The Pentagon Mystery....where has that PESKY plane gone???

Originally posted by REMISNE
Please show us the proper, offical FBI reports that the wreckage matched the plane and the flight.

You mean the official FBI reports that have not been released yet? Sad that you keep asking for that, when everyone knows they have not been released yet. Perhaps you need to do more research.

Originally posted by benoni



[edit on 23-4-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by benoni


The Iranian aircraft crashed just after takeoff onto the ground. Takeoff speed is much much lower, ergo the plane will not smashed to itty bitty pieces. It was not in a 450mph nosedive into the ground.

At Shanksville, the aircraft did a high speed nosedive into the ground, around 450mph. Much more different than a takeoff speed crash 16 minutes after take off.

At the Pentagon, the aircraft impacted the SIDE of the building also at very high speed, causing the aircraft debris to go INSIDE the building. Again speeds of 400mph. It was not on take off, with the gear down, falling onto the Pentagon. (Falling onto meaning falling on TOP of the Pentagon. Crashing onto the roof.) The 757 impacted the side at high speed.

Are you beginning to understand the key differences?

About the only significant comparison one can make is the crater in Iran to the one in PA. Similar burnt debris, smashed to bits, crater.

The aircraft had not "just taken off...", it had been airborne for 16 minutes.....and had flown 145 km's...why play down this fact Gen??

CNN stated "That would have put the flight in one of the safest stages of travel, according to International Air Transport Association data. Only about 5 percent of accidents take place during the phase called en-route climb, 16 to 20 minutes into a flight, when a plane climbs to a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet."

So, this plane was at least close to cruising altitude when it fell from the sky.... nosediving into the ground ala Shankville...not "just taken off", but tens of thousands of feet high...

You asked me if I was beginning to "see the key differences"?

No... I cannot.

Infact there are so many similarities that I cannot understand why you would attempt to "sell it off" as such....

The similarities regarding the crash site are another matter...in Iran the planes wreckage is clearly seen....in Shanksville there is no wreckage worth commenting on...

“There was no plane,” Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville, told German television in March 2003:

“My sister and a good friend of mine were the first ones there,” Stull said. “They were standing on a street corner in Shanksville talking. Their car was nearby, so they were the first here—and the fire department came. Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane.”

“They had been sent here because of a crash, but there was no plane?” the reporter asked.

“No. Nothing. Only this hole.”

Or the local Coroner who stated "This is the most eerie thing. I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."

"I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. There was just nothing visible. It was the strangest feeling."

"[The crater looked] like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it."


So, a lot of similarities in how the planes (Iranian and Shanksville) nosedived into the ground, but thats where the similarities end....

i have never heard of a plane crash that had the very suspicious situation of there being NO plane...and neither have you.


But, thats off topic....although no less scandalous....

Are you beginning to see how wrong you are??

reply to post by benoni


Ah so aircraft that are almost already at crusing speed have their landing gear down right? Talk to weedwhacker about that I'm sure he'll have a good laugh at that.

What else did the report say about the Iranian airplane crash? The pilot was trying to land. Trying to land? At nearly crusing speed? Benoni, next time make sure you actually look into the crash and read about what happened before trying to mix and match what you think happened and what really happened. Also be sure to ask weedwhacker as to how fast an aircraft usually flies for landing with the gear down.

Its so funny you use those quotes. Let me tell you something. People's first impressions of a tragic incident usually dont tell the whole story. And especially when you start to cherrypick the quotes out of context, you sure do miss a lot. And using the coroner's quote? Boy oh boy, you sure are cherrypicking away and ignoring A LOT of the IMPORTANT stuff he said about the crash. Lets see what else he said and did:

Coroner to release Flight 93 site nearly four years after crash

Published: Jul 29, 2005 9:06 AM EST


SHANKSVILLE, Pa. (AP) - The Somerset County coroner will turn over control of the United Flight 93 crash site to its owners Monday.
Coroner Wallace Miller has held the site as a coroner's death scene since Sept. 11, 2001,
when the hijacked plane crashed into an abandoned strip mine in Somerset County, killing 40 passengers and crew.
Miller and a group of more than two dozen volunteers this week made a final sweep of the property, looking for debris. The group found airplane debris near a section of downed evergreens and a small amount of human remains, Miller said.
The remains can't be identified because of weather degradation and the size of the sample, he said.

911review.org...

Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks
were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.

Scorched human samples? Gee you are expecting whole human torsos and an intact aircraft after a 400mph+ nosedive impact into the ground? Use your head. That plane and humans are not going to stay in one piece. This is the best approximation of what happened to the aircraft:
www.youtube.com...
Smashed to bits.

