757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
All conclusions based upon analyses that assume an approach angle from the south of 45 degrees have been rendered invalid by the three PentaCon video witnesses, whose diagrams of the approach path of the plane indicate that it hit or passed over the Pentagon more or less at right angles to it. The various engine components are similar to that of a Boeing 757. But, until someone provides the factory numbers stamped upon them and proves they are identical to what Flight 77 had, such photographic evidence does not amount to proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon because these parts could have been planted. Don't underestimate how far the plotters could have gone to create the false scenario of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. Hell, we know now from the PentaCon witnesses that the light poles must have been blown up to create the bogus story that a large, low flying plane hit them. If the plotters could think of THAT, they sure could have also planted dummy engine components amongst the debris before too many people arrived on the scene.




posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
All conclusions based upon analyses that assume an approach angle from the south of 45 degrees have been rendered invalid by the three PentaCon video witnesses...............


You mean the two cops:

In 2001 Brooks said he saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001. Listen to this interview it talks about 9/11, and he says "full throttle" , "clip the lamp post" etc.

memory.loc.gov...
Chadwick B. Brooks, Stephens City, Virginia, interviewed on November 25, 2001?

William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, interviewed on December 4, 2001. His Story here is different from the one he gives Jack Tripper:

memory.loc.gov...

He talks of "Aircraft has flown into the side of the building", "explosions from the CNG" "where the aircraft hit the building", "chunk of plane with Ameri on it". It is pretty hard for him to talk about it.

Wake up kiddies...the Pentacon video was a JOKE. Remember ..these witnesses that YOU claim saw everything...and are accurate... said they saw the place HIT the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
All conclusions based upon analyses that assume an approach angle from the south of 45 degrees have been rendered invalid by the three PentaCon video witnesses...............


You mean the two cops:

In 2001 Brooks said he saw the hijacked plane clip lampposts and nosedive into the Pentagon and described the ensuing scenes of chaos in his interview, taped November 25, 2001. Listen to this interview it talks about 9/11, and he says "full throttle" , "clip the lamp post" etc.

memory.loc.gov...
Chadwick B. Brooks, Stephens City, Virginia, interviewed on November 25, 2001?

William Lagasse, Fredericksburg, Virginia, interviewed on December 4, 2001. His Story here is different from the one he gives Jack Tripper:

memory.loc.gov...

He talks of "Aircraft has flown into the side of the building", "explosions from the CNG" "where the aircraft hit the building", "chunk of plane with Ameri on it". It is pretty hard for him to talk about it.

Wake up kiddies...the Pentacon video was a JOKE. Remember ..these witnesses that YOU claim saw everything...and are accurate... said they saw the place HIT the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
All conclusions based upon analyses that assume an approach angle from the south of 45 degrees have been rendered invalid by the three PentaCon video witnesses, whose diagrams of the approach path of the plane indicate that it hit or passed over the Pentagon more or less at right angles to it.

In your addled mind, not mine. Which three? The three that saw something other than the official path misread a bit (all but Paik) or the three that didn't see a United jet (all but Brooks?)

The various engine components are similar to that of a Boeing 757. But, until someone provides the factory numbers stamped upon them and proves they are identical to what Flight 77 had, such photographic evidence does not amount to proof that a 757 hit the Pentagon because these parts could have been planted.

Not PROOF per se, but coupled with building damage, eyewitness accounts (the vast majority), and common sense...

Don't underestimate how far the plotters could have gone to create the false scenario of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. Hell, we know now from the PentaCon witnesses that the light poles must have been blown up to create the bogus story that a large, low flying plane hit them. If the plotters could think of THAT, they sure could have also planted dummy engine components amongst the debris before too many people arrived on the scene.

They would if it made sense. they might anyway just to mess with us, but What a plot! i just don't buy it. And the ploes weren't blown up per CIT - just torn off quietly and planted, prob. the night before. they were already down in the morning, no car crashed we hope in the dark wee hours with five lights missing on that busy highway... And onsidering the steady dtream of stupidity floing from the lak of verification at the Pgon, it's most likely another scam and fraud ala IPS, Loose Change, etc...
but people seem to prefer idiocy and grasping at straws over common sense.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   


This is for me the Proof that evidence was PLANTED, and therefore NO 757 was even there...


