Possible reason for no debris at pentagon.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod

question

#1, what about the people who saw it?

#2, if it wasn't the 757, where is the one that we are 100% sure took off full of people?

#3, you say it was a smaller aircraft... how do you explain the width of the external damage?



Good questions.

1) There were also other conflicting eyewitness accounts of a smaller craft. I believe it was a military drone painted to look like a commercial airliner so at 400 mph some people would think it was a commercial airliner and merely go along with that power of suggestion when they were told what it was. So some people were fooled, some saw it for what it was.....a smaller commuter like craft, and no doubt some were planted witnesses.

Plus there is a confimed 2nd commercial plane that flew overhead and landed at reagan airport virtually simulataneously and it has been theorized this could have been timed delberately to add to the confusion.

2) Who knows? Most likely executed unless they were involved. Of course they may have been executed even if they were involved. You see the remote control flight technology is nothing new. They swapped out the 757 for a drone in mid-flight, landed the orginal at a secret location in one of the places where it went off radar and the people were put down. Why didn't they use the orginal 757 to hit the pentagon? Because it wasn't agile enough to carry out the attack with the military percision that they required.


3) Bombs. There is a lot of evidence that suggests bombs went off at the pentagon BEFORE the impact. All you have to do is look at the damage! Check out this pic that shows where the right engine would have hit. The column is clearly blown OUT!





posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Why would anyone think that a 757 flown by someone that cant land a cessna could get that far into ground effect at that kind of speed anyway?


That's what the cessna rental place said. His pilot instructor said he had "some skill" and also has this to say:


Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license in 1999 and according to the chief instructor, "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.


[edit on 5-3-2006 by kmrod]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Good questions.

1) There were also other conflicting eyewitness accounts of a smaller craft. I believe it was a military drone painted to look like a commercial airliner so at 400 mph some people would think it was a commercial airliner...


The problem with this is the width of the damage showing it was as wide as a 757...use a smaller plane and you have damage that's not as wide.


Because it wasn't agile enough to carry out the attack with the military percision that they required.


That attack had no precision a 757 couldn't do.


3) Bombs. There is a lot of evidence that suggests bombs went off at the pentagon BEFORE the impact. All you have to do is look at the damage! Check out this pic that shows where the right engine would have hit. The column is clearly blown OUT!


And bombs dented the multi-ton generator, and took out light poles, and moved that generator *TOWARD* the pentagon? How does a bomb move something toward the explosion?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I can knock out #'s 1 and 3.


Originally posted by kmrod
question #1, what about the people who saw it?


Witnesses can be very unreliable, and the circumstances that make them unreliable were very prominent on 9/11. You have stress, trauma, a very small amount of time to view the plane, the plane would've been moving very fast, and anyone there that would say anything about a plane hitting the building would automatically and severely bias any witness they came across.

Other influences and biases come into effect, but what it boils down to is that witnesses here can only be trusted when there are a large number of them saying that something did in fact streak across the sky and smash into the Pentagon. Any details are going to be very unreliable, and physical evidence comes before it.

Many studies have been done on memory under stressful situations and what is certain is that stress and memory do not produce very good results. Much less so when the amount of viewing time is very small, as I said before, the plane is moving very fast, and there are information biases.

It is really no mystery at all why witness reports would not line up perfectly with physical evidence we have in the form of photographs, that we can all view, in a very calm state, for as long as we want.



#3, you say it was a smaller aircraft... how do you explain the width of the external damage?


That is from fire. It is not impact damage.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod


Hanjour obtained a commercial pilots license in 1999 and according to the chief instructor, "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.




Yep and that statement is constantly brought up DESPITE the fact that he said it on September 14, 2001

Do you really think that 3 days after the attack that this guy knew ANYTHING about the flight path at the pentagon?

Of course not.

He might not have even known they were talking about the pentagon as opposed to the towers.

Plus.....this guy may just be a flight instructor for small craft and may not even have a license for commercial jumbo jets.

One thing for sure is that he sure is a good testament to the fact that hanjour could barely fly a cessna!



But here is what some folks that actually have flown jumbo jets have to say about it........

Group of pilots disputes question official version of 9/11






Russ Wittenberg, Airforce and Commercial Pilot, Arizona Chairman for Pat Buchanan's 2000 presidential bid who is a
vietnam combat veteran and former commercial pilot and also a Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Witnesses can be very unreliable, and the circumstances that make them unreliable were very prominent on 9/11. You have stress, trauma, a very small amount of time to view the plane, the plane would've been moving very fast, and anyone there that would say anything about a plane hitting the building would automatically and severely bias any witness they came across.

