The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

A reply to: Zaphod58

Flight 93 passengers knew also about that time about the fate of two planes in Manhattan, and revolted.
Why would it be so farfetched to suppose that the same was also known already inside Flight 77 ? Air-phones and hand-phones a lot at hand.

That's probably why D8Tee said :
""One thing that I have questions about, there were a lot of ex military on the plane, if I remember right the pilot himself had been in the Air force. I just don't get how some guys with boxcutters could take control of the plane and not have a fight on their hands.""

Zaphod58, found it :

As his last US flight-school instructor told the press from the beginning, in all his early days interviews, given to the main press cartels :
"The man (Hani Hanjour) couldn't fly at all, and couldn't speak English properly enough to even understand basic instructions".
All pilots have to be able to communicate with ground stations in English, beside their mother tongue, when applying for a US commercial plane certificate from a US flight school.

The question is, did Hanjour show that (false) certificate to that last instructor, and wouldn't it be a logical expectation that the authorities would have been warned by that instructor, since Hanjour's skills did not match his US endorsed license AT ALL .?
Answered in this post by wildb on page 26.! They did try to warn the aviation agency : no response :

NYTimes : A trainee noted for incompetence, 2002/05/04 : Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the Federal Aviation Agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.

A bit more details :

Records show a Hani Hanjour obtained a license in 1999 in Scottsdale, Ariz. Previous and sometimes contradictory reports said he failed in 1996 and 1997 to obtain a license at other schools.

''The staff thought he was a very nice guy, but they didn't think his English was up to level,'' said Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the Pan Am International Flight Academy, which operated the center in Phoenix. Ms. Ladner said that the F.A.A. examined Mr. Hanjour's credentials and found them legitimate and that an inspector, by coincidence, attended a class with Mr. Hanjour. The inspector also offered to find an interpreter to help Mr. Hanjour, she said.

''He ended up observing Hani in class,'' Ms. Ladner added, ''though that was not his original reason for being there.''

Company officials briefed members of Congress about the case, including Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota, who made public some of its general details in December.

The aviation agency did not return a call for comment.

Pan Am International, one of the largest pilot schools in the nation, also operated the flight school in Eagan, Minn., near Minneapolis, where the instructors' suspicions led to the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, the man whom the authorities have said was intended to be the 20th hijacker.

Ms. Ladner said the Phoenix staff never suspected that Mr. Hanjour was a hijacker but feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.

''There was no suspicion as far as evildoing,'' Ms. Ladner said. ''It was more of a very typical instructional concern that 'you really shouldn't be in the air.' ''

A former employee of the school said that the staff initially made good-faith efforts to help Mr. Hanjour and that he received individual instruction for a few days. But he was a poor student. On one written problem that usually takes 20 minutes to complete, Mr. Hanjour took three hours, the former employee said, and he answered incorrectly.

Ultimately, administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. ''He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course,'' the ex-employee said.

Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''

Compliance to treason somewhere at the FAA levels before 9/11, ordered from "above" ? Or, more probable, just a good double of the real licensed Hanjour, and the FAA did not check his passport with his fingerprints.? At that time, not really normal practice. A good looking double could slip easily through with stolen papers.

A reply to: Mianeye

Those are the ones I was waiting for, the two 757 fly-byes.
The official story trajectory in the last 5 seconds, proposed Flight 77 as flying in a straight line at top speed (530 to 545 MPH = 473 knots = 954 KMH ) in that dense air with the plane its belly a few meters off the ground.
The pilots in these two 757 videos did by far not fly at their plane its top speeds, more like half of it at most and did not want to keep flying for half a mile at 954 KMH with their plane's belly at 10 to 3 meter above ground level and straight while aiming at a very low impact in a solid brick wall, at first floor level, +/- 3.30 m above soil.

