It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
For all of those who may not realize it......

The notorious CatHerder pentagon post has been thoroughly debunked.

After discussions with SkepticOvelord it has been approved to make this thread provided I get permission from the author of the article (I did) and that it is neutrally or anonymously hosted (it is).

ATS seems like a valuable source for alternative info and it pains me that the most popular thread in this forum is one based on complete fallacies and deceptions.

This article covers the entire CatHerder post paragraph by paragraph and exposes every deception/inaccuracy asserted.

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 (and Neither Did a Boeing 757)
by: Joe Quinn

Please click on the link above to read the body but here is the introduction:


"After the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August 23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published that sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain '9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum at the "Above Top Secret" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article was written just a few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flash animation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and into the inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one of them...

The claim that promoters of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory were doing immense damage to the truth/accountability movement was raised in Mike Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. In a stunning piece of warped logic, Ruppert claimed that, while he is quite convinced that it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, he chose not to talk about or deal with the subject as part of his overall case for conspiracy because of the "implications". According to Ruppert, the "implications" are that anyone that suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, is then forced to answer the question as to what actually happened to Flight 77. If that's the case, then we better just wrap up the whole 9/11 Truth Movement and go home and have a beer.

Ruppert balks at the idea of offering an answer to this question to his readers because, he claims, most people would be unable to accept it, and, he suggests, 9/11 researchers serve only to alienate the public support that they wish to attract by stretching the boundaries of the collective belief system. What Ruppert doesn't explain is why any member of the public would happily accept that U.S. government officials participated in the slaughter of the passengers on Flights 11 and 175 and the occupants of the WTC towers (as he details in his book) yet would be unable to accept the idea that the same government officials played a part in disposing of the passengers of Flight 77 in a much less imaginative way. Let's be honest here, in the context of 9/11 being the work of a faction of the US government and military, the answer to the question as to what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon is quite obvious - Flight 77 and its occupants were flown to a specific destination and “disposed of” by the conspirators. That's pretty simple; cut and dried; no need for much stretching there! But, for some reason, Ruppert (and others affected by this paramoralism) seems to think that killing thousands of citizens by crashing airplanes is easier to accept than cold bloodedly murdering them "in person," as it were.

Since Ruppert's declaration about the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, many other "9/11 researchers", such as Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman, have seized upon Ruppert's idea and even expanded upon it by suggesting that the "no planers" are actually government agents trying to discredit the REAL 9/11 researchers with the 'kooky' "no plane" theory.

In order to really understand the insidiousness of this patronising claim that the public could not accept the implications of the idea that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, let's look at the "evidence" as presented by the ATS member that it really was Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon that bright September morn.

First, however, I would like to make a few observations about 9/11 research in general.

Anyone who takes on the formidable task of digging into the events of 9/11 is immediately at a disadvantage because the US government has already declared the case closed. The government knows how it happened and who did it and have informed the entire world. As a result, there is no possibility of access to the raw data, to the crime scene or analyses of same. Here is where we meet the major obstacle: since the US government is the prime suspect, we cannot simply take as truth everything - or anything - that they say in relation to the case.

Investigation of the 9/11 attacks should be approached like any murder investigation. When confronted with a murder case (like 9/11) and a suspect that has a history of deceit and murder (like the US government and its agencies) and who had an opportunity and a motive to commit the murder, do you take as fact any claims by the suspect that he did not commit the murder? Do you seek to fit the facts around his claim that he did not commit the murder? When you confront evidence that suggests that the suspect is lying about his account of where he was and what he was doing, or you find inconsistencies and logistically impossible scenarios in his account, do you ignore these and focus only on the fact that he said he did not commit the murder and try to find and present evidence that backs up his claim to innocence?

The fact is that researchers coming to the 9/11 investigation after the fact, and after the case has been officially closed, are not only confronted with the task of trying to find out what actually happened - they also face the already well established public belief, by which they themselves are also influenced, that the official story is the truth. The best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions is to, if possible, wipe from their minds the official version of events and take the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had no communication with planet earth. Start with a beginner's mind, turn off the sound of all the conflicting voices and their claims, and just LOOK at the evidence without prejudice.

Now, if the person with a truly open mind is given all of the publicly available evidence and has been additionally furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, what would such a person conclude about the most likely cause of the Pentagon damage? Of course, not all of the evidence was made available to the public, but there is still sufficient visual evidence from "ground zero" (both in terms of place and TIME), to form a pretty good "best guess". For a definitive conclusion to be reached, the "private" evidence, like the video tapes of the event that the FBI confiscated, would have to be released, and we don't expect that to happen any time soon. Of course, the fact that the definitive evidence of the videos has not been released is in itself a key piece of evidence that suggests that the official story of what hit the Pentagon is not the real story.

