finally release the videos you'll see a 757 impact the pentagon. There are too many eyewitnesses that saw a 757, and other evidence, in my opinion, leads me to conclude that it WAS an AA 757.

Fair enough. I can't wait for the releases either. It's going to be like a Christmas morning of sorts for me, cause I have no idea what I'll see, but it should be interesting, and definitely a key piece of evidence for all sides. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if they're never released, either.

This is BS... Obvious flaw: The removal of hazardous waste. If a 757 did indeed impact the Pentagon it should have left a lot of highly toxic, jet fuel laden soil and debris behind. In the case of the WTC's, tons of hazardous waste was removed from the area. This was simply not the case at the Pentagon. The WTC burned for months, and the Pentagon fires were out in days. Where did all the jet fuel go? Remember, it was the "thousands of gallons" of jet fuel burning that caused the collapse of the Trade Towers... If a 757 truly nose-dived into the Pentagon, there should have been tons of contaminated soil and debris that would have to be specially removed. Do you have any comments as to this anomaly? I find it quite odd that the military simply dumped limestone gravel over the entire lawn area of the Pentagon, and absolutely no hazardous waste labelled soil and debris were removed. Also, how can we forget this photo which shows the extreme LACK of heat at the impact zone? Remember again..."THOUSANDS of GALLONS of burning jet fuel" caused the collapse of the Trade Towers. www.serendipity.li... (notice the book lying on the stool in the lower portion of the photo) this shows an explosive type event with very little heat involved....the exact opposite of the case of the WTCs.

Originally posted by CatHerder Your lines aren't accurate, you have the starboard wing line going up at too sharp of an angle.

How do you mean my lines aren't accurate ? What makes your lines accurate ? Assumption would be the only correct answer don't you agree ? Wich makes my line as perfect as yours.

Originally posted by CatHerder No, you're just wrong in how you're putting two and two together to come up with 5. And "my graphic" is actually a graphic created by the American Society of Civil Engineering.

No I'm not, I just showed you how 2 images posted by you were inconsistent, so I asked you, wich one of the two is right. In fact it's your calculation that doesn't add up if you post contradictory evidence.

Originally posted by CatHerder YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ PREVIOUS POSTS. I outlined where the engines went into the building, and where they most likely came to rest previously in this thread. Thanks for not reading a bloody word before posting your uneducated reply. I appreciate having to repeat the same information dozens of times for the lazy people on this board...

Yes, according to you the engines passed right trough the spindles or whatever they're called, also denying the fact that the wing apparantly hit in an angle. Here's an idea, the engine, in an instant before impact, fell from the wing, dove down BEHIND the rubble(the spindles), into the wall nearly against the ground. Makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by CatHerder That's just a daft assertion and a really stupid question (seriously). The plane punched into the wall, the people/seats/luggage/etc were all moving at 514MPH when they hit the wall. The mass of the plane and it's contents made the hole, not one individual thing.

Yes, that what I was telling, but still, you're not denying the fact that the insides of a mostly hollow plane punched through a bunch of reinforced walls, correct ? Funny that most of that part is air, seats, and people, not particularly stuff that would punch trough reinforced walls. Especially 6 of them. Don't you agree ? Because there is very little evidence about this, we can only compare to other heavy things hitting walls. And what is better then compare to something heavy hitting the same wall, at the exact same speed and angle, on the exact same spot ? Let me rephrase that for you : - hollow, relatively lightweight, soft material in the form of the body of the plane penetrates 6 brick walls, atleast some of it reinforced. - almost solid, heavy AND hard material (namely titanium) doesn't seem to penetrate even the first wall, but what's more is, after not penetrating the wall, it dissapears.

This was simply not the case at the Pentagon. The WTC burned for months, and the Pentagon fires were out in days. Where did all the jet fuel go?

The trade center did not burn for months because of the jet fuel, it burned for months because there was an enormous amount of flammable material (carprt, furniture, paper etc) that they could not get to to extinguish.

Originally posted by __rich__ This is BS... Obvious flaw: The removal of hazardous waste. If a 757 did indeed impact the Pentagon it should have left a lot of highly toxic, jet fuel laden soil and debris behind. In the case of the WTC's, tons of hazardous waste was removed from the area. This was simply not the case at the Pentagon. The WTC burned for months, and the Pentagon fires were out in days. Where did all the jet fuel go? Remember, it was the "thousands of gallons" of jet fuel burning that caused the collapse of the Trade Towers... If a 757 truly nose-dived into the Pentagon, there should have been tons of contaminated soil and debris that would have to be specially removed. Do you have any comments as to this anomaly? I find it quite odd that the military simply dumped limestone gravel over the entire lawn area of the Pentagon, and absolutely no hazardous waste labelled soil and debris were removed. Also, how can we forget this photo which shows the extreme LACK of heat at the impact zone? Remember again..."THOUSANDS of GALLONS of burning jet fuel" caused the collapse of the Trade Towers. www.serendipity.li... (notice the book lying on the stool in the lower portion of the photo) this shows an explosive type event with very little heat involved....the exact opposite of the case of the WTCs.

