Flight 77 Wreckage Pictures Inside Pentagon

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

In a decade preceding 0911 there was EXACTLY ONE example of an interception above the USA.
Google Payne Stewart interception and you'll see how long it took to successfully intercept a small jet flying straight line with transpoder on.


I’m just waiting to see if anyone will take the bait.




posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Is there anyone that can comment on this guys theory that a large winged jet can not fly close to the ground for half a mile at the speed the pentagon plane was traveling at, is this true? i`m not interested in weather or not the hijacker could fly , but i am interested the idea put forward by this clip..................

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
It's entirely possible. At the speed they were flying it would have taken almost no time at all to go a half mile. There's no reason at all it COULDN'T.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
I believe this is what you are looking for. Explains Ground Effect in great detail. Hope this helps. Happy Hunting!

www.aerospaceweb.org...

[edit on 7-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ISOVOLA
Is there anyone that can comment on this guys theory that a large winged jet can not fly close to the ground for half a mile at the speed the pentagon plane was traveling at, is this true? i`m not interested in weather or not the hijacker could fly , but i am interested the idea put forward by this clip..................

www.youtube.com...


I have a Private License and have some experience with GE with Cessnas only. The
largest being a 182. GE helps support lift of the plane when the plane reaches the
same height off the ground as its' wingspan. It can be a little hairy because it depends
on speed. If your not aware you will lose your GE effect and if you dont have enough
forward thrust when it does, your plane drops to the ground very hard. I can only imagine
that at the speed the 757 was going, the pilot would have had a tremendous time keeping
the aircraft straight and level without porpoising. That's my experience with it.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
He wouldn't have had to for long. Even if we take into account the slower speed of the plane (around 350mph) a half mile will be gone in the blink of an eye. He'd only have to hold it level for a few seconds at most.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Now if the alleged videos that were confiscated are in fact real, they would definately show us if he was handling it.

wait....we wouldn't even be having this conversation.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by T_Nexis


Yes, the US was well aware of the hijackings. And couldn't make a decision in time?



[edit on 6-8-2006 by T_Nexis]



So, if a plane is heading toward an airport, should they shoot it down?




no, but if 2 planes hit skyscrapers and a 3rd is heading towards the pentagon and they have to ask its GG pentagon.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Except the Pentagon IS next to the airport. And Flight 77 was incredibly hard to track due to spotty radar coverage. By the time they saw it in DC, it was way too late.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
I believe this is what you are looking for. Explains Ground Effect in great detail. Hope this helps. Happy Hunting!

www.aerospaceweb.org...

[edit on 7-8-2006 by Duhh]


Thanks Duhh for the link, it was very informative, cheers



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
*SNIP

Michael welcomes his colleague at American Free Press, Christopher Bollyn. Mike and Chris welcome special guest, Pentagon 9/11 eyewitness, Sam Danner. Listen to a fascinating account of what Sam watched from the side of the road, and from coming up onto the crash site, mere feet from the impact zone of the Pentagon. A "must listen to' show!

Mod Edit: Gratuitous Link Removed.

[edit on 8/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gold Chain
*SNIP*

Michael welcomes his colleague at American Free Press, Christopher Bollyn. Mike and Chris welcome special guest, Pentagon 9/11 eyewitness, Sam Danner. Listen to a fascinating account of what Sam watched from the side of the road, and from coming up onto the crash site, mere feet from the impact zone of the Pentagon. A "must listen to' show!


You might wanna go to this thread. This man is not a PILOT. He is a sad sick man. His own son has come out to explain it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
There is an Mp3 there that I posted. Listen to that then think on it!

Mod Edit: Quote Cleanup.

[edit on 8/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Hello everyone, newbie here. I just wanted to bring up a few things.
#1. How could such a large plane fly so low for so far with an armature pilot and not hit anything else? There were light poles and power lines that he flew over, you would think that he would have hit something on his way into the Pentagon.
#2. Why such a small hole at the impact site? If a plane this large at over 300mph loaded with fuel did hit the building then i would think that there would be substantially more damage then one small section of the building taken out or a small hole through the adjacent wall.
3#. Why all of the secrecy? If in fact a large plane did hit the Pentagon then why no tapes to show it and why were the surveillance tapes from all surrounding buildings confiscated immediately after the crash unless there was something that they did not want us to see? The only one i have seen looked like a tomahawk hitting the building but whatever it was not big enough to be a large passenger plane.