The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article. As such, he has failed to don the mantle of objective observer of the available evidence that is so crucial to finding the truth, and instead exerts a lot of effort to make the available evidence fit the government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001. Either that, or he/she is part of the "official government cover-up." After you read everything below, you can make a call on that one yourself."





[edit on 25-1-2006 by Lyte Trizzle]




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   



Good Stuff, Lyte. I mean me. I mean Mister Narc.



A little initiative, that's all it takes.


I have a question for the 'Catherd'.

Where did the wings go? And if they went into the building. How so?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc



Good Stuff, Lyte. I mean me. I mean Mister Narc.



A little initiative, that's all it takes.


I have a question for the 'Catherd'.

Where did the wings go? And if they went into the building. How so?


Good stuff...Why are people so afraid to ask some real questions?

How is it a 120 ton jet fit into a 16 foot hole, the wings nor the engines leave no damage? And what about the vertical tail? Why are the windows above the impact zone undamaged? What about the lawn?

What about the aerodynamic forces that govern a plane such as sheet vortex, jet blast and wing tip turbulance? If that plane flew over a highway why weren't any cars blown off it?

And then there is the issue of ground effect, where an aircraft traveling at over 400mph, 20 feet above the ground cannot decend upon that cousin of air produced by the immense air pressure.

Why do our official story debunkers leave that out?

America WAKE UP and ASK QUESTIONS!!!



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Debunk this one. If you can.








posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
The windows were "blast-proof".


Oh and '128 tons of kinetic energy' proof also.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Debunk this one. If you can.



What is there to debunk?

Someone tossed a piece of a "757" onto the lawn and snapped a photo.

There, debunked.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
The windows were "blast-proof".


Oh and '128 tons of kinetic energy' proof also.


Show the science behind it if you're gonna claim debunk. Work out the kintetic energy equation...I'm waiting...



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Good Stuff, Lyte. I mean me. I mean Mister Narc.

Is this a confirmation that these accounts are all yours? In violation of #13 of our Terms and Conditions?



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Dude, you ask me and then you just ban me without getting an answer.

Can't you take a joke?

I already explained.

I am Merc/Narc.

Lyte Trizzle is Lyte Trizzle.

Two different people. Two different accounts.

I was just clowning around...making light of all the accusations being flung around about us. And you know it.

This is lame, sir.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GtotheQ
How is it a 120 ton jet fit into a 16 foot hole, the wings nor the engines leave no damage? And what about the vertical tail? Why are the windows above the impact zone undamaged? What about the lawn?

And then there is the issue of ground effect, where an aircraft traveling at over 400mph, 20 feet above the ground cannot decend upon that cousin of air produced by the immense air pressure.


Hmmm, Id like you explain how you feel an aircraft would still be intact after striking the ground? It seems you are looking for WTC type entry points when the plane in fact impacted the ground prior to impacting the building.

Have you ever seen the aftermath of a suicide or car bomb? Not everything can be preicted or distilled into some sort of sci fi effect. Real world variables can and do exert themselves in these situations. Ever seen a town hit by a tornado? One hose gone the other right next to it un harmed? Governemnt conspiracy????

There actually is not a 'cushion" of air under the plane. rather vorticies from the wingtips generate lift.



Link


Close to the ground the drag caused by these vorticies is greatly reduced. (rule of thumb found in several spots is 1/2 the length of the wingtip to the fueselage). The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet. and a exterior feuselage diameter of 12 feet, the plane would have to be 28 feet off the ground for it to be in the ground effect. While the lift generated is strong, it could easily be overcome at those speeds to crash into the ground just in front of the Pentagon.

In regrds to the jet wash. AT what height did it pass over cars?

external image

Hmmm I don't see the people on the beach being blown over.

[edit on 1/25/06 by FredT]

[edit on 1/25/06 by FredT]

[edit on 1/25/06 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Dude, you ask me and then you just ban me without getting an answer.


The "Narc" account isn't banned. Please pick one and stick with it.

The only thing "lame" is playing games with multiple accounts.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Dude, you ask me and then you just ban me without getting an answer.

Can't you take a joke?

I already explained.

I am Merc/Narc.

Lyte Trizzle is Lyte Trizzle.

Two different people. Two different accounts.

I was just clowning around...making light of all the accusations being flung around about us. And you know it.

This is lame, sir.


Actually, it would be most appreciated, and much less confusing, if we could discuss the situation with a single entity, not Sybil.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
OH yes here comes the disinformation again.

IF you nothing about phsysics science nor aircraft engineering you'd fall so easily for that image.

That is picture of an A340 landing at St. Maarten's Int. Airport. A plane landing has dispersed it's turbulance and the pressure above and below the wings is equalizing thus the sheet vorticies produced are dispresed. The wing tip turbulance is also greatly diminished as well as the jet blast.