But lets move on:

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions,
wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site.
"It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in
10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

Woops! Looks like Miller is contradicting you! No surprise really. He just said "aircraft parts". So there was a plane crash there, according to him. And Human remains. you just shot yourself in the foot with your very own witness! well done!

Arent you also forgetting (IGNORING) the actual photos of debris found?

Boy benoni, you sure do have selective amnesia. You only remember what fits your pre-concieved notions, while ignoring the important facts.

[edit on 4/24/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek

What else did the report say about the Iranian airplane crash? The pilot was trying to land.

Hilarious.

Did Benoni REALLY try to compare a plane that is trying to land, with a pilot that is trying to save his life and the life of his passengers by presumably trying to minimize the impact with the ground...... to a plane deliberately flown into the ground at as high a speed as possible?

Was this video already posted?:
www.youtube.com.../a/u/1/b_L_03MGdWw

It shows that there was a missile hit on the Pentagon.

Originally posted by loner007
I dont normally post in these 9/11 threads but i just have this to say this. Take a look at this plane crash site ofAmerican airlines flight 587 photo and ask can you see a plane in that wreckage?. Also please ask yourself what material is the plane made of? At present, aluminium is used in the aviation industry everywhere in the world. From two thirds to three quarters of a passenger plane’s dry weight, and aluminium has a melting point of 660.37 °C. Now ask yourself where that planes is.........

Right here?

www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/AA587_14.jpg

edited to fix link



[edit on 29-4-2010 by TXRabbit]

reply to post by TXRabbit


Your image link is broken....but I was able to follow it, and view the photo.

What it shows is the portion of the airplane that BROKE OFF, while still in flight.

It shows one of the mounting brackets that held the vertical fin in place. THAT was the cause of that crash --- First Officer's over-use of rudder, and the resultant stresses inflicted on the vertical fin were too much for the design to handle. Whole thing broke off, and fell into the bay. (But, all of that is in the NTSB report: American Airlines 587 NTSB report).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, yes, for everyone else to see what we're discussing, here is your photo, with proper link:






[edit on 29 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Thanks for the assist WW. I fixed my link and actually have it pointing to the CORRECT picture I was trying to show. I think I'd originally linked from a slide-show and got the wrong image.

Anywho..

reply to post by TXRabbit


OK...here's the caption for that image, from the NTSB site:

Investigators working on wreckage of empennage, at crash site, November 14

Now, that's odd...'Spell-Check' doesn't recognize 'empannage'. ( Guess it's too french... ). It IS the French word for what we refer to as the 'tail' of an airplane, in case anyone wonders. Encompasses the entire portion, to include part of the fuselage area (another French term...).


Anyway...here's the NTSB animation, for what I'm gong to discuss: www.ntsb.gov...


It mercifully stops just as the airplane begins the violent maneuver, after the vertical fin has sheared off. (Power to the DFDR apparently is cut). Note, though, the airspeed (still below 250 knots) and the altitude (still about only 2,500 feet).

The manner of impact, on that flight, is totally different from the American 77 impact into the Pentagon. Velocity being the major difference, and the resulting energies being much, much higher. That caused far more fragmentation of the components, on impact.

In the case of AA 587 the speeds are lower, and larger sections will survive.
Still, the debris field as shown overall illustrates the extent to which even that crash devastated the airframe. So, the point regarding the AA 77 impact has been made.



[edit on 29 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

I dont know if this video explains anything about what happened at the Pentagon on 911. But it sure does not look like a commercial airliner to me.

www.liveleak.com...

reply to post by spy66


No, that video is totally misrepresenting the events. Pieced together, a mish-mash of unrelated bits, and rampant speculation. With a couple of photo-shopped images (the "cruise missile" that is 'painted' with AA livery). Nobody saw an actual cruise missile. They mentioned the word "missile" only as an analogy.

Also, in the vid...at 0:58, the text "What is this flash?" appears.

What is that video trying to show? It is unclear, yet it attempts to leave a certain impression in people's minds, clearly. It is manipulative garbage, that video, pure and simple.

reply to post by weedwhacker

What it shows is the portion of the airplane that BROKE OFF, while still in flight.
It shows one of the mounting brackets that held the vertical fin in place. THAT was the cause of that crash --- First Officer's over-use of rudder, and the resultant stresses inflicted on the vertical fin were too much for the design to handle. Whole thing broke off, and fell into the bay. (But, all of that is in the NTSB report: American Airlines 587 NTSB report).