Yep, conspirators ran onto the Pentagon lawn right after the explosion tossing literally thousands of pieces of airliner wreckage onto the ground in full view of the hundreds of witnesses......



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I would really like to thank John Lear for his input on the possibilities in regards to the Pentagon. I am no Pilot, but John has many many years in the air and space too.



Originally posted by johnlear
I read the Flight 77 FDR for the first time a few days ago. Other than the fact that there is not the slightest indication throughout the flight that any hijacker disabled the pilots, dragged them out of their seats and then sat down and began to fly the airplane all I want is for someone to tell me who reset the altimeters to field barometric at exactly FL180.

Then I want to know where the pilot or pilots obtained field barometric. They weren't talking to ATC, right? Do you want me to believe they tuned in an AWOS? And if that is so how did they get the current altimeter setting for the Pentagon 30.24 and not the one that was an hour old 30.22?

And then after you tell me where they got the field barometric pressure tell me why 30.24 is set on both altimeters. There is only one pilot right? Hani Hanjour? Who set the copilots altimeter within one second of the pilots altimeter. Do you mean to tell me Hani asked the dead copilot to reset his altimeter or did he reach over and set himself. And if he reached over and set himself as is displayed on the FDR how did he do this in 1 second from the left seat.

And then after you tell me that please tell me how Hani remembered to reset the altimter at EXACTLY FL180. I flew for 40 years and I couldn't always remember to get it set at EXACTLY FL180. So that means he had to get the local barometric at the Pentagon (probably used Reagan) well before descending through FL180). Wow! This is one well prepared and smart pilot except for.........WHY?

He's going to crash the airplane! Why is he resetting local field barometric pressure?????
John Lear Input of Pentagon Flight

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
John Lear just set the record straight in regards to the Pentagon. Take your time and enjoy.


Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by ThreadTrekker
John,
Very interesting post... but I was wondering if you could put some of this in layman's terms. What is the normal purpose of setting field barometric pressure. And what does FL180 mean?


Thanks for the post ThreadTrekker. FL180 means Flight Level 18,000 feet.
Above 18,000 feet altitudes are called Flight Levels and all airplanes operating at or above 18,000 feet manually set their altimeters to Standard Pressure which is arbitrarily 29.92 or 29.92 inches of mercury.

Below 18,000 eet all airplane altimeters are set to Field Barometric or however many inches of mercury at the particular field, in the case of the Pentagon (Reagan International) 30.24 inches of mercury.

The altimeter pressures are set so that each airlane is flying with an altitude reference that all the other airplanes around him are flying. This is to maintain 1000 foot separation in case you are passing over or under somebody else. Above 18,000 they set a common standard which is 29.92 because it would be unnecessary to have everybody changing their altimeters to field barometric because at that altitude and speed they would be changing the altimeter every 5 minutes.

So in a descent at FL180 (18,000) altimeters are reset to local field barometric. When you are cleared below FL180 ATC will say something like 'United 456 descend and maintain one zero thousand feet Chicago altimeter 30.15."

If somebody has been flying for a long time setting your altimeter passing through FL180 is second nature. But for somebody who has just hijacked an airliner its unheard of for the simple reason that the hijacker is not in contact with anybody so how did he get the altimeter setting?

But not only was the altimeter of Flight #77 reset it was reset to 30.24 which was local barometric pressure at Reagan. The reason this is significant is if somebody wanted to argue that the hijacker tuned in an automatic weather station he would have gotten the past hours altimeter for that area which was 30.22 not the current Reagan International setting which was 30.24. So my question is where did he get it?

It is highly unlikely that a hijacker would know all this. He is sitting in the seat trying to figure out where in the heck the Pentagon is, not in the frame of mind to be attending to the minutiae of a current altimeter setting to keep him separted from other aircraft at specific altitudes. He is not even talking to ATC, so he has not been assigned an altitude, so he doesn't have to worry about separation.