That is not an aircraft flying at over 400 mph!!! Therefore your argument fails you.

It amusese me how you guys claim to debunk something and don't even do your reserach properly. And you still haven't addressed the article.

911.no-ip.org...

Get to work.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp
Dude, you ask me and then you just ban me without getting an answer.


The "Narc" account isn't banned. Please pick one and stick with it.

The only thing "lame" is playing games with multiple accounts.



I was going with the Narc one until you banned it.

I am not playing games. I already explained in detail.

I only made up a new name, cuz you banned the other. When I tried to use the other, it didn't work. I waited, and sent you an e-mail- and in the meanwhile I used the Narc one. I am just now finding out you got it to work.

Either way, both names are hated



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GtotheQ
OH yes here comes the disinformation again.

IF you nothing about phsysics science nor aircraft engineering you'd fall so easily for that image.

That is picture of an A340 landing at St. Maarten's Int. Airport. A plane landing has dispersed it's turbulance and the pressure above and below the wings is equalizing thus the sheet vorticies produced are dispresed. The wing tip turbulance is also greatly diminished as well as the jet blast.

That is not an aircraft flying at over 400 mph!!! Therefore your argument fails you.

It amusese me how you guys claim to debunk something and don't even do your reserach properly. And you still haven't addressed the article.

911.no-ip.org...

Get to work.


Nice G.

Plus...

"On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away."


Let's put that A340 about inch or two above those cars and see what happens.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
asrs.arc.nasa.gov...
Jet Blast explained

www.ifilm.com...
United Airlines JEt Blast Vide

www.metacafe.com...
747 JEt Blast Video

Debunk that!!!!

Thanx MERC...I'm just doing my part to keep disinformation off the internet.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by GtotheQ]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GtotheQ
Jet Blast

United Airlines JEt Blast Video

747 JEt Blast Video

Debunk that!!!!



G, the jet blast argument is neutralized by the fact that the jet was in forward motion.

But the wing tip vortices...that's another story.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp

Originally posted by GtotheQ
Jet Blast

United Airlines JEt Blast Video

747 JEt Blast Video

Debunk that!!!!



G, the jet blast argument is neutralized by the fact that the jet was in forward motion.



But the wing tip vortices...that's another story.


Keep in mind MERC, that if that plane was flying over that highway, three forces would act on the objects caught in it's path. The wing tip vorticies can literally pick up and toss a semi-trailer!!! The sheet turbulance from the wings also can blast objects and way and this coupled with the thrust of the engines well you get the picture.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GtotheQ
Jet Blast

United Airlines JEt Blast Video

747 JEt Blast Video

Debunk that!!!!


While I am not dead set on the 757 conclusion, these prove nothing more than the effects in "static" situations. Having worked with/for Eastern, Continental, and TWA for several years I am fully aware of the effects of jet turbulence and engine thrust. The effect directed upon anything on the ground is in direct proportion to something known as the "angle of attack". The higher the angle decrease the effect upon what may be located on the ground behind the path of the aircraft.

Based upon the incoming flight path, downward angle, the vehicles and such would not necessarily have been directly impacted by the thrust and turbulence suggested.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
www.opensecrets.org...
Commercial Pilot and Aeronautical Engineer Explains Why Official 9/11 Story About Pentagon Is Bogus

“The evidence indicates that the airplane was flying no more than 20 feet above the ground before it reached the Pentagon lawn since several light poles were sheared off several hundred yards away form the building, ” explained Sagadevan. “This means the plane was traveling a mere 20 feet off the ground at about 400 knots for a fairly long distance before hitting the Pentagon.

“This in itself is an impossibility since the airplane would have been prevented from getting that close to the ground by a phenomenon termed 'ground effect'. This is a highly energized cushion of air located between the wings and the ground, whose energy increases in direct proportion to aircraft speed. Flying at 400 knots, 20 feet above the ground, in a commercial airliner is a flight domain never experienced by any pilot. This is why it is difficult to impress the impossibility of such a maneuver. The reaction of the energized ground effect layer simply would not have allowed the airplane to get that close to the ground for that long a distance at that great a speed. At around 100 knots this is obviously entirely possible — it happens every day during landings. At 400 knots in a 100-ton airliner — impossible.”

From the beginning of the supposed hijacking of Flight 77 and to its eventual crash into the Pentagon wall, Sagadevan presents a compelling case, essentially crushing the official story. He added, “What's also overlooked is the 'jet blast' from the airplane’s two powerful 50, 000-lb-thrust engines. Coupled with the aircraft’s furious wake turbulence, this would have created a trailing tornado so powerful it would have tossed vehicles on Highway I-135, over which the aircraft flew, into the air like little toys.


I'm still waiting on the guy who posted the picture to give an account for this. You surely don't have the credentials of Nila Sagadevan, but I'd be amused to hear you try and refute him.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join