9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by Light Being Enough time to doctor evidence if you ask me. If you doubt that it's possible, you obviously don't know enough about the fraudulent moonwalk.

That part right there says to me that you demand there be a conspiracy regardless of if there is or is not an actual one. The moon landing was real, there is absolutely no proof anywhere from any source that it was not. I know a lot about the moon landing and the "faked moon landing conspiracy". Enough to know that there simply is not one single shred of scientific evidence, not one single whistle blower out of 20,000 people that worked on the actual moon landing, and not one single denouncing of the moon landing from what was then communist Russia. Everyone knows it was real, even the enemy of the West at the time knew it was real -- can you serisouly tell yourself that the USSR wouldn't have proven it was faked to the rest of the world?

The moon landing was real, the 757 that hit the Pentagon was real.

Fact is they DID tape the moonlanding in a studio, IN CASE something went wrong, directed by Lynch or Kubrik I can't remember. There's a great docu about this with ALL the "big guys" talking about it. Henry Kissinger being one of them.

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by Shroomery So you think the administration is able to send a couple FBI agents to a local gas-station to confiscate security tapes but is somehow unable to call CNN or FOX asking them not to show any of the evidence ?

Do I think the FBI can confiscate tapes from one source or two sources? Yes, I sure do. Do I think the FBI can stop 3 national Networks, 5 Cable Networks, and 6 News Networks from broadcasting LIVE, an attack on the two largest buildings in the largest city in the USA, to over 2 billion people world-wide? Hell no.

Poor CatHerder, you're also naive like truck. You still think your media is unbiased or uncensored ? You also seem to incorporate some useless facts and numbers, why don't you stick to those that matter instead of trying to sensationalize it? What does it matter if there were 2billion or 20 people on the receiving end ? It's not like the FBI or any agency has to turn off 2billion tv sets, you just need to get to the source. If they didn't want those tapes to be shown, they could've called any tv-station BEFORE the towers were hit. Besides, the video of the first tower getting hit was only shown the next day, you'd think that's enough time huh?

Originally posted by CatHerder Do I think the FBI can confiscate tapes from one source or two sources? Yes, I sure do. Do I think the FBI can stop 3 national Networks, 5 Cable Networks, and 6 News Networks from broadcasting LIVE, an attack on the two largest buildings in the largest city in the USA, to over 2 billion people world-wide? Hell no.

3 national news, 5 cable networks and 6 news networks, ...let's see, um, carry the one, ...ummm, ....14 phone calls. yeah, the fbi couldn't make fourteen phonecalls. that's crazy.

Originally posted by Shroomery Fact is they DID tape the moonlanding in a studio, IN CASE something went wrong, directed by Lynch or Kubrik I can't remember. There's a great docu about this with ALL the "big guys" talking about it. Henry Kissinger being one of them.

I realise this is off-topic, and for that I apologise whole-heartedly; but could you please point me in the direction of this documentary? Thanks (You surely don't mean Kubrick's mockumentary, do you? Mentioned here? )...this wasn't a documentary at all, but an exercise in how easy it is to fool an audience... More on it here [edit on 9-9-2005 by Tinkleflower]

Well I wish I had more information but I bumped into while zapping around it so I missed the title. I'll have a look. And no it was not a mockumentary. It was on national tv, one that is known for it's unbiased and 'unsensational' docu's btw.

Originally posted by Shroomery I'll have a look. And no it was not a mockumentary. It was on national tv, one that is known for it's unbiased and 'unsensational' docu's btw.

The show to which I referred contained the Kissinger comments, too....are you positive it's not the one? It was shown on national TV. In case I gave the wrong link Seriously, shroomery - are you sure this isn't the one? I can't find anything, anywhere, otherwise connecting Kubrick, Kissinger and the moon-landings.

Has anyone seen pictures of the downed light poles on the freeway that were knocked over by the "757" as it came in? All the pictures I have seen of these look suspicious in the fact that they look as though they were dropped off the back of a utility truck rather than struck by an aircraft at high velocity. Here's a link to one site I found that analyzes some of the images available... Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, some of the images toward the end have "disappeared." pentagoncab.multiservers.com... Peace, ~Jammer

how did the "agents" thowing the light poles off the back of the truck hit the windshield of this cab? external image Link to fullsize image [edit on 9/9/05 by JAK]

Originally posted by jammerman they look as though they were dropped off the back of a utility truck rather than struck by an aircraft at high velocity.

Shame nobody actually saw this happening. The reason the fallen light posts don't look too damaged (except missing the actual light bit) is that most modern street lights are fitted with a "breakaway base" which helps absorb impact should a vehicle collide with one. Please see following links for more info: ddot.dc.gov... think its on page 15 where there is comparison between different construction material. This is from District of Columbia's street lighting policy. also: www.millerberndmfg.com...

