Reformed no-757 theorists weigh in here

All the pics, and the other evidence, still doesn't add up to 58 people 1 80ton aircraft. It's just is baffling!

I still want to know how the landing gear was supposed to have punched through the outer wall if the landing gear was up inside the wheel well and protected by the landing gear doors that are made with Kevlar.

Can someone answer this ???

My guess, Ultima, is the kevlar doors only do so much good when they're attached to an intact plane chassis. Once the plane disintegrated into thousands of pieces, there wouldn't be any one thing left for either the gear or its doors to anchor to and they would eventually move freely and possibly knock holes in things.

Now that punch-out hole itself doesn't seem quite right, but that wasn't your question. The landing gear coming loose tho and winding up that deep into the building makes perfect sense to me at least.

And OReilly, I'm sorry you're still baffled. That must suck.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I still want to know how the landing gear was supposed to have punched through the outer wall if the landing gear was up inside the wheel well and protected by the landing gear doors that are made with Kevlar.

Can someone answer this ???

well u do remember that kevlar, while very tough stuff, isnt always necessarily bullet proof right? the way its compressed and moulded for a Kpot is not necessarily the same as for a door like that or even helo blades (ask an apache repair tech about duct taping the blades back together where they started to come apart in Gulfwar 1)

im not trying to be condesending just pointing out that while good stuff its not always 'armor quality'

heck ive used 5mm cords for rock climbing gear where it was kevlar or spectra guts inside a nylon mantle.

well u do remember that kevlar, while very tough stuff, isnt always necessarily bullet proof right? the way its compressed and moulded for a Kpot is not necessarily the same as for a door like that or even helo blades (ask an apache repair tech about duct taping the blades back together where they started to come apart in Gulfwar 1)

Yes i know a little about Kevlar, i have worn a bullet proof vest when i was a federal police officer. My question still remains is how did the landing gear do all the damagea it was supposed to have done if was up inside the wheel well.



[edit on 14-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

my apologies, i misinterpreted your previous post. however, the fog of ignorance swept away by the rays of enlightenment.

my GUESS would be that a body in motion stays in motion and either the wall that was turning the rest of the plane to confetti stripped away in front of it and it broke loose or, when the plane suddenly decelerated it simply broke off and continued on its merry way.

again, thats just a guess. im better at blowing things up than building them.

Hold on, i have a report from a witness who states that he saw the landing gear comming down before hitting the poles.

Question is why would the pilot drop the landing gear at that speed. At that speed dropping the landing gear is very dangerous.

Subject: Hispanic Hero Recalls Experiences
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:18:03 -0400
From: Press Service [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

By Rudi Williams
American Forces Press Service

Sept. 11 hero Air Force Reserve Senior Master Sgt. Noel Sepulveda

As he reached his motorcycle, Sepulveda noticed the
aircraft wasn't following the normal flight path down the
Potomac River for Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport. Instead, it was coming over a distant hotel,
headed in the direction of the Pentagon.

"It seemed like the pilot was scrambling to keep control,
and I watched as he dropped lower and lower," Sepulveda
said. "Then he dropped his landing gear and started
coming down even faster and lower.

As it came down, the plane was hitting light poles, the
sergeant said. "Then the right wheel hit a light pole and
the plane popped into a 45-degree angle. The pilot tried
to recover -- go back vertical – but he hit some more
light poles.

"He dipped the plane's nose slightly, and then smashed
into the building," said Sepulveda, who was presented the
Airman's Medal and Purple Heart by Air Force Chief of
Staff Gen. John P. Jumper at the Pentagon April 15, 2002.

good find ultima

all i can say to that is...that is odd...

but, according to that article, we're left with a decision to be made.

he SAW the plane approach then strike.

so, govt yes boy?

or

did a 757 really hit the building?

Originally posted by Damocles
good find ultima

all i can say to that is...that is odd...

but, according to that article, we're left with a decision to be made.

he SAW the plane approach then strike.

so, govt yes boy?

or

did a 757 really hit the building?

Well the thing is the article does not state what type of plane he saw, so that kind of still leaves it open. It still bugs me about why the pilot would lower the landing gear at that speed, unless for some reason he thought that lowering the landing gear would help him slow down so he could regain control of the plane.

