9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by piboy intrepid, do you think we have enough evidence (stuff that at least could be presented in court) to prove it one way or another? Do you think we have done a proper investigation of the crash, like what they do for other airline crashes? Are you satified with the newspaper accounts of all the eye witness accounts with no cross-examination? [edit on 14-9-2004 by piboy]

My point was that you said without the physical evidence nothing would be resolved. Well you aren't going to get that evidence so the whole topic, from your point of view, is moot. Leave it alone for others to discuss. What you seek isn't here. Continued bashing on this topic is pure trolling. Your own words hung you mate. I'm amazed you haven't been hung yet.

Originally posted by piboy "...numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent � a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony. These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be "certain" of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident.

You know I addressed this in some of first pages on the original thread. I had posted a list of dozens and dozens of witnesses to a plane crashing into the Pentagon. Some of the testimony specifically identified an United Airlines plane, others thought the plane was smaller, some thought it was going slow, others fast, etc. When it comes to details, all the factors you noted above do play a part in the accuracy of the information. But not with respect to generalities. No two people will see the specifics of a car accident the same way - but both will agree that there was a car accident. It is the same with respect to the Pentagon crash - most witnesses agreed that a plane struck the building. I wouldn't expect the witnesses to agree on the exact model or carrier or size and speed of the plane - and I would be suspicious if they did. But the fact that these people all saw a plane can be construed as reliable testimony that would hold up in any court of law. Just my 2 cents. [edit on 9/14/04 by Bleys]

Originally posted by intrepid My point was that you said without the physical evidence nothing would be resolved. Well you aren't going to get that evidence so the whole topic, from your point of view, is moot. Leave it alone for others to discuss. What you seek isn't here. Continued bashing on this topic is pure trolling. Your own words hung you mate. I'm amazed you haven't been hung yet.

Ok. I'll leave it alone for others to discuss. It will be an argument of one person's faith against another, until we can have a real investigation. I predict the wheels will continue to spin and spin...

Planes can break apart without impact: aviation-safety.net... Foam punches large hole in wing: www.floridatoday.com... [edit on 15-9-2004 by LL1]

EDIT: Not even worth it [edit on 15-9-2004 by SMR]

EDIT: As stated above [edit on 15-9-2004 by SMR]

I have a question concerning the "Global Hawk Theory". Apparently this cartoon drawn over one pre-impact frame of the security camera footage is 100% the evidence provided for the theory it was a Global Hawk. So, since the entire "body" of the Global Hawk, with the exception of that pesky 757 tail fin, in the next frame after impact, is still the same group of trees it was before the impact....doesn't the entire Global Hawk theory go down the toilet? It appears to me, without the cunning use of shrubbery, this is a bunch of nonsense. So I guess we're down to two possibilities instead of three now. A 757, or a missile (with a 757 tail fin, of course). [edit on 9-15-2004 by Valhall]

Originally posted by zerocool HOW THE F**K CAN A PLANE GET THAT BLOODY CLOSE TO THE MOST SECURED AND GUARDED BUILDING IN THE WORLD!

I do not think it is the most secured and guarded building in the world. Here is a picture, made from a private Cessna on August 2001: In the background you see the Ronald Reagan Airport. Why wasn�t this plane shot down so close at "the most secured and guarded building in the world"? SALANA

The answer to that is because the Pentagon is nowhere near "THE MOST SECURED AND GUARDED BUILDING IN THE WORLD! "

How did this thread slip past me for such a long time?!? This is the most well thought out, planned, and executed explaination of the facts of the Pentagon crash that I have ever seen. I skimmed thru the last 11 pages and I can't beleive that the debate is still continued. How can it be so hard to accept the hard facts that have been presented. CatHerder is not asking anyone to change their beleifs on the people responsible or the motives behind the act. Just to accept the evidence presented and if you can't, then come up with your own undeniable evidence to counter his. If you can't, then let it go. I love how people are so lazy that they are even trying to use his photos and videos that he has put together against him. At least attempt to be somewhat original when you try to dispute Catherder's facts. Anyway, CH obviously deserves my "way above" vote and I look forward to future topics of this caliber!!!