Other influences and biases come into effect, but what it boils down to is that witnesses here can only be trusted when there are a large number of them saying that something did in fact streak across the sky and smash into the Pentagon. Any details are going to be very unreliable, and physical evidence comes before it.


Ok, and the physical evidence points to 757...so now where do we go?


That is from fire. It is not impact damage.


The fire broke the limestone fascia about 18" wide, 120 feet across??



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Yep and that statement is constantly brought up DESPITE the fact that he said it on September 14, 2001
I just read down to the part where someone named "anderson" came around a corner and said he "...saw nothing but aircraft debris."

Thanks for that link.


Do you really think that 3 days after the attack that this guy knew ANYTHING about the flight path at the pentagon?

Of course not.

He might not have even known they were talking about the pentagon as opposed to the towers.


Do you think they would have asked his instuctor the question without him being able to figure out why they asked? How many pilots had flown planes into buildings in the previous days?? He knew, he was hanjour's instructor, he answered about hanjour's flying ability.


Plus.....this guy may just be a flight instructor for small craft and may not even have a license for commercial jumbo jets.


He was hanjour's instructor...I think that means he has to have his pilot's license


One thing for sure is that he sure is a good testament to the fact that hanjour could barely fly a cessna!


Land the cessna...he could fly it, he was having trouble landing it. BUT he went on and got his license to fly jumbo jets so there goes your argument.



But here is what some folks that actually have flown jumbo jets have to say about it........

Group of pilots disputes question official version of 9/11


Yeah see, and that would be appropriate if they knew what the # they were talking about. Hanjour HAD A LICENSE, and was in training for a 737

www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Flying a small aircraft has NOTHING to do with flying a commercial jumbo jet and hanjour had ZERO experience flying a commercial jumbo jet.

Since you seem to not acknowledge any of the articles I have sourced I am making a special request that you read this one and tell me what you don't agree with in it.

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
The thing you are failing to realize kmrod that even your source pointed out....these guys lacked the basic skills to fly!

They were patsies. They were put through the motions of flight school and nurtured along the way by U.S. intelligence to give the impression of being able to fly.

This is why although the intelligence agencies were alerted to their suspiciousness many times.......nothing was done.

This is why a couple of them had an FBI informant as a roomate in san diego!

Bottom line....they lacked the real skills to pull off an operation this complex with such percision AND cause our multi-billion dollar dense system to stand down.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Flying a small aircraft has NOTHING to do with flying a commercial jumbo jet and hanjour had ZERO experience flying a commercial jumbo jet.


That's not true, but I'll keep reading just to humor you.


Since you seem to not acknowledge any of the articles I have sourced I am making a special request that you read this one and tell me what you don't agree with in it.

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training


I stopped reading right here..........


And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.


All hanjour had to do was fly east until he got to the potomac, then follow that until he saw the pentagon.

I've been in in the front seat of a plane one time... ONCE... and I flew it for 15 min because it's not that difficult to fly. I turned, increased and decreased altitude, and navigated by following a highway. We ultimately got to our destination by heading in about the right direction and then coming down low enough to read the highway signs. All he had to do was head east, find a huge river and follow it... you think that's tough?

That website also makes a lot of speculation, only one of which I'll comment about. The author said "You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives ... blah blah blah"

There's as much speculation that his intended target was the white house. There's also specuation that his target *was* rumsfeld, but saw the pentagon too late and turned the plane too late and missed the pentagon and had to circle around so he could finally line up and hit it. There's also speculation that we have no idea what his real target was and he picked the first one of significance that he saw...the pentagon.

In other words, there was a plane in the pentagon (thanks for the link earlier that backed that up), we know Hanjour had the ability to fly a plane, aim it, and hit a target because his flight instructor said so, and we also know he had *some* experience with a 737 so he'd seen the controls that author was saying would be so foreign to him.

I'm looking at evidence and finding that he was the pilot. That website *wants* him to not have been the pilot and is looking for evidence to back their theory. They lose.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Nonsense.

It is not as simple as that.

He would have had to gain control of the craft and then completely change it's course and hope that he finds the pentagon.

Here was the supposed flight path...



Plus when he got the pentagon he had to make a loop around it to hit the opposite side of the pentagon that was under renovation!

The head flight instructor that said he could aim a plane at a target couldn't have known anything about this when he made that statement 3 days after 9/11.