In these 757 fly by videos you hear the pilot pushing full throttle already at the end of its downwards curve, to be sure that he had enough reserve power left, to get out of his dive.
This fly-by was also assisted by the ground effect affecting this plane's wings, thus lifting those wings and plane upwards with some additional force.
If this pilot would have opted to fly from there on also for five seconds in a STRAIGHT line and at 954 KMH TOP SPEED, just a few meters above the soil, he would have had to push and pull his stick repeatedly to compensate for the pushing-up effect of the still present at that huge speed, near-ground effect, in other words, the plane its wing surfaces are under the influence of the still existing ground effect, caused by the disturbed air flow vortexes at both wing tips, which results in an upwards force that pushes the whole plane up, when not compensated by any pilot input, such as a short push on the steering column to change the position of the ailerons downwards on all 4 wing surfaces, followed directly by a slightly less forceful pull on the steering column to keep the plane's belly on a somewhat erratic straight path about 5 to 3 meters above the soil, until it has flown half a mile at that height above ground. And all of that repeated pushing and pulling of the steering column has one reason only, to battle the ground effect.

Ground effect is getting less at higher air speeds. However, it is still present at top speeds of 900+ km/hr in such dense air just a few meters above ground level.
Only some kind of digital autopilot functions can compensate fast enough for that small but important ground effect at a top speed of 473 KTS / 545 MPH / 954 km/hr, to result in a straight line trajectory, if manually done, it will result in a VERY bumpy ride.

Did the pilot knew about the two first floors from facade wall to C-Ring outer wall, without concrete wall dividers, but just glued together soft chalk block walls or thin hardboard walls inside.? Perhaps because he would have made much less damage when aiming at the by far easier to hit third to fifth floors.?
Why did he choose to hit extremely difficult, exactly in between those two as good as open floors just above ground ?

a reply to: LaBTop

The bumpy ride can possibly be seen in this cockpit video of a low pass 757, the lowest he goes is 20, i'm not sure of the measurements, is it feet ?



Wouldn't the ground effect be very short for the plane at the Pentagon at the speed it was going, as it only seem to be at the very last part he is very close to the ground.

I can't say why he went for the lower floor in stead of aiming more center of the building, but possibly because he didn't have time to correct upwards after aiming down towards the building.

The 25 NoC witnesses saw a plane flying in a curved turn around the north side of the CITGO gas station, just about 60 meters north of the northern CITGO canopy, flying with a turn radius of 2.053 Km, and flying in a (near) standard right bank angle attitude of 30° up to 35°, thus at an initial speed -when entering the turn- of 234.109 KTS ( 269.4 MPH).
Which half as fast speed as written in the Flight 77 its DFDR makes it easy to level off again before it reached Route 27, descend to 5 meters above the lawn and finally slam into the Pentagon West wall at 3.3 meters high, into column 14 its huge second floor slab.

This following "Speed" video is offered, so the forum reader can see how a 473 KTS / 545 MPH / 954 km/hr flying plane trajectory will REALLY look like, when a plane is seen racing from one boundary in your eyesight, to the other.
From a viewing distance of a few 100 meters at most, but for the NoC main group of witnesses, less, or much less than a hundred meters / yards.

That rocket sledge FOR SURE goes MUCH MUCH faster than the 757 planes in the video examples.
And that rocket sledge still goes 45 MPH slower than Flight 77 in its last officially endorsed five seconds, if you still option to believe the last seconds of data from the recovered DFDR.

Which last seconds could however easily have been tampered with, as all the 25 NoC eyewitness statements strongly indicate.

This following example, titled "Speed", shows in the first minute a rocket powered sledge on rails, going 500 miles per hour and slamming into a car at the end of the 700 feet track.
www.youtube.com...



Watch the side view of that rocket driven sledge at 0:55 and 1:00, smashing from right to left over your screen, and realize that 545 MPH = 473 knots was the speed read-out in Flight 77 its recovered DFDR (digital flight data recorder) at the moment when the plane hit the Pentagon West wall. This rocket sledge goes 45 MPH slower, but still accelerates very fast to 500 MPH.
Everyone can see that it goes MUCH FASTER than the 757's in the two videos from Mianeye.

This is strange as well, funny how the truth will always stagger out. www.thetruthseeker.co.uk... this guy didn't pay his UK TV licence because the BBC showed the third building collapsing twenty mins. before it did. He claimed why should he pay for fake news...What's surprising is that the Judge agreed and let him walk.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: LaBTop

The bumpy ride can possibly be seen in this cockpit video of a low pass 757, the lowest he goes is 20, i'm not sure of the measurements, is it feet ?