So what this means is that whoever was flying the airplane and whoever was the co-pilot had hundreds if not thousands of hours in the Boeing 757. The professional use of the autopilot including the use of the scratch pad is not consistent with pilots who have just hijacked a Boeing 757 30 minutes prior. The reseting of the altimeters at exactly FL180 and to Reagan International current field barometric is consistent with pilots who were professionals. The use of the autopilot including scratch pad and its disconnect at 7000 feet is consistent with professional use of the autopilot.

The steep stable bank and accurate descent rate for the last turn into the Pentagon and level off at 20 feet is consistent with a pilot who had many thousands of hours, and probably had fighter jet training. This profile is not consistent with a hijacker whose total time in the Boeing 757 is about an hour.

John Lear More

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Realtruth]

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Realtruth]

[edit on 17-3-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
John Lear Schools the Dreamers



Originally posted by johnlear


Wing in ground effect begins at an altitude of one half the span of the wing. The span of the 757 is about 125 feet so ground effect would take place at about 62 feet. As you get closer to the ground there is more of a cushion from the air being forced into a smaller and smaller space under the wing. As this force pushes up the pilot has to push forward to counter the force pushing the plane up. As the airplane was probably 100 feet or more above Citgo he probably didn't get down into ground effect until about one half the distance between Citgo and the Pentagon or about 950 feet. (distance Citgo-Pentagon 1900 feet.) So since he is allegedly traveling at 450 mph or about 730 feet per second he has just over a second to correct for this tremendous ground effect taking place between 62 feet above ground level and the alleged 10 feet or so at which he hit the Pentagon. Could a hijacker compensate in time for this effect to avoid being ballooned up to 40 or 50 feet? 2 chances. (1) No chance, and (2) no frigging chance.

Could I do it with 19,000 hours of flight time, 16,000 in heavy jets? No. Not without practice.

Could a professional Boeing 757 pilot do it with enough practice? Of course. It would take about 10 or 15 Pentagon practice crashes to master what allegedly occurred to the real Pentagon on 911.



Did a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon on 911 (assume a super pilot with 15 practice Pentagon crashes under his belt). No. That would have been impossible. Assuming that you had a super pilot that could have hit the Pentagon there is not enough wreckage (by a factor of 10) outside of the Pentagon, nor is there enough damage to the face of the Pentagon for a Boeing 757 to have crashed into it.

The story of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon is an urban myth not supported by the facts and certainly not supported by anyone who has flown the Boeing 757 and/or has an aeronautical engineering degree and/or has participated in any kind of large airplane accident investigation.

The story of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon is supported only by uneducated people who buy into the total erroneous proposition that the Boeing 757 distintegrated into a billion pieces. Hah.




posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   


The story of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon is an urban myth not supported by the facts and certainly not supported by anyone who has flown the Boeing 757 and/or has an aeronautical engineering degree and/or has participated in any kind of large airplane accident investigation.


And the vast number of military pilots who witnessed the 757? You might find quite a few aeronautical engineering degrees and most have at one time or another have helped investigate airplane accidents. Oh yes, I forgot, all those men and women would blindly follow the orders to help cover up this conspiracy..........



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
There was a vast number of military pilots who witnessed the 757? This is the first time I've heard of this.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I wish I could say that I was suprised by that, but I am not. Very few people want to do research into the witnesses at the Pentagon that day. For me, I just have to call the men and women that I have served with and asked them what they saw that day.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Sure you served.
We know where you served, Now go get me another Big Mac and Fries.



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I wish I could say that I was suprised by that, but I am not. Very few people want to do research into the witnesses at the Pentagon that day. For me, I just have to call the men and women that I have served with and asked them what they saw that day.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Are any of these eyewitness accounts the ones in which you are referring to?
www.geocities.com...