[edit on 5-3-2006 by Jack Tripper]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Uhh...

I have always stayed away from the Pentagon...it's too fuzzy. BUT, I will say this; wouldn't it have made more sense for the pilots to dive bomb the Pentagon? I've heard that based on the flight path, the pilot would have had to do a move called threading the needle, an incredibly hard maneuver for even a skilled pilot of a 757. Also, the Pentagon was hit in an area undergoing construction. You mean to tell me these guys can do all this planning on 9/11, yet they missed this fact AND missed that they could have struck where brass like Rumsfeld would be in the building?

It wasn't like the super tall twins, where you can just point and fly. They had to do some acrobatics at the Pentagon. Why not just dive bomb it kamikaze style, which would be way easier than hugging the ground?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Nonsense.

It is not as simple as that.

He would have had to gain control of the craft and then completely change it's course and hope that he finds the pentagon.

Here was the supposed flight path...


Again, thanks for proving my point (you're getting good at this).

He turned the plane 180* (something even a non-pilot could do, but since he had a pilot's license it wasn't too hard) then headed directly east until he got to the potomac, then followed that.


Plus when he got the pentagon he had to make a loop around it to hit the opposite side of the pentagon that was under renovation!


You're assuming his target was that section. I'm saying he was flying along the river and missed the pentagon and circled around until he could get a straight shot at it.

Also

Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives.


Makes sense, looking at the evidence.

Also, since I read your website you read mine...

www.thepowerhour.com...

How about that pilot's opinions?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kmrod
Ok, and the physical evidence points to 757...so now where do we go?


Now you provide me with conclusive evidence that a 757 hit the building.


The fire broke the limestone fascia about 18" wide, 120 feet across??


From the way you posted that image, I thought you were suggesting the whole burned portion of the facade.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
There might be a point there but since of course the lawn was flawless and the video released by the pentagon shows something completely different this particular eyewitness and this particular conclusion don't hold very much weight.

Look.......no bounce!



What did it "bounce" off of? That lawn looks pretty clean to me!




posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Why not just dive bomb it kamikaze style, which would be way easier than hugging the ground?
because dive bombing is not easier, that's why



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I read somewhere that passenger jet aircraft have engines that are designed to shear off on impact. Is this true?

Also, I understand that the turbines inside the engines themselves are made of special allows that are super hard and I fail to see how these kind of parts would be 'pulverized' by hitting the pentagon.

To answer what hit the pentagon, why does the CIA not release the video surveilance tapes from the gas station across the street and let us all be certain what happened?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Look.......no bounce!



that first explosion (probably) was the engine hitting the generator... you still haven't explained how the generator moved *toward* the explosion if it wasn't hit by something very big.


What did it "bounce" off of? That lawn looks pretty clean to me!



from this distance and with the rubble on the lawn, if it hit near the building you wouldn't be able to see it.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Has anyone seen any pictures from inside the Pentagon just after the plane hit? What was the level of destruction from inside?

Also, I have been part of a plane crash recovery team when I was in the Navy when we had a small 2 engine Jet that seats 9 go down in Glenview, Il just outside the NAS Glenview. It hit in the middle of a street in a residental area that was wooded on both sides of the street.

There was damage to 2 houses, one had a tire go through a window, and the other had part of the landing gear go into the side of the house. Other then that, only 2 trees had damage to them and the wreckage was contained in a 15 by 30 foot radius. Most of the pieces were imbedded in the street and the grass near the road.

You would think that this would be impossible, but the plane went down due to lack of suffiecent de-icing and one of the ailerons was in the up position while the other was down. The plane went into a spin and the pilots seeing the houses pointed the aircraft straight down as best he could to avoid hitting the homes. The force of the crash, est. at 200+ MPH caused the plane to disintergrate upon impact. I remember the pieces of the plane being small and easy to carry away. The engines were smashed all to pieces.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I read somewhere that passenger jet aircraft have engines that are designed to shear off on impact. Is this true?

Also, I understand that the turbines inside the engines themselves are made of special allows that are super hard and I fail to see how these kind of parts would be 'pulverized' by hitting the pentagon.


alloy?

they weren't, in fact, here's one now

files.abovetopsecret.com...


To answer what hit the pentagon, why does the CIA not release the video surveilance tapes from the gas station across the street and let us all be certain what happened?


ok, let's settle this once and for all. Is there actually a gas station across the street, and was a tape confiscated?

A friend who's local says there is no gas station. Show me the gas station.





new topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join