A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Not only that but if you slow the video that was released down it clearly shows the nose of a BGM-109 and NOT a 757. So, I don't know what this guy is talking about.

a reply to: pirhanna

They did release a video that shows the nose of a BGM-109. The perspective was from the guard shack. Has it been pulled? #. Now I have to go looking for a 16 year old video? Really? fml.

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: pale5218

why? because a pilot states he personally saw it and that there's a flight path to corroborate the eyewitness account?

there have been military personnel, both active and inactive, that have stated what they saw on the ground was not an aircraft, let alone a 757.

were they all lying, then?

Some could have been mistaken.

It's not just the pilot reporting it. The replay is concise to the report of a western entry. The activity on the display, the interaction from controllers to pilots, all of it is concise to what I would expect for this scenario.

Nothing jumps out as suspicious to this replay. I mean don't get me wrong, the whole event was extraordinary but in this small piece of that day, this shows me just what I have said acted.

Look I'm also ok with you or anyone asking question, if I know the answer I tell you, if I don't, I'm not going to throw a BS answer to keep the fires burning.

a reply to: pale5218

maybe I missed it. at what angle and speed did the 757 hit the pentagon based on the information you've pieced together?

how does it reconcile the contradiction between the 9/11 commission report and the official pentagon report?

and lastly - does anything in the audio or flight data log information you've found explain the 5 downed light poles?

a reply to: DickBrisket

Yeah, I don't think so.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

If you look at this video, maybe you could point out the 44' tail that is on the 757. I sure can't find it. So, we agree.

BGM-109 not 757

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Nope. A cruise missile did.

I liked your earlier post re: sim, Captain. Someone close to me (who passed several years ago) and whom also was the project mgr for the C-17 for McDonnell Douglas basically said it was physically impossible for a 757 to accomplish the maneuver that the gov said the pilot accomplished on 9/11. So, I don't care about radar and flight control. The man was brilliant and aeronautics was his life. I trust his opinion above the nonsense in this thread. So, the reason why you couldn't complete it in the sim is bc it isn't possible. Mad respect for at least bouncing it through the Greenway though. Lol

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: pale5218

maybe I missed it. at what angle and speed did the 757 hit the pentagon based on the information you've pieced together?

how does it reconcile the contradiction between the 9/11 commission report and the official pentagon report?

and lastly - does anything in the audio or flight data log information you've found explain the 5 downed light poles?

I have no clue what the angle was. The airspeed on the radar was indicating 370 knots over the ground, or a calculation of 425 MPH.

Those are reports written by two different commissions. What this reconciles for me is the report of a missile versus a B757 and what direction it came in from.

No, nothing on the light poles but I'm not sure I would expect anything. This controller on the audio tape is not working many airplanes and most are the overflights except for the C130, nothing in that north area.

I know ground stops were already being implemented for flights into NY and even before the Pentagon crash, the Washington airports were being added to the ground stop at 13:29Z or 9:30 Local time, the focus was starting to clear the airspace and deal with the aircraft in the air. Especially after AAL77 hit.

originally posted by: CaptainBeno
He would have had to been as pictured above to get the hit he did. This is not taking into account the sheer mass and inertia during the hit.

Is it not possible he just got lucky? Could he have been looking to hit a target anywhere in front of the building knowing that momentum would still ensure significant damage and by chance nailed a near 'perfect' flight path into the target? I appreciate it's a long shot.

I normally don't post in 9/11 threads because it is like arguing religion with people, they have their heads shoved so far up their asses that you are not going to change their minds.

So I find it comical that there are posters who completely accept the fact that airplanes flew into the World Trade Center but think that the Pentagon was a cruise missile. You know, because as the s*** was going down someone said, 'Hey, did you just see those planes slam into the Towers? This is an awesome time to fire a random cruise missile into the Pentagon!'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I find it comical that the scenario you painted above is the most reasonable one you could come up with to describe opposing points of view to your own.

people think it might have been a cruise missile not just because of the physical inconsistencies from evidence available of the object itself, but also from the contended trajectory this object took to reach the pentagon.

there are many seemingly intentional unanswered questions. the answers we have do not conclude that it was a 757 beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The only doubt I have is that nobody that jumps into the cockpit of a large plane like that for the first time can fly it like a cruise missile, even trained pilots says they would have had a really hard time making that hit.