I'm going to add to this as it is one of the few intelligent posts I've read in this thread. Cathearder has made an extensive effort, but it is forensically in vain. A MISSLE HIT THE PENTAGON Anyone doubting this, ask yourself why when there was no damage done to the lawn was it covered with a gravel? Perhaps you believe it was that emergency crew vechiles needed more traction than the grass could offer, but that's a weak unfounded lie as photographs provide the evidence of emergency vehicles on the scene before that. There should have been some sort of crater if the wings didn't crash into the pentagon, but all we got is a green lawn that is good enough for a golf game. Ask why out of all the videos that filmed this surrounding the pentagon, only 1, with a low grainy resolution, made it to the public. If all the other videos that could film this would proove it was indeed a 747, why not release them to the public? Most recently, ask why radiation expert Leuren Moret claims high radiation readings near pentagon after 9/11 indicates depleted uranium used. That is, after all, something a Boeing couldn't have done. Plain and simple, more at: rense.com... It is clear as day what happened at the pentagon, so stop with the smoke screen already. People who know, know. [edit on 21-8-2005 by Light Being]

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by CatHerder Your lines aren't accurate, you have the starboard wing line going up at too sharp of an angle.

How do you mean my lines aren't accurate ? What makes your lines accurate ? Assumption would be the only correct answer don't you agree ? Wich makes my line as perfect as yours.

Absolutely not. Look at the impact on the wall, you can clearly see where the leading edge of the wing hit, and pushed the pillars inwards over 18 inches. That's a massive amount of energy to do that to those pillars (and the damage is in a perfectly straight line -- or in the same shape as a wing...). It's not assumption on my part, it's logic and it fits the evidence. To place the wing impact above the damage zone akes no sense - because what then could have possibly made that linear impact damage the length of a wing on the right side of the hole? I mean you can see where the wing hit, and where it's impact on the building displaced columns over 18 inches inwards. This has been gone over quite a few times in the thread, perhaps you could go read some of it?

Originally posted by Light Being I'm going to add to this as it is one of the few intelligent posts I've read in this thread. Cathearder has made an extensive effort, but it is forensically in vain. A MISSLE HIT THE PENTAGON Anyone doubting this, ask yourself why when there was no damage done to the lawn was it covered with a gravel? Perhaps you believe it was that emergency crew vechiles needed more traction than the grass could offer, but that's a weak unfounded lie as photographs provide the evidence of emergency vehicles on the scene before that. There should have been some sort of crater if the wings didn't crash into the pentagon, but all we got is a green lawn that is good enough for a golf game.

Ridiculous comments. Forensically in vain?? How could a missile hit the generator pushing it towards the building, and damage the facade of the Pentagon for over 140 feet? How could a missile impact multiple objects (light poles) on the way in? How could a missile appear to be a commercial airliner to hundreds of eyewitnesses? How could a missile appear to be a large airliner on ATC radar screens? How could a missile create a large fuel fire and not create a large explosion (the damage preceding the collapse was limited to the bottom 2 floors and to the support columns). Answer that Mr. forensics... Why is bringing in tons of gravel and aggregate to cover a soft turf some sort of conspiracy? BIG heavy trucks had to drive on the lawn, BIG cranes to clean up the fallen building, BIG loaders, and thousands of rescue and clean up personnel had to walk on the surface for weeks. The reason they made a new surface on the lawn was so these 10-20 ton vehicles didn't get stuck in the soft (and wet) surface, and so the hundreds of people walking on the lawn didn't have to work in a quagmire. The photos you view of the Pentagon fire, the efforts to fight the fire (which lasted more than 2 days) and the gravel on the lawn are taken over a 2-7 day period. (And most of the photos after the main collapse had been removed are from weeks after the initial crash.) If you think they brought in gravel 24 hours after the fact to "cover up" something (besides the soft wet lawn) then you must be also believe that the government assumed nobody would take photos of the lawn in the 24 to 48 hours preceding the cleanup efforts... it's just a silly assertion. I think your "forensics" needs to first establish a timeline of events and then a timeline for the photos, without it your ideas amount to nothing more than an exited and unfounded work of fiction.