[edit on 17-3-2007 by hoppy]



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I wish I could say that I was suprised by that, but I am not. Very few people want to do research into the witnesses at the Pentagon that day.


Hey Swamp you must have this info in your files somewhere, like bookmarked or something?

Lets see these witnesses that saw a 757, or again you're just making empty claims. See how that works?



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   


Sure you served. We know where you served, Now go get me another Big Mac and Fries.


LOL, this is funny. So how do you pick and choose who you believe on the internet? I mean you accept John Lear's statements without question, but you question mine? Not that it means anything, but I have 20 years in aviation working on everything from SH-60B's, EA-6B's, P-3C's, F/A-18C/D's, C-9's, C-12's, C-130's and F-16's, I have also helped in several accident investigations.

As for the Big Mac and Fries quote...did it take you all night to think that one up?



Are any of these eyewitness accounts the ones in which you are referring to?


Nope.



Hey Swamp you must have this info in your files somewhere, like bookmarked or something?


Yes I make it a point to record conversations I have with my friends. Its not files or bookmarks or anything on the internet. Its called talking to a friend, you should try it sometime. One of my friends was in his office on the third floor about 30 yards or so from the impact point, he saw the jet coming, he ended up getting thrown across his office and woke up at Bethesda.

Of course, since you wont find it on the internet, I realize you wont believe it at all.

Try looking up the accounts of the Pentagon fire department members? or contractors that were there that day? or any one of a number of Pentagon employees that had front row seats.




Lets see these witnesses that saw a 757, or again you're just making empty claims. See how that works?


No, actually thats you believing that everthing ends up on the internet. Of course, even then, you pick and choose what you want to believe.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Wow, this thread has just been swamped with empty conjecture, grasping at straws, and my word against yours type stuff. It's amaxing how quickly things can go downhill. Until some good actual evidence is presented I'm done with this thread.

Caustic- If you're still following this thread can you u2u me when it's through with this phase?

RealTruth- Swampfox served alright, I'm one of the people who have served with him and I know him pretty well. No need for you to try and insult someone based on what you think. You can ask Swamp about his military service yourself. You must have had to put some real effort in thinking that up. BTW why dont you defend your position with your own words not John lear's.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Yes I make it a point to record conversations I have with my friends. Its not files or bookmarks or anything on the internet. Its called talking to a friend, you should try it sometime.


Give me a freakin break. OK I also have a bunch of friends that work at the pentagoona and they said it wasn't a 757! So nan na na...

LOL see how that works?

You really expect me to take your word for it? Do you? Really?



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Well lets see hmmmm we can and do know John Lear's history and credentials.

Yours? LOL!


You want to impress me and the rest of us with your credentials?

Post your full name, credentials, how we can contact you, where we can verify your credentials and then maybe you'll be in the same arena as John Lear. Otherwise you are just another person pounding on his chest and making empty credential claims.


Does anyone think your credible on this site?.........probably not, except for the guy that looks at you in the mirror. Your a legend in your own mind.





Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

LOL, this is funny. So how do you pick and choose who you believe on the internet? I mean you accept John Lear's statements without question, but you question mine? Not that it means anything, but I have 20 years in aviation working on everything from SH-60B's, EA-6B's, P-3C's, F/A-18C/D's, C-9's, C-12's, C-130's and F-16's, I have also helped in several accident investigations.





posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Back on track now.

I think that John Lear comments are very crucial to this Pentagon attack, because from what John says it appears that it is almost impossible for a 757 to have struck the pentagon.

John if your reading this can you make any additional comments that might help us on this issue?

Thanks



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
All right guys. Why make this so complicated?

The hard visible proof that a 757 did not hit the pentagon lies in the following facts:

— No NSTB or FBI crash reports were ever written up.
— Not a single numbered plane part was found (with a number related to the purported AA flight 77 jet)
naturally some will object “but we did find registered parts”. But if those claims are true, then they might as well be lies. Since no reports have been drafted to show these findings — nor ever will be.
— And, of course we didn’t see anything that even remotely resembled a large aircraft crash at the pentagon site.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join