I honestly dont think an airplane hit the Pentagon. Airplanes are very loud and have that airplane engine sound to them. If a 747 came that close to the ground it would be extremely loud and no one would question if it was an airplane or not. And with the exhaust of such strong engines the Pentalawn should show damage. But it doesnt. And where is all the metal from this 747? And all the luggage and passengers? Were there even people there do check for Cordite and such in case of there being explosives? Like it has been mentioned, people were saying that a plane did'nt hit the Pentagon. That was before claims that a plane did hit came about. Its just too easy to see that terrorists were not to blame for 9/11. Anyone who cant see that is gullible to media influence. And if you believe that it indeed was terrorists who attacked, as the media leads you to believe, then naturally you would believe that a plane also hit the Pentagon, as the media would lead you to believe. And I agree, with the other poster, there is no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. Its all media hear-say.

it was NOT a 747. It was a 757. There is a HUGE difference between the two. 747: www.airliners.net... 757: www.airliners.net... A 757 is MUCH smaller than a 747. [edit on 9-9-2005 by Zaphod58] [edit on 9-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

Honest mistake don't you think ? 747 or 757, the point is, they are loud.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 it was NOT a 747. It was a 757. There is a HUGE difference between the two. 747: www.airliners.net... 757: www.airliners.net... A 757 is MUCH smaller than a 747. [edit on 9-9-2005 by Zaphod58] [edit on 9-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

You gut some proof with that claim? Not that it makes a difference, I still dont think a plane hit.

Ever heard a 757? I don't think I'd call that "very loud". Part of the point of the 757 and 767 was to make them quiet because of noise regulations. I'm directly underneath the final approach path for Honolulu International and have 757s, 767s, 747s etc fly right past my house all day every day and most of the time never know when the 757s and 767s are passing by. Sure they're higher than if they were about to hit the Pentagon, but I've been right at the end of the runway when they take off, and they're a LOT quieter than you think, and that's a full power. High-bypass-ratio engines combined with the wing design help make the 757 one of the quietest, most fuel-efficient jetliners in the world. The engines have large diameter fans which move more air outside and around the hot core, boosting efficiency while reducing noise. Noise containment is further aided by acoustic linings in the engine nacelles. Engines are available from Pratt & Whitney or Rolls-Royce in thrust ratings from 38,200 (17,300 kg) to 43,100 pounds (19,500 kg). When compared to any single-aisle jetliner in service today, the 757 is unsurpassed in fuel-efficiency. It consumes up to 43 percent less fuel per seat than older trijets. www.geocities.com... Finally, the Boeing 757 Freighter is the quietest freighter in the world — so quiet that most airports that impose night noise restrictions allow the 757 to operate unhindered. www.boeing.com... Some Stage 3 "quiet" aircraft are: 757, 72 dBEPN www.caan.org... 757/200 255,500# 86.8Db at full power for take-off. [edit on 9-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by ResinLA

Originally posted by Zaphod58 it was NOT a 747. It was a 757. There is a HUGE difference between the two. 747: www.airliners.net... 757: www.airliners.net... A 757 is MUCH smaller than a 747. [edit on 9-9-2005 by Zaphod58] [edit on 9-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

You gut some proof with that claim? Not that it makes a difference, I still dont think a plane hit.

Proof of what? The size difference, or that the flight was a 757? Either one, simply do the SLIGHTEST bit of research and you will find it. But since you can't seem to do that much, I'll do it for you. Size difference: 747- Homepage: www.boeing.com... No. Of Engines: 4 Aircraft Type: Jet Passenger Capacity (Max): 569 Passenger Capacity (Min): 374 Range (in Miles): 6,500 Cruising Speed (MPH): 557 Payload Capacity (in Lbs): 134,000 Wingspan: 195 Length: 231 Height: 63 Takeoff Weight (in Lbs): 875,000 Body Type: widebody Cabin Type: pressurized 757- Homepage: www.boeing.com... No. Of Engines: 2 Aircraft Type: Jet Passenger Capacity (Max): 239 Passenger Capacity (Min): 188 Range (in Miles): 4500 Cruising Speed (MPH): 475 Payload Capacity (in Lbs): 38,940 Wingspan: 124 Length: 155 Height: 44 Takeoff Weight (in Lbs): 220,000 Body Type: Cabin Type: pressurized A Boeing 757 en route from Dulles International Airport near Washington to Los Angeles. The plane was carrying 58 passengers, four flight attendants and two pilots. It crashed into the Pentagon about 9:40 a.m. ET. www.usatoday.com... Even though this page disagrees that it was a 757 it says that Flight 77 WAS a 757, repeatedly. www.freedomfiles.org... American Airlines Flight 77. Boeing 757 flying from Dulles Airport outside Washington to Los Angeles. 58 passengers, four flight attendants and two pilots. Hijackers: Khalid Almihdhar (Seat 12B), Majed Moqed (Seat 12A), Nawaf Alhazmi, Salem Alhazmi (Seat 5F), and Hani Hanjour (the likely pilot). billstclair.com...

