It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
From this angle, it looks less like an engine. Look at the way it's twisted and deformed, like it's just a thin piece of metal that was damaged.

I got to looking at the picture and it SURE looks to me like the left rear tire on that Jeep Cherokee is flat. From the way I see it, it's flatter than a pice of plywood. It may seem in the picture that the tire still has air in it. When in fact you zoom in and it doesn't have any tread around the rim of said tire. Oh and by the way, what sheet metal?

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by Howiethejew
It is quite obvious from the penetration of 3 rings that a missile of some sort was used (as seen in the released 5 frames) ...

Don't assume too much, you don't know wether the alledged 'exit hole' was caused by projectile OR by mop-up team AFTER the attack, do you?

I believe that the penetration of the rings was due to the fact that you had a jetliner crashing into it at nearly top speed. It MAY have been, not was, a missile that made the holes. Look at it like this, three holes matching three things. Those are both the engines and the nose of the cockpit that match the holes.

[edit on 2/13/2006 by gimmefootball400]

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:05 PM
So where are the engines and the nose?

Obvoiusly they would have to be on the outside of the holes.

It is absurd to suggest that the craft was so fragile that it completely disintegrated but yet the nose of the craft punctured that deep in to the building.


The official version is complex and contradicts itself, so read on carefully.

To justify the absence of Boeing debris, the authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted with such a highly reinforced building as the Pentagon.

To explain the disappearance of the aircraft's more resistant components, like the engines or brakes, we were told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light and its black boxes).
To justify the absence of 100 tons of melted metal, experts attempted to show that the fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the evaporation of parts of the aircraft (but not of the building itself or, clearly, of the landing light or black boxes).

To justify the presence of the hole, officials now state that it was caused by the nose of the aircraft, which, despite the rigors of the crash, continued careering through the three buildings.

The aircraft thus disintegrated on contact with the Pentagon, melted inside the building, evaporated at 2500° C and still penetrated two other buildings via a hole 2 ½ yards in diameter. Questions need to be asked of Pentagon experts here. The official version has its own holes that need filling.


posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:54 PM
This thread is a red herring and a waste of mental energy.
Why else would the Pentagon release doctored photos
of the strike. DIVERSION!
Concentrate on real evidence.

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by count zero
This thread is a red herring and a waste of mental energy.
Why else would the Pentagon release doctored photos
of the strike. DIVERSION!
Concentrate on real evidence.

That makes a lot of sense.

Let's DIVERT them from the fact that we told the truth.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:21 PM
All the "QUOTES", in the white fields, at the beginning of the page, mean nothing to me..what is it supposed to prove? That people are complaining that someone might suggest that what we see, and what were being told make no sense too? I do not beleive that an airliner struck the Pentagon. Lotsa people died, but not from a plane, that I am sure.

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:17 AM
I would say shame on you if you have not read entire "Frozen-fish" before posting here..

And someone please contact someone within the government and have them come up with an answer to all of this.. i will hold my breath till someone does.. bye

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 02:11 PM
Something appears to have hit one of the spools i can see in this picture.
Zoom into the spools infront of the green tractor outside the collapsed section.

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Howiethejew
It is quite obvious from the penetration of 3 rings that a missile of some sort was used (as seen in the released 5 frames) ... whether it was in conjunction with a 757 or A3 or Globalhawk is irrelevant since it is quite sane to say a 757 didn't penetrate 3 rings and surely a human pilot didn't manouever a 757 in a descending 360 degree dive at over 400 mph and hit the Pentagon at less than 20 feet above ground.

Hi Zamboni, Man, you have more sock puppets than a mental hospital on movie night.


What’s this about “3 rings?”

Don’t you know that there were only interior partitions between the outside wall and the inner punchout?

Interior partitions made of as drywall, clay tile and plaster lath and such.

Later Zamb.

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 11:45 AM
interesting action happened at 'dynamictruth'.........

ease of flying a commercial jet

watch the military pilots(the moderator who closed the thread even works at the pentagon) flip flop on the issue when they realise they're talking about 911.

'dynamictruth' fer sure.

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:01 PM
Actually if you read it properly you'll see that they are mainly referring to the difficulty in landing the plane and are also going by the assumption that the pilot taking over would have no knowledge of the control layout.

The guy, when asking his question, neglected to mention the lack of a landing and the practise in familiarising oneself with the layout and operation of the cockpit. Usual 911 Lies Movement decption as usual, or just plain retardedness.