Wouldn't the ground effect be very short for the plane at the Pentagon at the speed it was going, as it only seem to be at the very last part he is very close to the ground.

I can't say why he went for the lower floor in stead of aiming more center of the building, but possibly because he didn't have time to correct upwards after aiming down towards the building.

To be fair I think he was quite lucky to have hit the building at all after seeing the reconstructed animation of the flight. I'm not sure how much actual "aiming" there was

originally posted by: anonentity
This is strange as well, funny how the truth will always stagger out. www.thetruthseeker.co.uk... this guy didn't pay his UK TV licence because the BBC showed the third building collapsing twenty mins. before it did. He claimed why should he pay for fake news...What's surprising is that the Judge agreed and let him walk.

What's surprising is that people think a conditional discharge and £200 costs is "letting him walk"

A reply to: Mianeye

Don't think so, because the video is just as bumpy as that 757 descends and ascends again at hundreds of meters above ground. By the way, seems more like a full flaps touch and go maneuver to me, according to that slow landing speed.

The massive ground effect was quite well measurable for Flight 77, if you believe in those last 5 seconds DFDR diagram, it shows 4.5 seconds of a VERY BUMPY ride, measured by a very rigid meter in the cockpit. Can you see the effects of 5 light poles broken in there, or from an outer lower right wing part, scraping 20 to 30 cm (1 foot) deep diagonally into the roof of that generator trailer.? All quite abnormal and perhaps quite heavy impacts on the way in, in those last 4.5 seconds. Strange that the author opted for text about fluttering.
If you believe the OS it could fit. For the NoC story, nothing of those events possible at all.

I strongly believe the "price" was the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) with its newly replaced mainframes with all those pesky secrets from all powerful American oligarchs and top brass of the military industrial complex in them..
The rest was in WTC-7...back-ups and all, gone too.
There is a constant underground war of beliefs going on in the US military since WW II, and those 30 poor guys who were ordered for a 9:30 meeting in those rooms, were the sour losers that day. Study the +hundred year old history of Naval Intelligence, they were the ones the NSA and CIA were deeply afraid of.
Was it just coincidence that all the auditors for the "misplaced Rumsfeld trillions" were situated at the same floors.?
OR NOT.?
ONI would closely cooperate with those auditors, and could have given them some clues already, on paper, how the top brass did get away so long already with their creative trillions spending bookkeeping. Nothing better than making a mess from it all, every year. Best expenditure and cash-hiding method known to men.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I think we all really know deep down that 757s don't fit through 20ft holes.

Just as we also really know that 19 hijackers armed with nothing more than box cutters and severe lack of operational flight experience could never have perpitrated the rest of the travesty.

911 was a false flag incident so we could all get back in to raping and pillaging the middle east under the pretense of going after terrorists.

911encyclopedia.com...

Video Footage Pentagon

On December 15, 2004 Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking all records pertaining to camera recordings from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation.

On May 16, 2006 the following footage was released:

www.judicialwatch.org... (5756 frames)

www.judicialwatch.org... (6076 frames)

On December 26, 2009 Erik Larson filed a FOIA request for additional AA77/Pentagon information with the FBI. On March 16, 2010 the FBI released higher quality copies of the security camera videos previously obtained by Judicial Watch:

(Note the originals are encoded with ADV1, a format used by old CCTV systems)

nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com...
----237.rar
----237 FBI FOIPA Source : Torrent-file

nate.flach.s3.amazonaws.com...
----135.rar
----135 FBI FOIPA Source : Torrent-file


911 Case Study - Pentagon Flight 77: www.youtube.com...

The 11094135.avi file is the unobstructed Pentagon North Parking entrance camera-boot view, the 11094237.avi file has the two boot-boxes in view.

911 Case study - Pentagon Flight 77 :



After studying 20 hrs both those, new to me, Nate Flach .avi videos extensively, it looks as if my late 2015 observation based on my study of the 2 Judicial Watch videos was not correct.
I took the long purple coloration line at the left side of the top of the obstructing boot's camera box as an indication of the purple top line on the fuselage of an AA 757. Which turns out to be not the case, when I look at the new unobstructed camera view video 11094135.avi .
And then compare that new unobstructed view with the new camera-box obstructed other video-view which shows only a tail-fin above the camera-box at the right side of the obstructed camera viewing field, and not much more, at frame 00:22 from the 11094237.avi video.