Problem is lowering the landing gear at that speed would make things worse, its a wonder he did not rip the landing gear right off the plane at that speed.

Ultima

Unless he lowered the landing gear because he thought he could still land. If the hijacker actually was working for the Gov(double agent) thinking he was involved with WAR games. Some point during, the hijacker looses control of the plane to remote control not knowing something sinister is at foot using him as a pawn. I know it sounds like a bit of a stretch, however

thinking back to Johnlear and some of the things he spoke of and now the idea that the pilot was calm enough to think about the landing gear, it seems odd the way the pilot behaved. IT is definitely not what one would expect.

Originally posted by talisman
Ultima

Unless he lowered the landing gear because he thought he could still land. If the hijacker actually was working for the Gov(double agent) thinking he was involved with WAR games. Some point during, the hijacker looses control of the plane to remote control not knowing something sinister is at foot using him as a pawn. I know it sounds like a bit of a stretch, however

But why would he lower his landing gear at that speed ? an experienced pilot is not going to lower the gear at that speed. Also the plane was still an good distance from the airport.

According to the FDR of the flight, the gear was not lowered.

Several witnesses in the PentaCon video clearly saw the aircraft and none of them spoke of the gear coming down, neither did any of the other witnesses who saw the aircraft.

I think this is Pro official story rubbish.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Several witnesses in the PentaCon video clearly saw the aircraft and none of them spoke of the gear coming down, neither did any of the other witnesses who saw the aircraft.

I think this is Pro official story rubbish.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Well according to the witness the gear was not lowered untill it was at the poles. After it passed the gas station where the PentaCon witnesses were. Also he was 1 of the closest to the Pentagon.

So do you have any proof that this witness, who received medals that day was lieing.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Several witnesses in the PentaCon video clearly saw the aircraft and none of them spoke of the gear coming down, neither did any of the other witnesses who saw the aircraft.

I think this is Pro official story rubbish.

Well according to the witness the gear was not lowered untill it was at the poles. After it passed the gas station where the PentaCon witnesses were. Also he was 1 of the closest to the Pentagon.

So do you have any proof that this witness, who received medals that day was lieing.

Well, for one, that he got medals.

George Tenent, Dir. CIA, got a Medal of Freedom for 9/11.

Paul Bremer, Viceroy of Iraq, got the same medal for disbanding the Iraqi army.

Seriously though, it does read like disinfo to support the official story, there mirageofdeceit is spot on. His affiliations make him extremely suspect, and his assertion of landing gear down has numerous witnesses who contradict him.

And the whole story is implausible and melodramatic. First, dropping the gear makes no sense--he's going to land?! Can you even drop gear at over 400 mph without either having it rip off or causing the plane to lose all control? Seems to me you'd create such destabilizing underbelly drag in such a short timeframe that it'd pitch the plane into a nosedive.

Then the violent struggle to maintain control as it clips the poles, regaining stability, the end run... Really, all that was happening in about 500 feet and about a second's worth of time, with a plane flying at over 400 mph?

At that point it was moving so fast, and with such momentum, that its course was essentially locked in.

gottago - good points on the time/distance involved.

The other thing is that the Citgo witnesses put the aircraft AWAY from the official flight path, and AWAY from the downed light poles.

There is CCTV footage of one of the officers running to his car from where he said he was to go get to the scene.

If you haven't seen that film, it is worth taking the time to watch it. Considering two of the interviewees are Police officers, I'd say the chances of them being bribed or otherwise lie about what they saw is just too far out. There is more to substantiate their claims than that of the official story (the existence of CCTV being one prime example).

Note also that it takes about 10 seconds from selection of gear down to the gear actually being down and locked. The Citgo witnesses would have seen the gear doors open and the gear start to extend as it flew by them.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by gottago
And the whole story is implausible and melodramatic. First, dropping the gear makes no sense--he's going to land?! Can you even drop gear at over 400 mph without either having it rip off or causing the plane to lose all control? Seems to me you'd create such destabilizing underbelly drag in such a short timeframe that it'd pitch the plane into a nosedive.