At least some of the hijackers had experience in flight sims and full layout practise panels, manuals, etc for those aircraft are easily available from pilot supply stores, for example:

**NEW** 11 X 17" - B757-200 Cockpit Layout STUDY Panels - Full color, high resolution cockpit panels. Include Overhead, Forward, and Pedestal. Big enough for easy viewing, small enough to travel. Uses identical graphics as in the Professional Pilot's Systems Guide for easy cross reference.

Comments like this from that site say it all of their opinon:

I loved the internet guy's argument, Nila I think. He's an expert, as an "aerospace engineer and a qualified pilot." I've met a few of these guys in my time and they haven't been experts.

A lot of dudes got wrapped up in landing the airliner. That's a different story than pointing an airliner towards a target and flying into it. TEAC needs to rephrase the original question. Do you believe a guy with a few hours of experience can take over an airliner with box cutters and navigate himself to DC and hit the side of the Pentagon? Most of us would answer in the affirmative. Heck, that little kid stole a plane and did it in Florida. Why is it so difficult to believe? If you don't believe it happened, what do you believe? Please tell.

By the way, you won't convince me since my uncle is a VA State Trooper. He spoke with the trooper that was filling his car up with gas next to the Pentagon. There is no doubt in his mind that he saw an airliner hit it. But I bet you'll say he was coerced into making up that story, right?

You'll find that they got pissy and closed the thread because they arn't into the dumb retarded bs that it is.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:32 PM

That thread was awesome!

All of those jokers thought it would be impossible until they were let in on what he was referring to then all of the sudden they came up with a bunch of excuses!


I love how he assumes the hani hanjour being turned down to rent a cessna was "over a year" before the 9/11 attacks and that he would have had time to "learn" how to fly a 757 when of course we all know it was a mere 2 weeks!

You see it was a virtual "landing" into the pentagon since we know the craft would had to have been about an inch off the ground to coincide with the damage. (and the tail still doesn't fit!)

To assume that a high speed "landing" would be any easier is naive at best.

Here is the hypothetical question:

"I am on a commercial flight, let's say a Boeing 757, travelling across the continental US. I have some training in flying small aircraft and have tried out some flight simulators. Some sort of tragedy occurs and the pilot and co-pilot are incapacitated, autopilot turned off and all communications lost. The flight attendents ask if anyone else could attempt to fly the plane.

It turns out I am the only one with any flying experience at all, even though I've never flown anything close to a 757. So I am asked to take the controls so that I can try to guide the plane back to the airport about an hour away and attempt as good a landing as possible on the runway.

Using only the visual references 30,000 feet below and my basic light aircraft skills, what are my chances of turning the plane round, guiding it to the desired city, pinpointing the airport, descending at the right rate, and then, when within range, banking sharply at the last minute and managing to come down within yards of the ideal location?

How would you rate my chances?"

And the answers from our pilots:

Zero. you may be able to turn it but you would die trying to land. Sorry. Go to pilot training.

If both pilots are dead, all communication is lost and you're the most experienced on the aircraft (w/ only some light a/c and flight sims), then that's probably a sign that no one on that plane is meant to live much longer.

Unfortunately, I would rate your chances as "slim". If you had 1,000 hours in GA aircraft and were a ramp rat for years, I would upgrade that to "maybe" due to better avioncs/cockpit familiarization, but as a 69 hour GA pilot in -152s...slim.

Slim and None.

Slim just left.

None since you said you'd bank sharply at the last second. You'd be better to do a go around and try again. You'd bank sharply, hit a wing tip, and be dead.

I say no chance. MAYBE with the radios working (if you could figure them out), you'd get some good assistance from the ground. That would help you do the only things that would save your ass...

Snowballs chance in Hell.

I would say that without radio help you wouldn't even find the city you wanted to land at let alone the airport.

Well, how can I put this....let's just say you would have a better chance at enforcing sobriety in Russia or restoring virginity in Amsterdam's Red Light District.

Good stuff.

Thanks for sharing man!

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:42 PM

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

cessna (C-152) cockpit

757 cockpit

Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference baby!

Thank you so much for that thread smitty!

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:52 PM

You see it was a virtual "landing" into the pentagon since we know the craft would had to have been about an inch off the ground to coincide with the damage. (and the tail still doesn't fit!)

To assume that a high speed "landing" would be any easier is naive at best.

Didn't bother reading about ground effect then?