Guys, for the record. I was wrong when I repeated that it was a 6 fps security camera - it's a 2 fps securty camera. Whomever at the Pentagon said it was a 6fps camera was mistaken. (Not a big deal, obvioulsy somebody in the media asked the wrong person, got a guess or an assumption, ran with that as "fact" and nobody ever followed up asking the right person). What this camera does is views at 30fps like any normal video camera, but it only stores 2 frames every second. Reason behind this is twofold - one it's meant to monitor traffic coming and going at the gate and you can get a good shot of anyone arriving or leaving in 1/2 a second -- you probably get 10+ frames of every person and vehicle coming and going via that gate. (That was what that camera was for, not for surveillance of the grass and far off objects like the helipad.) The most important reason, however, is storage. If you have a 3 hour tape, you can store 15 times as much "time" in the day on the tape, so it would only need to be replaced every day (with 21 hours to spare in case you didn't replace the tape right at 8AM it would still function properly until noon, etc. Or you could just replace the tape every 3rd or 4th 8 hour shift, etc. It's just common sense... nothing exciting there. Reason I arrived at 2fps is this: I know the wall of the Pentagon is 921.6 feet long (I know too much useless crap now after all of this by the way) and half of that is 460.8 (lets round it to 461). I also know the trajectory of the plane as it came in (not accounting for any yaw) by drawing a line from the middle of the hole in the building through the middle of the downed light poles and through the "damage path" inside the building. I then drew a line from the security camera building to an ojbect (building) I can see behind/past an object that I think is the plane in the photo (what appears to be the tail ). I now know where the plane is sitting on the trajectory path. I also know the 757 is 155 feet 3 inches long (again lets be lazy and round that to 155). I can now either measure the distance from the wall to the intersection of the flight path and arrive at the distance by dividing it into the length of the wall (or half the wall since it's closer to the length from the wall to the point where the plane is on the flight path), or I can just say hell, why not see how many 155 foot plane lengths fit on this flight path. In any case, the intersection is about 460 feet from the wall. So the plane was about 460 feet from the Pentagon in frame 1. So, the plane is 460 feet from the wall, and in the next frame it's hitting the wall that means it pretty much travelled 920 feet in a second. That fits with the 757's flight data recorder (which was recovered in the Pentagon...) and it said the last recorded speed was 780 f/s (400 kts). That 140 feet per second of travelled distance difference in there is because I should have measured from the nose of the plane - but I wasn't positive where it was. And the pane is 155 feet long... so we can move it forward 155 feet and it l fits perfectly with the plane's position in frame 1, and the exploding plane in frame 2. If we deduct 100 feet from the equasion (a few feet behind the wings of a 757) - and say the distance travelled was 360 feet, that would mean it was travelling at 720 feet per second (490mph). But, if I compare a GlobalHawk, which is 44 feet long it would have to complete the same distance while going ~836 feet per second. Well gosh, that global hawk SHOULD be about 88 to 122 feet from the building in frame 2. Unless it was going faster than 836 feet per second (570mph) - but the GlobalHawk goes 404mph top speed. How did it get that extra 166mph? It didn't because it can't be a GlobalHawk in the first frame, it has to be something going faster than 490mph. Lots of blah blah blah for what? For nothing. I already know what hit the Pentagon. I already know you cant fit 60 people inside a global hawk or a cruise missile. But most importantly, I'm intelligent enough to realise that if you were planning some great conspiracy and it involved a 757 crashing into the Pentagon? You crash a bloody 757 into the Pentagon. Why risk exposure of you nefarious deeds? There is just no reasonable explaination to deny a 757 hit the Pentagon. I've wasted enough time on this.

erm... SkepticOverlord why have I been warned for my post's on this thread, I have censored my writing, I didn't swear unless you are saying "bloody" is not a word in sociable conversation... please explain your actions towards me.... unless it's my fault for asking a member of ATS if he/she is on the same planet or dimension which I highly doubt it is Does anyone here believe I deserve to be warned for my 2 posts....

Hate to tell you but a 757 fusealage, you know that tube where you sit that keeps ya safe at 38k feet? No way it could punch a perfect hole that deep into the Pentagon. I dont care if it was traveling at Mach3 Look at that cookie cutter perfect hole The 757 in all of its glory If you notice on the aircraft, even if the gear was retracted, the engines are so big and drop so low it would not allow the plane to attain that low of a fly in to strike where the hole ends at around the d-e ring(inner court) Shortly after Impact Lets get a little closer Oh my,,,,thank god this happened, too messy to investigate further,,,just clean it up and move it out. Thats an order!!!! I could go on forever but would hate to bore you with conspiracy theories The same yadda yadda ya know. See another "Wheres the Pentagon Boeing 757" presentation , very well made. www.freedomunderground.org...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by zerocool Does anyone here believe I deserve to be warned for my 2 posts....

One post received a warn (not 2) for circumventing the censors, which was a vulgarity directed at a member. Click on the "warn" graphic to go to the specific post. In the future, it may be more productive to ask these questions via U2U.

I would have asked via u2u but I have emailed you plenty of times and u2u'd you about other matters which have not yet been answered... I know you know who I am because NetChicken knows... I'm not here to cause trouble more of the opposite really, lets just say I'm interested in the ATS way

Originally posted by SMR As stated above

Not worth it? What are you saying? I for one have always been skeptical about the conspiracy theories regarding the Pentagon. It is obvious to me that a American Airlines Passenger Jet flew into the Pentagon, look through the FACTS again, it is all there. Thanks for the post, very nice work.