There is one quite suspicious anomaly between frame 00:22 and 00:23 : there's definitely no shadow under the white curled smoke in frame 00:22, while in frame 00:23 there is a distinct one under the same smoke (to the right of that camera-box).

In VLC Media Player you can set Advanced Operation (in their upper-Menu column between Extra and Help), then you can at the now showing new upper bottom left menu, repeatedly toggle between frame 00:21 and 00:23 by setting point A (00:21) and B (00:23). And then use Reverse Colors in Extended Options/Video-Effects/Colors, you then see clearly the tail-fin appearing, but the nose cone is difficult to find in the few pixels that change there at the left side of that camera box, between frames.

In the unobstructed one you see suddenly at 1:24 on the far right side a distinct plane that seems to have a length, after carefully measuring, very near to 1.3 times the height of the West wall at my ROUGHLY GUESSED impact point. Which wall-height there at my guessed column 14 position, is my calculated 70 % of the length of a 757-200.
It thus seems that we see a plane flying along the OS flight path, South of the Citgo station, along a circa 45 degrees to that wall path, because the plane length we measure is 1.5 times bigger than the vertical wall height-line through the roughly guesstimated column 14 impact point.
However, a few millimeter to the right would favor a NoC flight path again, and it's also very difficult to find the bottom line of the first floor there, since we also have about a one third wide shadow of the wall on the ground there.

The only reason why I use the words "seem", "guess" and "looks" so often above :
It's triggered by some grave uncertainties in the measurements.
The camera lenses were clearly both fish-eye types, which gives a lot of distortion, especially at the peripheries of the viewing field, and that's exactly the only place where we see a distinct unobstructed plane coming in sight, at the far right side of the 11094135.avi video frame 1:24. This could mean that in reality that plane should be longer, if we could find a way to flatten that video out to normal proportions, and then the ratio would change again, more nearing a 2 x bigger plane length than the wall at impact is high, which would again indicate a NoC flight path.

It is also very difficult to obtain the right impact spot in the grainy videos.
I took a pencil and drew thin lines on my screen around the plane, and over the contours of the building and the helipad tower, which can only be seen good enough in frame 1:25 of the unobstructed 11094135.avi video.
You must now guess at which spot behind that tower the impact takes place.
But that vertical height-line must be drawn in front of the dip in the roof line, which indicates the end of the long protruding part of that West wall, since in that most southern part of it, was the impact, not too far, about 30 meters from that roof dip, but the distances there are also very distorted and compressed.
AND, we still have those 25 NoC flight path eyewitnesses, I can't imagine honest reasoning to get rid of them.

THUS : a task for a real good video analyzer with better programs than VLC Media Player, to get rid of all uncertainties. I really am looking for assistance in this important subject, someone who can solve this more convincing than me.
One of our own clever readers/posters perhaps.?
Perhaps Ken Jenkins and David Chandler again, that would be nice, their blink technique works surprisingly well, since there is now such a technique available too in VLC Media Player that comes with Win10 and gets updated on the fly.
They could have a sharper version taken from the original source file.?
When someone is in touch with one of these guys, please give them the link to this post.

In VLC Media Player you can use its extended options : Video-effects/Colors/Switch colors or Reduce Gradation, to toggle the colors and clearly see then the plane entering the scene at the far right at frame 1:24 in 11094237.avi.
Make an endless-loop then by toggling from frame A (set at 1:23) to B (set at 1:24) with their Toggle A-B tool, from Advanced Operation. Which does the same as Chandler's Blink Comparator tool.
I have to explore all the possibilities hidden inside VLC Media Player, there is much more to find out there. Who knows, perhaps can I fresh up or sharpen those videos a bit with all those further settings in their upper Menus.