And you must have missed the bit about familiarising oneself with the controls of that aircraft, there is no reason to believe that they did not use the autopilot to get to the area they needed to, even I probably know enough to use it to get to the rough destination. You can even buy simulators for the PC that are exact in the operation of these devices, along with the realistic possiblity of getting manuals, then you just need to know co-ordinates to program in.
The biggest hangup, which was what the majority where considering, was landing the aircraft - take it from someone that has at least a little expericene, unless you do of course? Though I doubt it considering you fall apart on basic elements of aerodynamics.
I could fly the plane on my first lesson using little more than what I'd learned using MS Flight simulator. It's landing and taking off that are the hardest, mainly landing. This is what they considered, that's why 'their tune changed' because they realised that landing was not an option in the real scenario. That with the fact the pilot had familiarised himself well in advance and to detail with the aircraft, which he neglected ot mention in his initial question.
If you think that flying a plane at high speed rolling from side to side, on a cushion of air, hitting objects, hitting a building and with a person buzzing on the biggest adrenaline rush they'll ever have can be compared to the skill required in landing then you are frankly a bigger fool than you could imagine.

Thank you so much for that thread smitty!

Congratulations on proving the true quality of your reading skills, now try reading a few postss before mine

Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference baby!

Yes... To you. Because you're not a pilot in any sense of the word

[edit on 13-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:59 PM
If you visited the tower and took a waypoint with your wristwatch gps, you could find your way back without an autopilot?

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:04 PM
You don't even need that, I've used normal sized GPS on aircraft before, there's no law against it - it's the Captains discretion if you can use it. I don't think it was an issue in this case though.
You don't even need to visit the target either, use the Internet or just normal maps.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:09 PM
It's already been said here that landing a passenger jet is the main difficulty in being a pilot. what guided the plane into the building especially for a rookie?

A robot controlled drone fixed on a beacon could go in quite accurately especially if the beacons whether ultrasonic or low power rf were installed in that area of the pentagon in prior retrofit upgrade reno.

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:27 PM
Jack, the control systems have no changed, all you have are more knobs and buttons, that's about it.

If you've flown on a small jet trainer, you can pretty much fly a large aircraft. Basing the flight charateristics based on the appearance of the cockpit control panel is just, out there.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:34 PM
Whaaaaaatever smitty.

I think I will take the word of an experienced Air Force and commercial airline pilot of over 35 years over any of those dolts in that forum or an Austin Powers wannabe like you!

Enter Russ Wittenberg:

Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”

Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.

“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it sherlock.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:18 AM
That's fine, but that's where there is a big difference between me and you. I actually have some experience in relevent areas and personally know/have known people who I can trust to give me an accurate opinon and you, well you just have to rely on "un-biased" 9/11 sites. So you carry on

I personally know an Air traffic controller now and knew several pilots when I was flying still, none of which have any difficulty believing what happened, so I'll trust them over someone quoted on a conspiracy site any day. That coupled with my own limited experience of course..
What experience do you have again?
Who do you know personally (anonymous internet dates do not count btw)?
If your attitude on here is any representation of your manner off the Internet then I can safely say 0, as anyone worth their salt would look down their nose at you and make a hasty retreat. That's another way we differ, I actually do interesting and educational things, meet great and interesting people (and like to rub it in to make up for my tiny penis) and you just get to read about it. Much as your cutting remarks hurt my fragile pride and irritate me, I can grimace a smile knowing that fact.

I'm not sure what he's on about stalling the aircraft anyway?
The manouver carried out by the pilot put it into a spiral dive, not a normal stall. If he'd yanked back on the stick while flying horizontal or something then that might have changed the angle of attack enough to cause a stall, but doing what he did by rolling sharply would have just resulted in a spiral dive which is what we saw.

Russ Wittenberg was also an Air Force pilot, when we look at that coupled with the early warning of a counter intelligence operation to seed the idea of there being no-757 at the Pentagon, it does not seem unlikely he is part of the deception to give the theory more apparant credability in order to divert people away from the real issues.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:59 PM

How about that for a wordy, irrelevant, baseless personal attack?!

Since of course my source is more qualified than your anonymous posters in some flight school internet board you reduce yourself to that.

Am I supposed to be jealous of your incredible life of meeting interesting people while I sulk behind my lonely computer now?

What a joke.

You sure seem quite active on this "conspiracy site" for somebody who is so quick to write off the testimony of somebody just because it was reported on a different "conspiracy site".

It's quite amusing to me how you didn't even flinch while making such an absurdly hypocritical statement!

So now that I have provided a much more credentialed source than you have....your only recourse is to baselessly claim Russ Wittenberg is a "disinfo" agent because he was in the air force many decades ago!

How predictable.

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in