Originally posted by project_pisces Hate to tell you but a 757 fusealage, you know that tube where you sit that keeps ya safe at 38k feet? No way it could punch a perfect hole that deep into the Pentagon. I dont care if it was traveling at Mach3

Seen your link and i call B***S***!! Why would the US Government hit the Pentagon with a missle and then say an airplain hit it. If the US government did stage the attacks they would have done a better job. Anyone have anything on an earlier post to this thread by s13guy - www.sierratimes.com... -? It was referring to the autopsies done to the victims of flight 77.

. In terms of the image of the global hawks engine [you provided] being different than what we see in the pentagon photos, aren't the turbo fan blades [in the provided photo] often/usually stripped off in a crash? So why should we expect the wreckage of the engine to look like a brand new engine with all the more fragile parts still intact? To make it more convincing it would be useful to see the more solid/less destructable portions of the motor/engine. As to your siloette of the 757 as i have noted before the the tail section alone has very notable problems to which you responded

The tail: As is noted besides the caption, I took another plane that was flying "close to" the same angle as what was in the video. It's not banking the right way, it's not even the same airliner... but it sure fits the general picture.

Addtionallly you dismissed my observation that the so called puff of smoke being a global hawk

And the smoke is not shaped like a globalhawk, that's about as much proof as looking up and seeing an elephant and a tiger in the shape of the clouds on a nice summer day.

Interesting, you rather poorly inscribed outline, sans holes, "sure fits" and the rather cohesive sculpted looking 'puff of smoke' is just me seeing things. No bias there? You then contradict your own attempt to present the video footage as some scrap of evidence

Besides, the surveillance camera footage is very poor quality and not much to base anything on (I've said so dozens of times) for either side of the arguement.

I can only speak for myself buy visual evidence rates higher to me than 'explanations'. .

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Originally posted by SMR As stated above

Not worth it? What are you saying?

Im not bashing you,but you dont know why I posted that so please dont make assumptions.I wont go into what it was about,but notice the EDIT in both those posts......... As for the subject at hand.Im done with it. The truth will come out once we get video of what I believe to what hit the Pentagon.There are NO reasons why we the public,who were attacked that day,are not allowed to see what are on those tapes.They are hiding something and everyone here knows it. Security my a$$ If all the confiscated videos show nothing more than an AA 757 flaying and hitting the Pentagon,then why not show it.If anyone says they dont want to show because of the respect to the people,I call BS because then they should not be showing and whoring out all the video of 2 planes hitting the WTC OVER AND OVER! I will not debate on this anymore because it seems any questions are just laughed at,ridiculed,mocked,and simply,looked down upon.As far as anyone is concerned,the debate is over because we have this presentation on the front page.So that must be it.Game over.No more debating.No more questions. Scream deny ignorence all you want,but it is you who you should be screaming to.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!!!!!!! I can't seem to stand people that when faced with good evidence that the pentagon was hit by a plane will still nit pick everything CH has stated so they can still hope for a conspiracy. YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IT IS THE REAL THING IN QUESTION HERE. It's like trying to convince someone that the world is round when all his/her life thought it was flat. It's not a matter of evidence anymore, its a matter of believing it was a conspiracy for the past 3 years and having that all flipped upside down. Get a Grip... There is no Santa Clause.... There is no Easter Bunny.... There was no global hawk involved.... I'm sorry to break the news.... Embracing Ignorance Later, Reason

Slank - I wasn't even going to include the animation from the surveillance camera initially and didn't spend any time with it because the frames I originally found were terrible quality and now I can't update the photo posted because the images are now copied over to the ATS server. Look at the updated (one I took longer than 60 seconds with to line up the outline of the tail section, and airframe) animation - which uses the better quality footage of the surveillance camera. It also uses footage that isn't altered like the ones used on the french site and is regurgitated on so many 757 conspiracy sites... This answers your "doesn't line up" issue. And the smoke is not a global hawk. GlobalHawk's do not fly at 500mph - they have a maximum speed of 404mph at altitude (meaning - their square wings aren't designed to be able to handle faster speeds; they're square for a reason - to stay aloft for a long time at high altitudes while flying slowly to take photos). The object that hit the building (the 757) was travelling at 480-520mph. And the outside engine - which I said "most likely" (not absolutely, not positively, not definitely) is an APU -- might very well be an apu (to the left of the rotary part). However, looking at the schematic of a RB211 engine, it could be the engine. (The front induction torary fan is not the engine - the rear part is the engine) The round disc shape does appear to look like part (A) in the diagram... and if it is part of an RB211 engine - then that's just further evidence that it's not a GlobalHawk and further evidence that it's a 757. Either way, APU or RB211 it's just another part from a 757.