You ARE aware of the fact that until sometime in the 1980s Boeing and other plane builders used DU as ballast in their planes right? The 747 used quite a large amount of DU, and there was a lot of concern after an El Al cargo flight came down in a neighborhood. And for the record the 757 first entered service in 1984. [edit on 21-8-2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by bsbray11 So, wait, some off-topic entertainment, but no condescending, arrogant response to this?:

No response because your tripe is ALL wrong, and it's been answered multiple times in this thread already. I cannot be your babysitter. It's not my fault that you are either too lazy to read the thread, or are simply unable to mentally fathom the contents therein. If that is condecending, it is because the only way to talk to somebody like you is to talk down to your level. You're a troll, in every thread you post in. You offer nothing of substance: ever. You babble on about other people's posts, and you never supply anything other than your ignorant comments and opinions in response. You also never do any reading or even bother to see if your questions are already answered on this forum. You are a waste of everyones time bsbray11. And until you show that you are mature enough, and man enough to read the materials already supplied, you will never be worth responding to. Period. Hope that clears it up for you.

CatHerder, I still don't get how this alleged wing damage is supposed to be consistent with the placement of the wings/fuselage on a 757. Why don't you just admit that those marks couldn't be wing damage? The only personal insults and babbling are coming from you, man. Also, just out of curiousity, how much of CatHerder's last post is actually within this site's moderation policies? [edit on 21-8-2005 by bsbray11]

1. There was no burning jet fuel at the 9-11 Pentagon - only a diesel tank, damaged on the wrong side. 2. The pice of skin on the lawn was the wrong color. 3. There is no forward-moving damage to the pre-collapse Pentagon section. 4. None of the witnesses has corroborating physical evidence - versus disbelief at their descriptions. The exception being those who cited no major pieces of aircraft. 5. The obstacles make a plane crash an impossibility. 6. The security video should have been black-and-white, was a day and a half late and the supposed fireball didn't burn a blade of grass. 7. The Pennsylvania site is similar. 8. Etc. See - home.comcast.net...

The piece of skin was the wrong color? In what way? It matched Americans paintjob quite nicely. So unless someone had grabbed a camera in the three or four seconds they had until it was past them, and somehow snapped a picture, they're all unreliable? What obstacles? The side of the Pentagon that was hit was almost wide open. There was a generator and a construction trailer near the wall, that was it, other than light poles and parked cars. A thin light pole is NOT going to stop a 757 at 500 mph. Um, they DO have color cameras now.

You never answered my question about the hazardous waste that should have been removed Catherder. I also wonder why the FBI confiscated the Hilton hotel rooftop security camera tapes, and why these have never been released. You will remember in the case of the Pennsylvania flight crash site, the soil was completely removed in the area and hauled away because of its extreme toxicity due to the avaiation fuel. This simply never happened at the Penatgon. If there was indeed a massive fuel fire like you claim, why is it that offices directly next to the impact zone were left completely unharmed by heat or fire? www.serendipity.li... Even this large dictionary was not even singed by flames or heat. Pleae explain how it is possible for a fuel fire to cause structural steel beams to collapse, but a common dictionary is left unharmed.

Here's some things to think about: 1. It took 30 mins before the section collapsed, yet there are still clear fires burning. Hello??? The Pentagon is on fire!! Wake up fire fighters, why so causal? Where they hoping for a bigger collapse for the cameras? 2. The fires clearly spreading to the top 2 floors in the previous photo, atleast 30 mins after the explosion, yet in this photo, at the area of explosion and collapse, there a clean walls, unbroken windows and in place furniture on those same floors. The fire is spreading throughout some part of the Pentagon, a section has just collapsed (and we know from the WTC how damaging fire is, right guys?!!!) but no one is trying to put it out. 3. Watch this video of the classic explosion frames. Just watch it repeat over and over again. Find the centre of that exposion, the most white point you can find near the ground. Watch it over and over again. Focus on the lowest point you can see and keep your eyes there. With of your peripheral vision follow the explosions trajectory, notice the directions the flames roll. Now try to convince yourself that explosion isn't going straight up. Try and convince yourself that explosion is occuring because a heap of mass travelling at 500mph travelling to the left of this photo and disapearing into the building is causing that explosion, sucking the cause of that explosion into the hole it made. How do the wings get sucked in but the fire moves directly upward? 4. Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.) Colonel, did a cruise missile hit the Pentagon or a Global Hawk or a drone business jet? DGP: You are talking about what hit the Pentagon, right John? It was a cruise missile. It could have been a Global Hawk. It was not a commercial aircraft. Do people at the Pentagon? are they still buying the official story, Colonel? DGP: Well, I can't speak for the rest of them but I'm certainly not buying that. And I think I've got the full story in book 3. And that's it. It was a diversionary hit for strategic reasons and it didn't matter whether it was a pilotless drone or a Global Hawk missile. It wasn't a commercial aircraft. It's the most surveilled area in the world but no video of it. Witnesses said they saw a small aircraft. DGP: No, they did not. We have [garbled] a video that purports to show a firing of a launch probably from a Global Hawk or an unmanned aircraft missile but it certainly wasn't a commercial aircraft. www.prisonplanet.com...

