9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by defcon5 There are two things I don’t like in these photos, first is that the planes should be much lower to the building then they are shown, and second is the scale of the global hawk. I have never been around a global Hawk, but I would have to assume from the pictures I have seen of them that they are much smaller then a 757.

In that image, I was scaling and positioning both aircraft so their tail was roughly aligned with what appeared and appears to me to be a tail in the original image. If you do not think an aircraft could be in that position (it wouldn't make sense to be there, because it would have essentially just bounced off the wall to be in that position at that time), I'd like to know what the airplane-like object in the image could be. I currently don't really have a position on this, it's just something I'd like to resolve. If it's not part of the aircraft, what is it? If it is part of the aircraft, why is it where it is when no photo evidence shows it there minutes after? (That fact alone kind of proves that it is not, in fact, the aircraft)

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae I don't know why people keep saying "It wasn't a missile" No serious researcher is saying it is So please everyone please drop the whole "It was a missile" or "It wasn't a missile" People like me that are serious researchers do not believe it was a missile, rather some sort of military drone.

I think it could be a drone - a drone 757. But there is really no evidence that another aircraft hit the Pentagon. There is physical evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. The identifiable wreckage IS from a 757. The smoke visible in the video COULD have occured from the engine hitting the lightposts. There ARE visible wing impact points. Aside from that, I just don't see why they would use another aircraft when they would already have that 757 and could just as easily use it. Or, if you're going to say they couldn't convert it into a drone that quickly or wouldn't be able to get people willing to sacrifice themselves, they could have used an identical airplane set up as a drone. Why, if you're going to commit a massive conspiracy, would you take the risk of using a completely different aircraft and possibly be discovered? I don't mean to discount any theories offhand, I just don't think there's evidence for it or that it makes sense from the conspirators' point of view.

From eyewitness accounts, it was a much flatter trajectory. According to at least one eyewitness account the plane actually hit the helipad and skipped off it into the building. IIRC the right engine struck a generator that was just in front of the building as it was coming in.

.... i think they didnt use a plane because they'd have to provide bodies on the outside of the pentagon, and plus, the area of the pentagon coincidently was under renovation when the ' object ' hit.. I think it was too damn hard to get a boeing to hit that precise section.. if it overshot by 20m's and slammed into the middle, good lord knows what actual critical and important data/infrastructre could been damaged. a drone/missle is precise, leaves no evidence and can be EASILY made to look like a plane. You only need to look at the 5-10m AROUND The entry point on the pentagon wall to reliase it wasnt a plane. Sure, if the wings sheered off and bent inward.. there would be a HELL of a indent , a hell of a crack on the outside wall to REFLECT the force needed to snap back wings and throw them 90degrees Its obviously not a plane. and anyone who says they physcially saw a boeing enter the pentagon I call you outright a LIAR! [edit on 20-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

Why would they have to put bodies on the outside of the building? The fuselage where the bodies were located, entered the building before exploding, taking the bodies with it. It's the same as at the WTC. The bodies from the planes all went into the building there, so why would the Pentagon be different? The Pentagon was COMPLETED on 9/11 when the plane hit. On Sept. 11, the contract officially complete, Fraunfelter was finishing up a few last punch-list items. He arrived on-site at 7 a.m. to prepare for an 8 a.m. tenant meeting. It was a routine job-completion task, a meeting where tenants handed over a list of final fix-it items: touch-up painting, leaking pipes, etc. [MSNBC] www.whatreallyhappened.com... The external portion was complete well before 9/11. The trailer and spools that were used were stil there because they were still working on the interior of the building. "that precise section" was the ENTIRE SIDE of the Pentagon. They didn't just rebuild a small section of the wall, they rebuilt the entire wall, along the entire side of the building. A drone/misile can NOT be easily made to look like a commercial plane. Look at the Global Hawk and the 757. They don't look ANYTHING alike. A lot of the UAVs out there aren't even jets for that matter. And a missile looking like a commercial plane? No way in hell. commons.wikimedia.org...:Tomahawk_Block_IV_cruise_missile.jpg How exactly are you going to make THAT look like a 757? Paint it silver with red, white and blue stripes on it? How many times are we going to have to repeat that the wings are the WEAKEST PART of the structure, and shatter very easily. They are NOT going to survive an impact, and are NOT going to leave a cartoon like imprint of a plane when they go into a building. *snort* Unless of course you're watching a cartoon. Look at almost ANY picture of a plane crash, where the plane hits at any kind of angle (not counting the WTC because those were different circumstances) and you will NOT see any evidence of the wings. They are just GONE. I'm glad to see that you can call so many respectable people liars. It's good to know that you're right and everyone who disagrees with you is a bloody fool and a liar.