I'm opting for a well earned sleep now, help us all out in the mean time.
If we could agree, trusters and doubters alike, that we definitely have a S or N of Citgo gas station going flight path, calculated and reasoned at such level that everybody HAS to agree, that would gain me and a lot of other members a lot of, otherwise lost, analyzing hours. And calm a lot of members down.

Thanks in advance for ANY help.
This manner of analyzing has the seed of unity in it, if we can sharpen the whole video up somewhat. I had already given to me, an FBI program in the late 90ties, that could fresh up a bad video considerably.
It's lost in a hard disk meltdown...what a pity. There must be other newer and more sophisticated pixel refreshment programs nowadays, after 20 years of progress.

originally posted by: Xenogears

Again however no truther can explain how this vast (and it would indeed have to be vast) conspiracy could be carried out and kept secret for 15 years. No one with any credibility has come forward to say "I worked on the plan"...well actually I take that back Khalid Shek Muhammad specifically said that he worked on the plan.

Two things, first in the real world a pedo sharing network with 70,000 members operated in secret for years, iirc. So even the most horrible of things can be kept secret. Those with knowledge might be far less than 70,000, also they could've been chosen cultists or member of some secret order... we know cultists are capable of self torture, lying, murder and even suicide in the name of their beliefs. Also those who have patriotic reasons might do so too, I hear the nuke program had nearly a fifth of a million people involved, and it was kept secret during the war, and right now many if not most do not know how to make a nuke in fine detail.

Many, if not most, of the world religions are basically founded on make believe by many cultists keeping the secret of their fake leader for their entire lifetime.

Second, and more speculative, the simulation theory. Say this world was built for entertainment by a conspiracy nut, or fan, all manner of conspiracy could actually be real. You could have mind control, NPCs, etc all manner of things, could happen, designed to foster back and forth debates between conspiracists and anticonspiracists.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: D8Tee

Prior to 2001, flight crews were trained to give hijackers the aircraft, keep passengers in their seats, and get the aircraft on the ground where they could negotiate with the hijackers. It's not like today, where they'd actually fight back. The crews would actually stop people from fighting back.

Didn't they fortify cockpit doors to ensure if the pilot is suicidal and crazy bye-bye you're not taking control of it.

BTW, is cockpit another of those weird 'manly' words like seminal?

Your comparison of a pedo network to a potential 911 conspiracy is off base.
Setting up an maintaining an online file sharing network is a task that can be achieved by a small number of people. The level of anonymity is very high. The group can maintain that high degree of anonymity. The activity takes place in a digital world with no exposure to public view. It is a self functioning activity. In other words the people who set it up do not have a need to maintain control over the day to day functionality to make it work.

In order to place explosives in any of the buildings involved in 9-11 you need access and the work would take place in public view. You would need face to face contact and meetings with people NOT in the conspiracy.
In order for false evidence to be placed at all of the sites it would need to be done at or near the time that the observed attacks took place. There would need to be a very high degree of coordination and it again would be in open display for the public to witness with lots of face to face contact. There would need to be so many people involved to execute this as a "false" attack that mistakes would happen. The planners and controllers of the operation could not maintain the level of control over the pace and execution of the activity. There would be timing gaps. There would be leaks of information through the points of failure.
Recall there is an old saying.
"no plan survives contact with the enemy"
Roughly stated it means that you can plan all you want but the more steps your plan has, the more complexity it has, and the more points of failure it has, the higher the odds that it fails.

What truthers are asking everyone to believe is that the shadow government, planned and executed a mission that was on the level of the D-Day landing, and that it was executed flawlessly and so perfectly that they succeeded in fooling everyone in the world. EXCEPT, the truthers who saw through the tiny cracks and imperfections of this devious plan. Remember D-Day was almost a failure, because of all of the mistakes.

I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that a shadow government that has been in place for decades assisted the 9-11 hijackers. They may have helped finance them. They may have used insider contacts to weaken or delay the response to the attacks. They may have given them visas to enter the country and provided other material support.
I will ask those kinds of questions and would like an investigation that looks into those kinds of possibilities.
The problem is that the Truther movement is so full of imbeciles and pseudo-scientific investigation that any talk of seriously finding the truth is overshadowed and drowned in youtube videos screeching about micro nukes and hologram airplanes. In other words the truthers cant get out of their own way and cant avoid looking like complete mush heads.