Then the violent struggle to maintain control as it clips the poles, regaining stability, the end run... Really, all that was happening in about 500 feet and about a second's worth of time, with a plane flying at over 400 mph?

At that point it was moving so fast, and with such momentum, that its course was essentially locked in.

Well for 1 i do not believe the official story either. I am looking for the truth and post what i find.

I too find it strange as to why he dropped the landing gear. The only reason i can think of is that a novice pilot might think that dropping the gear might slow him down so he could regain control of the plane.

And yes lowering the landing gear at the speed he was going would almost rip it off the plane.

The medals he recieved were from being injured and helping people out of the building.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

There is CCTV footage of one of the officers running to his car from where he said he was to go get to the scene.

Note also that it takes about 10 seconds from selection of gear down to the gear actually being down and locked. The Citgo witnesses would have seen the gear doors open and the gear start to extend as it flew by them.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

mod, thanks

Are you referring to the pentacon, or to this cctv footage from citgo? I'd seen the first, don't recall any cctv clip in it.

I'm very divided about their testimony (and about everything related to the pentagon, other than that it was not the official story). Nothing holds together. You can't have two flight paths without two planes. If you accept the pentacon scenario, then 77 overflew at the same moment as the real jet/missile/drone came in on the official flightpath.

So you sift debris and look at holes, but that is also inconclusive, and evidence is withheld.

It's simply maddening. I can't help thinking there's something else going on. But what?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I too find it strange as to why he dropped the landing gear. The only reason i can think of is that a novice pilot might think that dropping the gear might slow him down so he could regain control of the plane.

And yes lowering the landing gear at the speed he was going would almost rip it off the plane.

But all indications are that if it was indeed flight 77 that hit the bldg, it was remotely controlled, and it would have forced a crash at those speeds, so I think landing gear down is a red herring.

The why of the pentagon crash is like the soldier shooting himself in the foot to get out of combat. Self-inflicted wound to hide your own culpability. I have the feeling that somewhere in all those black ops programs lies the answer.

Originally posted by gottago
But all indications are that if it was indeed flight 77 that hit the bldg, it was remotely controlled, and it would have forced a crash at those speeds, so I think landing gear down is a red herring.

Please show me your evidence of flight 77 being remotely controlled. I have only seen talk about the remote control of planes in case of hijackers but that is only recently been discussed by Boieng and other companies.

gottago wrote

Are you referring to the pentacon, or to this cctv footage from citgo? I'd seen the first, don't recall any cctv clip in it.

In the PentaCon video itself, after they interview one of the Police officers about where he though he'd parked his car, they show the CCTV substantiating his claims in a small overlay in the bottom left of the screen.

gottago wrote

I'm very divided about their testimony (and about everything related to the pentagon, other than that it was not the official story). Nothing holds together. You can't have two flight paths without two planes. If you accept the pentacon scenario, then 77 overflew at the same moment as the real jet/missile/drone came in on the official flightpath.

So you sift debris and look at holes, but that is also inconclusive, and evidence is withheld.

It's simply maddening. I can't help thinking there's something else going on. But what?

I appreciate the Citgo witnesses do put the aircraft a long way from the official flight path, but there is more evidence to back their claims than that of the official story.

The fact that wide-angle CCTV shots have been withheld by the very same people who say the aircraft hit the light poles is because the CCTV shows that they DIDN'T hit the light poles, and that it DIDN'T fly in the way they said it did.

We know something hit the Pentagon. There is a very high probability that it was Flight 77.

So with all that said, what exactly are they trying to cover up about the Pentagon impacts???

We all saw the aircraft hit the WTC, and is why they concentrate so heavily on that (there is the most evidence and it is the hardest to hide) so they distract everyone with that. Every time 9/11 is mentioned, the WTC is mentioned the majority of the time, the Pentagon is often "missed out" and WTC7 has yet to get mentioned on any day that wasn't 9/11/01.

They make a big deal about 4 hijacked planes "two of which hit the WTC", but it is rarely taken past that in the same sentence.

What aren't they saying about Flight 77 and Flight 93???

[edit on 15-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]