...Well being the plane hit on sept11, and the renovations FINSIHED sept11 ,by logic the day wasnt over thus the renovations wasnt over. The normal amount of people WERNT in the area, due to the renovations. Ok, mayb the bodies wouldnt be on the OUTSIDE of the pentagon, but i dont recall seeing body bags... or anything of the same. Id expect when looking at the pile of rubble from the ' aircraft ' too see maybe a tail end?.. maybe be able to see IN the fuselage? the question was, if they wanted to the yshould of just used a boeing. I argue agains that, because a boeing is a giant piece of weapon. for the plane to come in THAT low, flying perfectly HORIZTONALLY the risk would be TOO great of itmissing its target by no more than 10-20m . Especailly since Rumy was in the building. and why would terrorists slam it into the OUTSIDE wall? why not drop it smack bang in the centre where the sensitive stuff is. and your absoltuely right, a missle looking like a commercial plane is impossible. but what about a smaller 10seater passenger jet? just because the wings are weak and dont survive impact doesnt mean when u fly them full ball into awall, the wall is going to come off with N OSCRATCHES.. there would be indents, there would be paint scrape there would be something. U show me on the photos of the pentagon ANYTHING like that your right, wings arent usually left behind.. but fuselages, cockpits and tails are?... or am I just watching cartoons again. And yes.. if someone came face to face and said to me they sat on a hhill and saw a boeing plane slam into the pentagon I personally beleive they are either curropt, liars simply to make them selves important.. But if you cant find me someone who says they sat there and watched the plane enter the pentagon i would love to talk to thenm. take a look at the photo at the bottom of page 3 of this thread it shows u the WTC point of impact notie the damage done BY The wings to this concrete/glass structure Now u show me the damage the wings did at the pentagon.. It must of hit with enough force to tear them 90degrees there has to be a slight scratch wouldnt you thinkg? [edit on 20-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

and why would terrorists slam it into the OUTSIDE wall? why not drop it smack bang in the centre where the sensitive stuff is.

You mean the sensitive stuff like picnic tables and whatnot? You do realize that the center of the Pentagon is an open courtyard don't you? Lots of sensitive top secret trees.

The plane hit at 500+ mph. the tail and the entire tail section followed the fuselage into the hole, with the exception of maybe the top part of it that would have impacted the wall, and shattered. I said OTHER THAN the WTC, because the wings wouldn't have shattered until the plane was IN the building. The WTC was a "soft" structure, and the wings and fuselage would have been able to penetrate before blowing apart. If you look at the pictures from say Colorado or Pennsylvania, where two 737s did a nosedive straight into the ground, there was no evidence of wing damage around the impact area, and no sign of the wings anywhere. A 10 or 12 seat bizjet wouldn't be able to cause the massive amounts of damage that were seen at the Pentagon. And if it was loaded with explosives the damage pattern would have been TOTALLY different. Instead of a hole in the outside wall going through the building, we would have had most of the section collapse, or a hole penetrating upward through the roof of the building, and there would have been building debris outside on the lawn of the building. Also, it wouldn't have impacted the generator, and moved it, like what actually happened. IIRC, the right engine impacted the generator and pushed it to the side. 10-12 seaters, and Bizjets have rear mounted engines under the tail, due to their size. Why use a Boeing? Because it makes the most sense. Airport security was, and still is a joke. It was even worse at the time of 9/11 because of the things that were legal to carry onto a plane in the cabin. It really wouldn't be that hard to make sure you hit the building. You had the entire side of the building to hit, and once you get low enough the ground effect keeps you up in the air, unless you do something to alter the lift of the plane. The only thing that MIGHT be left behind after a nose dive is a PORTION of the tail section. You're right in a conventional impact, where the plane hits on its belly and slides, then yes, there will be cockpit, portions of fuselage, and tail section left. Where a plane hits something like the ground, or a massive concrete and kevlar building, it's going to compress in on itself and blow apart. In an impact like this, where the plane obviusly flew into a mountain, then there will be big parts left.... This was a 737 that did a nosedive into the ground after suffering a rudder reversal. This is the entire crash site. [edit on 20-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

True.. but look at the impact crater around the crash then look at the pentagon even better LOOK at the pentagon PRIOR to that section collapsing on itself. And if u want to be a sm@rt@ss, why not fly the plane into the CENTRE rings then? The object that hit the pentagon simply vanished apart from a small scrap of external metal on the GRASS..... I spose everyone is going to have to agree to disagree I just think there is far MORE evidence pointing to something OTHER than a plane hitting the pentagon, compared to the evidence syaing a plane DID hit. Look at the friggen video footage from the sec camera.. how can a NOVICE arab pilot who only has minor training in simultaros fly a plane the low, the straight and that fast into a ground target.