The Global Hawk has almost the same wing span as the 757, also there would be very little left of this craft after impact. notice the landing gear

Snip~~ Global Hawk, which has a wingspan of 116 feet (35.3 meters) and is 44 feet (13.4 meters) long, can range as far as 12,000 nautical miles, at altitudes up to 65,000 feet (19,812 meters), flying at speeds approaching 340 knots (about 400 mph) for as long as 35 hours. Global Hawk Fact Sheet US Air Force [edit on 24/8/2005 by Sauron]

...and the alleged wing damage is not consistent with the impact of a 757, as I've posted 2 or 3 times in a row by now. Just making sure this point doesn't fade into the thread so quickly, so CatHerder can come back and pretend he never read it, despite how many times I've posted it by now.

Originally posted by bsbray11 ...and the alleged wing damage is not consistent with the impact of a 757, as I've posted 2 or 3 times in a row by now. Just making sure this point doesn't fade into the thread so quickly, so CatHerder can come back and pretend he never read it, despite how many times I've posted it by now.

Post your evidence as to why it is not consistent with the impact of a 757. Otherwise your post is just empty words. I could state over and over that satellites can not orbit higher than 300 miles (like somebody else on this forum) but that sure as hell doesn't make it true... Post some evidence, get to work and prove to us that your words are facts and not just opinion.

Originally posted by SKYDRIFTER 1. There was no burning jet fuel at the 9-11 Pentagon - only a diesel tank, damaged on the wrong side.

No burning fuel? Click to enlarge (big image)

2. The pice of skin on the lawn was the wrong color.

Wrong color? All the pieces are polished aluminum, some have white and red paint on them. All of them match the AA paintscheme entirely. The internal parts in the 10-12 photos I've seen all have yellow Boeing primer/sealer.

3. There is no forward-moving damage to the pre-collapse Pentagon section.

? Please explain. The building was pushed 18-24 inches inwards, and the building later collapsed from this lateral movement. This damage is outlined and clear in numerous studies, including in "The Pentagon Performance Report" by the ASCE (which you obviously didn't read?) Even where the starboard wing impacted the pillars are pushed 18-24 inches inwards...

4. None of the witnesses has corroborating physical evidence - versus disbelief at their descriptions. The exception being those who cited no major pieces of aircraft. 5. The obstacles make a plane crash an impossibility.

What obstacles? The light poles that were sheered off at the tops? The 20 ton generator that was smashed into and moved towards the building? The wire/cable spools that were missed (and some hit and damaged)? There were no big obstacles in the way...

6. The security video should have been black-and-white, was a day and a half late and the supposed fireball didn't burn a blade of grass.

Should have been black and white? What is this, 1960? Why should it have been black and white? Even your local corner 7-11 has color video surveillance cameras...

7. The Pennsylvania site is similar.

Similar, how? Where is the building? Actually... where are the wings and identifiable pieces of this aircraft other than a little bit of the tail? How is this crash scene similar to the Pentagon's other than both resulted in total fatalities?

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by bsbray11 ...and the alleged wing damage is not consistent with the impact of a 757, as I've posted 2 or 3 times in a row by now. Just making sure this point doesn't fade into the thread so quickly, so CatHerder can come back and pretend he never read it, despite how many times I've posted it by now.

Post your evidence as to why it is not consistent with the impact of a 757. Otherwise your post is just empty words. I could state over and over that satellites can not orbit higher than 300 miles (like somebody else on this forum) but that sure as hell doesn't make it true... Post some evidence, get to work and prove to us that your words are facts and not just opinion.

Well, since you didn't notice the part about me posting it several times by now.. Follow that line of alleged wing damage back to the impacted region of the facade. Notice that almost all of the damage to the facade falls below this line, that is allegedly damage from the left wing. In fact, where there is damage to the facade above this line, there are still freaking windows in place. Yet, below the line is where the fuselage would have went. By contrast, most of the fuselage of a 757 is above the wings, obviously. Was your 757 flying upside-down or something?