Originally posted by jammerman Has anyone seen pictures of the downed light poles on the freeway that were knocked over by the "757" as it came in? All the pictures I have seen of these look suspicious in the fact that they look as though they were dropped off the back of a utility truck rather than struck by an aircraft at high velocity. Here's a link to one site I found that analyzes some of the images available... Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, some of the images toward the end have "disappeared." pentagoncab.multiservers.com...

These lights were sheared off at their weakest point, the bolts that held them to the cement. Seems pretty straightforward to me…

Originally posted by ResinLA And with the exhaust of such strong engines the Pentalawn should show damage. But it doesnt.

If jets exhaust hurt grass that much then airports would have to have a full time staff to sit and replace the grass at the end of the runways and at every turn on each taxiway… [edit on 9/10/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Shroomery Fact is they DID tape the moonlanding in a studio, IN CASE something went wrong, directed by Lynch or Kubrik I can't remember. There's a great docu about this with ALL the "big guys" talking about it. Henry Kissinger being one of them.

Prove it: Provide links, names of videos, ISBN numbers, anything to prove this. Hurry up, the bullshit you've splashed here is already drying up! But I already know which "documentary" you're talking about: it's called DARK SIDE OF THE MOON (documentary says moon photos were faked, 'but we DID go to the moon' say Kissinger-Rumsfield-Haig-Helms). CBC Passionate Eye, Nov 17, 2003 -- funny how you're totally wrong about Kissinger etc in your post. Why do inept fools like you always make crap up when you have nothing valid or true to post? Or perhaps you've confused a fiction movie made in the late 70's for reality? It's ok, we understand.

Originally posted by Shroomery Poor CatHerder, you're also naive like truck. You still think your media is unbiased or uncensored ?

Nope, but I think you're what we in Canada would call "challenged" so I'll try to type slower in this response so you can keep up.

You also seem to incorporate some useless facts and numbers, why don't you stick to those that matter instead of trying to sensationalize it? What does it matter if there were 2billion or 20 people on the receiving end ? It's not like the FBI or any agency has to turn off 2billion tv sets, you just need to get to the source. If they didn't want those tapes to be shown, they could've called any tv-station BEFORE the towers were hit. Besides, the video of the first tower getting hit was only shown the next day, you'd think that's enough time huh?

The question you asked was answered. If you're too ignorant to realise that there were thousands of news media in New York (as there always are), and each one of them is vying to get the best story out there (it's their job, it's how they make money; it's how they get the best assignments; it's how they get promotions), then there's not much I can do to help clarify things for you. But I'll try one last time since you seem to only be able to mock people when you have nothing of substance for any of your posts. (You're a forum troll, and the sad part is you're not even a very intelligent one, you bring no challenge to your witless blather.) If you have a large attack in a city the size of New York, there is no way on earth you could stop it from getting on TV and in the media unless you lined up 10,000+ media personalities and shot them all in the head. Is that clearer for you?

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by jammerman Has anyone seen pictures of the downed light poles on the freeway that were knocked over by the "757" as it came in? All the pictures I have seen of these look suspicious in the fact that they look as though they were dropped off the back of a utility truck rather than struck by an aircraft at high velocity. Here's a link to one site I found that analyzes some of the images available... Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, some of the images toward the end have "disappeared." pentagoncab.multiservers.com...

These lights were sheared off at their weakest point, the bolts that held them to the cement. Seems pretty straightforward to me…

Yeah, I understand that the bolts are designed to break away, but even when a car hits a light pole at a relatively slow speed (55 mph), there will be an obvious impact point when the light pole was struck. I see no evidence where the plane hit the various light poles I've seen in photographs. Also note that the car photograph that HowardRoark posted only has the windshield smashed in but the hood and top of the car are prestine. It makes the scene look suspicious and just doesn't add up when combined with the other evidence I've seen regarding this incident. Peace, ~Jammer+

Originally posted by ResinLA And with the exhaust of such strong engines the Pentalawn should show damage. But it doesnt.

Gosh, howcome all these tourists don't get tossed around from all this exhaust from these strong engines? Do a search for Maho Beach and see thousands upon thousands of photos of huge (and small) aircraft flying right over the top of tourists day after day after day... An aircraft sitting still on the ground creates considerable thrust behind it's engines: an aircraft flying through the sky does not create anywhere near as much. I think you need to rethink your idea above (or the website where you read it needs to educate themselves a bit).