Do you know how EASY it actually is? As long as you know how to set the switches for the autopilot, you don't even have to TOUCH the controls. The autopilot will fly it at whatever you set it at. You can set every flight parameter there is, and even fly it all the way down to the runway by turning knobs, once the autopilot is activated. Ever tried Microsoft Flight Sim? It's exactly the same as in a real cockpit. You set the autopilot, then set the altitude you want to fly at, and when they tell you to descend you set your descent rate, and new altitude, and the computer flies you to what you set. Set it for 25 feet, and it's going to fly you to 25 feet and KEEP YOU at 25 feet. I remember when we had a C-135 belonging to CINCAF that would come through that doubled as a testbed. At one time they were testing a new autolanding system. This plane had auto everything. Throttle, take-off, landing, etc. These were all older systems as well by the time I started seeing it. It's actually not as hard as it's made out to be if you know anything about the systems on the plane, and it's not that hard to learn how to use them. As far as diving into the inner rings, it's a lot harder to dive a plane straight down into a target, then fly a flat trajectory into the side of the building. [edit on 20-9-2005 by Zaphod58]

I think we have already established it was NOT a global hawk which hit the Pentagon... I think it was some sort of military drone painted like an American Airlines jet... Talking about a global hawk would only be going around in circles..

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae I think it was some sort of military drone painted like an American Airlines jet...

There were eye witneses who reported seeing the faces of the passsengers looking out the windows before the crash. Where those painted on also?

Originally posted by HowardRoark There were eye witneses who reported seeing the faces of the passsengers looking out the windows before the crash. Where those painted on also?

I'm neutral as far as the Pentagon crash goes, but I'll just say I'd have to doubt the reliability of anyone who says they can see passenger faces in a jet that's going by at 500mph. Sounds like one of those little embellishments that you add to a story to spice it up a little. How horrific it is to imagine in one's mind's eye the people pressed up against the windows, mutely screaming and such. "...but did it really happen that way, grandpa? Could you really see their faces?!" "Yes, Jimmy. As clearly as I can see yours now." "Woooooooow!! But why did the bad man fly the plane into the building, grandpa?" *frowning, looking off into the distance* "He hated freedom, Billy...he hated freedom." "It's Jimmy...not Billy."

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by HowardRoark There were eye witneses who reported seeing the faces of the passsengers looking out the windows before the crash. Where those painted on also?

I'm neutral as far as the Pentagon crash goes, but I'll just say I'd have to doubt the reliability of anyone who says they can see passenger faces in a jet that's going by at 500mph. Sounds like one of those little embellishments that you add to a story to spice it up a little. How horrific it is to imagine in one's mind's eye the people pressed up against the windows, mutely screaming and such. "...but did it really happen that way, grandpa? Could you really see their faces?!" "Yes, Jimmy. As clearly as I can see yours now." "Woooooooow!! But why did the bad man fly the plane into the building, grandpa?" *frowning, looking off into the distance* "He hated freedom, Billy...he hated freedom." "It's Jimmy...not Billy."

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by HowardRoark www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae I think it was some sort of military drone painted like an American Airlines jet...

There were eye witneses who reported seeing the faces of the passsengers looking out the windows before the crash. Where those painted on also?

I've never seen faces the multitude of times aircraft coming in to land at London Heathrow fly over the A30 and Southern Perimeter roads at Hatton Cross. Map

www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net... (ok, that one has the plane on the ground, but it is a good pic) www.airliners.net...

I have a hard time believing that anyone actually saw faces in the window given how small the windows are, and how hard they are to see into, but there aren't any drones in the current inventory that could be made up to look ANYTHING like a 757, or that could do things that this plane did when it hit the building. All drones are rear engined, most of them propellor driven. Hitting a light pole would destroy them, being that Global Hawk is the biggest of the bunch at 44 feet. There is no way for a drone to hit and move a giant generator like the one that was moved outside the wall of the Pentagon. No way would a drone punch through a kevlar reinforced wall, and then penetrate all the way through and make a hole in the inner wall like what happened. As I stated earlier, if you pack it with explosives you have a COMPLETELY different blast pattern than you actually have here. There would have been large amounts of wall blown outward, all over the lawn, and NO WAY would have have survivors, including one from the ground floor near where the plane impacted. All of these things would only be possible with an underwing engined plane, which means a larger commercial plane, at LEAST 737 sized. [edit on 9/20/2005 by Zaphod58]

Howard, It's just about possible to see faces on your large sized stills that you linked to. It's different again on a plane coming into land at 100mph or whatever. It's nigh on impossible at 450mph. Seeing faces in windows is certainly tinfoil hat territory.

I have no problem with their being faces in the windows, as I have pretty much always been of the opinion that the planes were probably either remote controlled using technology that has been around for years (perhaps modified accordingly), with the poor passengers and helpless flight crew in them, or that the terrorists were simply patsies - which seems to fit with a lot of the smoking guns. Also the fact that the witness in this case is SO's brother adds an enormous amount of credibility to the account. But on the other hand I've seen many, many planes landing and taking off (relatively slower speeds than cruising), and never once do I recall being able to make out people's faces in the windows. Those still, un-motion-blurred pictures you linked to Howard only serve to confirm this rather than refute it, especially when looking at the picture of the plane closer to a 757's size and at the expected distance the witness would be in this case. I doubt if you saw this going past at 730ft/s that you'd be able to pick out faces. So it would be interesting to talk to SO or his brother regarding the matter and investigate further into that one, but in the end I don't think it really matters. [edit on 2005-9-21 by wecomeinpeace]