"IF" it was a plane, is was electronically flown into the Pentagon, which means those Muslims weren't orchestrating it.

How do you fly a plane like that 530 MPH 10 feet off the ground ?

Experienced pilots have said that this maneuver was impossible, there was no consistent damage to the building that would indicate a plane actually hit it. There was next to zero actual plane wreckage at the site. The government refuses to release any footage from the day of the crash (yeah right it's national security) the other plane that crashed in a field had next to no wreckage as well, the list goes on and on with garbage and I for one do not buy the original story. I don't know the exact nature of what happened on that day and likely never will, but i'll tell you what I do know and that is that the government and media lie their faces off 24/7 to the public and always have and I don't trust a single word that comes out of any of their mouths.

originally posted by: facedye
I find it comical that the scenario you painted above is the most reasonable one you could come up with to describe opposing points of view to your own.

I'm glad I could amuse you. Cruise missile, too funny.

Good thing our super competent government wasn't able to keep it a secret for so long. Thank God for all the sleuthing that uncovered this.

a reply to: pale5218

To this day I do not understand with all the hundreds of cameras the pentagon had, some of those mounted on the roof, ground, and different angles we only got to see one angle shot.



It's all the was ever released, and some footage taken from a gas station nearby was confiscated, and never seen.



Way to many irregularities for my liking.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33


How do you fly a plane like that 530 MPH 10 feet off the ground ?

You don't and you can't, but if the MSM and the report say it was a hijacked plane, then we have to assume it was.


/sarcasm & blind ignorance.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

they never tried keeping this a secret. you can't keep something in such plain sight "a secret."

the solution is obfuscation, subversion and control over crucial details. the only way you can pull this off is by creating an evidence based riddle. aka:

"what flies at ~530mph at 20 feet off the ground into a building and leaves a ~14 foot hole?"

"what can bring down two monstrous skyscrapers in under 50 minutes each and not kill millions of people directly surrounding them?"

contradictory details, withholding of crucial evidence and footage that has nothing to do with national security.. all this does is divide the country and cause infighting among us. it's obvious that this is the case.

get people like you and I to argue over details neither of us have, and half the job is already taken care of.

but please, keep focused on what you find comical.

originally posted by: facedye
they never tried keeping this a secret. you can't keep something in such plain sight "a secret."

They didn't? Who launched it? Where did it come from?

"what flies at ~530mph at 20 feet off the ground into a building and leaves a ~14 foot hole?"

"what can bring down two monstrous skyscrapers in under 50 minutes each and not kill millions of people directly surrounding them?"

Well, the obvious answer is the Derp Cruise Missile along with a crap ton of hyperbole.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: DickBrisket


So , the Public was Made to Believe this Aircraft Made this Impact Hole in the Side of the Pentagon ? ...Hmm...

I Guess the Wings of this Aircraft were made out of Tissue Paper ?

Exactly.

Are we meant to believe that an airplane was flying 10 foot off and parallel with the ground for at least 50 feet (to get into a straight line).
If it crashed into the pentagon at an angle then the perfectly shaped hole would look different, surely?

a reply to: pale5218

here's what I'm getting from your reply:

- the pilot saw the plane hit the pentagon but didn't see it take down 5 light poles. this means you still have to resolve the problem of what happened to those poles if you are to believe a 757 did it. if a 757 did not down those poles, what did? eyewitness reports state that the object that hit the pentagon also took those poles down. this is a huge issue.

- if you have no clue what the angle was, how do you know from which direction it was coming from? all of the information from official reports, when corroborated with one another, contradicts itself just like those two snapshots I posted. this is also a massive issue.

- the speed of the craft, again, based on all official reports available, was ~530 mph before impact. what this tells me is that the information you're referencing and citing is entirely incomplete, and non-inclusive of all available data.

I have no idea why this reconciles anything for you. it just adds more fuel to the fire.