Weedwacker, I am asking this question cause I really don't know:

Can you really overuse the rudder and break it off? I guess use during certain times would increase the load.

The forces that the rudder endure are great, it seems that they would build that into the design. When I listened to the voice recorder on that flight the 'noise' is beyond loud when it breaks.

The only other time I remember a real rudder issue was living in colorado when that 737 on route to colorado springs, the rudder servo deflected full swing and the plane crashed into a school yard.

thanks..

There is really a lack of any evidence that any plane actually crashed at the Pentagon. In the video called Loose Change 2nd Edition (Full) it shows google satellite imagery the day before the Pentagon crash of a white marker right at the spot of the crash. That's definitely not a coincidence.

Originally posted by loner007
I dont normally post in these 9/11 threads but i just have this to say this. Take a look at this plane crash site ofAmerican airlines flight 587 photo and ask can you see a plane in that wreckage?. Also please ask yourself what material is the plane made of? At present, aluminium is used in the aviation industry everywhere in the world. From two thirds to three quarters of a passenger plane’s dry weight, and aluminium has a melting point of 660.37 °C. Now ask yourself where that planes is.........

Sorry, doesn't work. In the photo you referenced, there are a number of houses that are completely destroyed - absolutely obliterated. Yet in the OP's pics, we can see that even windows adjacent to the supposed impact site remain unbroken. Additionally, your photo is taken from a distance, from the air. Photos of your site taken as close as the OP's would show a massive melted, twisted and burned aircraft debris field, of which there is NONE at the Pentagon.

reply to post by truthseeker911


Well....I certainly will not ever be purchasing that dreck video titled "Loose Change"...not the 'second' version, not any version.

(You'd think a reasonable person would question the need for so many revisions to that "documentary", wouldn't you?)

I haven't checked, lately, to see if there are ATS threads here on that video, sure there probably are.

truthseeker911, I see you're 'new'...perhaps you'd be interested. You can utilize the 'search' button, near top of the screen.


Since I can't stand to waste my time on that stupidity, I am not aware of their (just one of many BOGUS, most likely) claims about a white 'X', or other marker.

I'm guessing those kids, from their basement 'studio', got it wrong somehow, though....as with just about everything else.

In any event, THIS thread topic?

Someone (the OP) posed the question: "Where did it go?" I see it was sarcastic, in tone...if I remember correctly.

But, nevertheless...asking about, or pointing out, some sort of "marker" (whether true or not) kinda sorta puts the "No Plane" camp out into the street, with no clothes, doesn't it? I mean....a "missile" doesn't need a big white target (AND, NO! I'm not suggesting for one second it was a missile, just an illustration here...)

SO...IF there was such a target, it must have been meant for some Human to spot?? Correct?? Does everyone see the lack of logical thinking, here?

Of course....the kids making that film ALSO lack logic...and knowledge, and experience too.

It is LAUGHABLE to suggest that some sort of white marker, that is visible from STRAIGHT OVERHEAD in a google 'satellite' image, would somehow be visible, and useful, when viewed from a low altitude, laterally away...obliquely.

Those muttonheads keep cranking out the funniest stuff! Little scamps!

reply to post by theability


Oh, and 'Hi", theability, I hadn't ignored you, just now noticed your (rather old) question.

Since it WAS sorta in context, as we compared aircraft debris examples, using the American Airlines flight 587, I shall think it's not too off topic.

Can you really overuse the rudder and break it off?

I think I've covered this before, but once again: Technically, per design, a qualified 'no'...however, one should never say "never' on that.

As I've pointed out (from the NTSB reports, of course, which make perfectly reasonable sense to me) THAT is what happened with AAL 587. Combination of reasons: The 'flying pilot' (FP) was the First Officer, on that ill-fated leg. He had a history of being somewhat over-aggressive o the rudder (for whatever reason, I cannot grasp)...we just do NOT need to use it that much, except for crosswinds during takeoffs/landings and for assymetric thrust situations (engine failure/reduced power).

He definitely over-reacted in the wake turbulence encounter (again, NO need for rudder!! The ailerons are sufficient, and the yaw damper, automated and always on, takes care of any adverse yaw tendencies).

The other combination was his rapid 'back-and-forth' movements, along with the VERY bad luck that their airspeed was just in the range where the Flight Control Computer begins to modulate the amount of rudder travel authority --- decreasing it as airspeed increases. FULL travel is available at slower speeds, when it would be most needed for engine-out situations.

CAN the vertical fin attachment points be overstressed? In that case, yes. Sadly.

So, that's the sorry tale (no pun) about that!



[edit on 21 May 2010 by weedwhacker]