One other thing. Cockpit is an old naval term.

a reply to: andy06shake

I think we all really know deep down that 757s don't fit through 20ft holes

Except that hole in Pentagon E Ring was measured at 96 feet ........

a reply to: LaBTop

. Flight 93 passengers knew also about that time about the fate of two planes in Manhattan, and revolted.
Why would it be so farfetched to suppose that the same was also known already inside Flight 77 ? Air-phones and hand-phones a lot at hand.

That's probably why D8Tee said :
""One thing that I have questions about, there were a lot of ex military on the plane, if I remember right the pilot himself had been in the Air force. I just don't get how some guys with boxcutters could take control of the plane and not have a fight on their hands.""

Passengers on United 175 which hit South Tower of WTC were considering some sort of action against hijackers
Unfortunately did not have time (plane hijacked near Allentown PA )

Brian David Sweeney tried calling his wife, Julie, at 08:58, but ended up leaving a message, telling her that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his parents at 9:00 a.m. and spoke with his mother, Louise. Sweeney told his mother about the hijacking and mentioned that passengers were considering storming the cockpit and taking control of the aircraft

On American 77 Voice recorder was damaged and unreadable, the flight recorder does not show the violent maneuvers
like hijackers performed on United 93 to resist the counter attack by the passengers

As for fighting back - have to remember than

Hijackers by 2001 were very rare, last one was 1980's Few people on plane had any experience on hijacking

When confronted by serious situation most people are not going to react - usual result is to wait and collect
more information while trying to form consensus

United 93 was different - plane was late taking off from Newark ( Newark - Liberty is S**t hole with worse on time record)
From phone calls learned of hijacking in NY - were able to discern what was in store and react
Also many of the people were "TYPE A" action oriented which speed up decision process

Also have to remember that aircraft configuration will affect chances of success - United 93 had only 4 hijackers vs 5
on other flights.

757 aircraft has single aisle limiting avenues of attack . Think Thermopylae where handful of Greeks held up
200,000 Persians for 3 days in narrow pass

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

I find it absolutely impossible that an aluminum nose and fuselage can penetrate reinforced concrete through three sectors of the Pentagon. This is literally what these missile are meant to do, not airplanes.

Don't think an aircraft can penetrate a masonry wall...??

Example - July 1945 Empire State Building B 25 lost in heavy fog strikes ESB at 79th floor tearing huge hole in side of
building

www.youtube.com...

Even better - aircraft penetrating solid steel side of ship

www.navsource.org...

Both aircraft weighed a fraction of the Boeing B 757 which struck Pentagon . They were also travelling at 1/3 speed
of the Boeing

It is the speed which determines the impact forces as energy produced is determined by the SQUARE OF THE VELOCITY

Double the velocity, increase energy by 4 times, triple it, energy is 9 times the original

Both the world trade center buildings toppled like they were being demolitioned. Not only that, but how do you explain Bld. #7?
That building wasn't hit be a plane or anything else for that matter. It just disintegrated, like the other two. Wonder why?

There are so many holes in the MSM's explanation of 9-11, it's just downright ridiculous.
But hey, if you want to believe the "official" story. More power to ya.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
Have you read the NIST report with regards to WTC 7?
If you don't have time to read the whole thing, just look at the pictures on pages 40-42.
I've read the entire paper.
It's relevant.

This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7; an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the building; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision. Also in this report is a summary of how NIST reached its conclusions. NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence. The report concludes with a list of 13 recommendations for action in the areas of increased structural integrity, enhanced fire endurance of structures, new methods for fire resistant design of structures, enhanced active fire protection, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training. One of these is new; the other 12 are reiterated from the investigation into the collapse of the towers. Each of the 13 is relevant to WTC 7.

ws680.nist.gov...

a reply to: firerescue

Mate there are trained Boeing Captains with 20-30 years experience in the field that claim they could not have flown those planes at the velocity, altitude and attitude into those structures.

The incident has been attempted to be recreated in fully certified Level D flight simulators by qualified pilots and failed.

Lets just say that statistically 911 did not transpire the way the government claim it did which suggests a level of complicity at least.