I have many questions about our governments unwillingness to disclose any more information about this, i myself smell something fishy!



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
1) There were no power lines nearby, but the plane did hi a number of light poles on the nearby highway

2) The hole in the exterior wall was not all that small. It just looks small because most of the pictures have a lot of smoke and fire obscuring them. The A-E wall punchout was after the debris had traveled through a large office area. Not much of the debris made it that far.

3) What secrecy? The tapes from the parking lot camera have been released. No one has ever provided any conclusive evidence that there were other tapes that would have caught anything.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
They could have just filled an office with 757 spare parts before they blew it up, everything was small enough to carry by hand.

Its interesting how the pentagon has a ground to air missile system protecting it that would have needed to be shut down for any plane to get within 5 miles of the place. I think its more likely that this was a planted explosive rather than any kind of airborne missile.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
1) You mean a pilot that FBO's wouldn't rent a Cessna to because he "couldn't fly at all" shouldn't be able to execute a complicated 270 degree, high-speed spiral that air traffic controllers thought was a military maneuver, lined up perfectly three feet off the ground into the Pentagon, without leaving any wreckage?

What are you, one of them conspiracy nuts?

2) I'll let Don Rumsfeld, in an interview at the Pentagon handle this one:

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building..."
www.defenselink.mil...

3) You mean 4 frames from a cheap parking booth security camera that shows nothing isn't enough for you when they still have an estimated 94 video tapes seized minutes after the Pentagon was hit?

Son, this is America. The government is innocent until they're proven guilty by the evil-doers with their WMDs. Good luck.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I agree, those pics do not show a plane,
they show garbage and twised cr@p on the floors,

That's what would remain fromn a plane hitting a wall in high speed.



where's the bodies?

You're seriously expecting whole bodies? There were parts of bodies. Enough to make an DNA analysis.



where's the wheels?

One outside the punchout hole, others presumably throughout the Pentagon's three rings.



where's the engines?

Parts of them throughout the Pentagon. What do you expect in a crash at 10,000 RPM?



where's some paint?

On the metal parts outside Pentagon.



how can some painted scrap metal land without a burn mark OUTSIDE the pentagon, yet there's nothing identifiying INSIDE the pentagon.

Answer is rather simple. The ripped and twisted metal in front of Ptg is without burn mars because... GASP!...it wasn't in the fire. And inside Pentagon is enough giveaways on the published pics, like undercarriage leg, engine parts etc.



A plane that big, going the fast would of sent a large section of the OUTSIDE INTO THe pentagon along with hte plane,

Not sure what you mean by large section of outside.



neither of which would of totally been consumed in 2x rings.

In fact only one ring and lots of drywall/soft masonry walls. Oh, why do you think so? Much of the plane's KE was consumed in penetrating this stone+rein. concrete wall.



if a plane had of hit it that fast and hard, it would of destroyed that outside section,
not puncture a hole,allowing the roof to collapse IMMEDIAETLY above the impact some time later.

How do you know? Did the WTC collapse IMMEDIATELY? With weaker structure than Pentagon and larger jets ramming it? Remember, Pentagon outer wall was reinforced against truck bombs.

I recommend you watching those nice cute little videos from Sandia showing a F-4 Phantom crashing into concrete.

EDIT: So what was that if no plane?

[edit on 10-7-2006 by tuccy]


ANSWERS FOR EVERYTHING and you honestly believe they are VALID REAL ANSWERS ?
This world is lost when people are so READY to BELIEVE SUCH LIES !!!
Mr Bush was a real and popularly elected President too RIGHT ?



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
1) There were no power lines nearby, but the plane did hi a number of light poles on the nearby highway

2) The hole in the exterior wall was not all that small. It just looks small because most of the pictures have a lot of smoke and fire obscuring them. The A-E wall punchout was after the debris had traveled through a large office area. Not much of the debris made it that far.

3) What secrecy? The tapes from the parking lot camera have been released. No one has ever provided any conclusive evidence that there were other tapes that would have caught anything.



Thats RUBBISH !! Give me a LINK to all the RELEASED tapes ? PLEASE the FEDS were there in seconds to CONFISCATE ANY recordings and have since released only SECONDS that show NOTHING !!!
GIVE ME 1 LINK that actually SHOWS SOMETHING ??
Come back your words !!





top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join