9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I don’t believe that it was stated that it was the same wall, but I would have to go back and re-read it since it’s been years after that was posted. There are a few errors in CatHerders post, but generally speaking it’s pretty straight on the money, and has stood the test of time. The wall in the first picture is the outside wall where the aircraft entered into the structure. The second picture is a chunk of fuselage from a cargo doorframe (the frame around the door, not the door itself), which survived long enough to punch through one of the interior rings of the building

Thank you guys (and Zaphod for his U2U) I guess I need to brush up on pentagon "anatomy". Thanks.

Originally posted by defcon5 The wall in the first picture is the outside wall where the aircraft entered into the structure. The second picture is a chunk of fuselage from a cargo doorframe (the frame around the door, not the door itself), which survived long enough to punch through one of the interior rings of the building

I would have to see an actual report on how that piece was supposed to have punched through a wall.

Originally posted by SteveR I'm new to this thread, yet I see a startling problem right in the first post from Catherder. This;

And this;

Is not even the same wall!!! What am I missing?

I am also new to this thread, but could someone tell me in that first impact hole, where is the impact from the tail section that is 44 feet off the ground? The window panes are still intact. Also, where are the impact holes for the two giant steel engines that should be 15 feet on both sides of the impact hole. Just simple questions. Thanks for the help. AAC [edit on 17-5-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation I am also new to this thread, but could someone tell me in that first impact hole, where is the impact from the tail section that is 44 feet off the ground? The window panes are still intact.

Now that is a good one!

The hole at top IS the entry hole for the main tail assembly. This is big error no. 1 in Cat Herder's analysis, something I callthe foam fraud when no-planers use it. The REAL damage from the rest of the plane (engine-fuselgae-engine) is all on the first floor and visible when fire hose spray is not covering it. I hope that helps.

Well not really. The wall under the window pane is still fully intact. Why is there no high resolution photos, hm? Anyway. I appreciate your time explaining this to us. We have no agenda, honest!

I assume the flaming window either side is the engine entry hole.

Yeah he did a # job on that point. The bottom of the tail is strongest, the upper parts would mark the wall but prob not break it. There are plenty of high res pictures out there. Try googling "Ingersoll + Pentagon" in image search. That's the blue shot to right, and "Morris + AP + Pentagon' should get you the firey left shot. And the "column" in Ingersol's shot where the engine etered is I believe floor slab that fell after the right engine took out those columns BTW.

But what about the military witness that was close to the Penatagon and states the plane did not go into the building. He states the main body was sticking out of the building and an explosion destroyed it.

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 But only one member of the Air Force received the Airman's Medal, the nation's highest award for heroism not involving combat with an enemy. He also received the Purple Heart for his injuries. Senior Master Sgt. Noel Sepulveda, 53, a Hispanic- American member of the Air Force Reserve, was a medical inspector at the Air Force Inspection Agency, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. But on Sept. 11, 2001, he was working at the Pentagon as a reserve program manager in the Air Force Strategies and Policies Office. 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. Sepulveda said the wings disintegrated, and then disappeared. "For a brief second, you could see the fuselage sticking out of the side of the Pentagon," Sepulveda recalls. "Then, all of a sudden, this ball of fire comes out from inside. It looked like it was just coming from inside the building, engulfing the fuselage. And then the fuselage was all gone."

?? Not quite a no-planer point. So a 757 HIT the building but didn't full ENTER it. This makes sense. Yeah going back over the pics, there IS a a tail end of the plane sticking out. How did I miss that before? And the government expects us to buy the lie that a 757 fully entered the building? Preposterous! After piercing the outer wall and maybe two column lines, it'd stop and lay there, as the photos clearly show. I feel like such a fool. edit: oops, the explosion destroyed the evidence, which is WHY we can't see it here. My mistake. Yes, a perfect plan, fly the plane halfway in and the blow it up. Genius! [edit on 17-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Still as sarcastic as ever Caustic I see! Boy, this thread just keeps going and going. The five light pole thing is just to much for me, there should be debrie all over the place when an aircraft hits so many things. After all if it can disinigrate inside the Pentagon, it most surely can fall apart after hitting other stationary objects. It's just to clean for rational thought in my mind. I'm not saying a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, I need more proof than whats available.

I can't get passed the actuality of a cliam that it atomized, yet there is a perfect whole of the impact on the opposite side of the corridor. So if the plane atomized, then how did it travel to other side of the corridor and create a flush hole that looks like a lead bullet fired through it? Another simple question, thanks for the help. Oh yeah, the face of a 757 is aluminum with metal lining. So, how did that happen again? AAC [edit on 18-5-2007 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

I see no body caught the statement about the landing gear. Why would you lower the landing grear at 500 mph? Do you know what happens when you lower the landing gear at that speed. Normal landing speed for a 757 is about 170 mph.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly Still as sarcastic as ever Caustic I see! Boy, this thread just keeps going and going. The five light pole thing is just to much for me, there should be debrie all over the place when an aircraft hits so many things. After all if it can disinigrate inside the Pentagon, it most surely can fall apart after hitting other stationary objects. It's just to clean for rational thought in my mind. I'm not saying a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, I need more proof than whats available.

Thanks for noticing. Good for you not arguing for no 757, and I grant of course that the evidence is counterintuitive, and much is still hidden (mostly the video, apparently a prerequisite for belief on the part of the youtube/teletubbies generation, unless they argue forged video, as many would, and then there's no proof, just belief). As for disintegrating inside, please see below.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation I can't get passed the actuality of a cliam that it atomized,

I can't get over peoples' not getting over this supposed claim. Plese provide a link if possible to where anyone in the know has ever stated that the entire plane atomized, vaporized, evaporated, or disappeared. You might find a vague off-the-cuff statement that seems to imply that, but nothing that would hold up to scrutiny as definitively arguing this. It's a holographic straw man invented by no-planers. Most if not all of the plane was found, and a few photos have even escaped the secrecy dragnet and been published (an engine or APU rotor, a rotor and shaft, the fuselage debris inside and out, landing gear strut, wheel, possibly burnt passengers).

Originally posted by infinityoreilly Still as sarcastic as ever Caustic I see! Boy, this thread just keeps going and going. The five light pole thing is just to much for me, there should be debrie all over the place when an aircraft hits so many things. After all if it can disinigrate inside the Pentagon, it most surely can fall apart after hitting other stationary objects. It's just to clean for rational thought in my mind. I'm not saying a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, I need more proof than whats available.

Thanks for noticing. Good for you not arguing for no 757, and I grant of course that the evidence is counterintuitive, and much is still hidden (mostly the video, apparently a prerequisite for belief on the part of the youtube/teletubbies generation, unless they argue forged video, as many would, and then there's no proof, just belief). As for disintegrating inside, please see below.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation I can't get passed the actuality of a cliam that it atomized,

I can't get over peoples' not getting over this supposed claim. Plese provide a link if possible to where anyone in the know has ever stated that the entire plane atomized, vaporized, evaporated, or disappeared. You might find a vague off-the-cuff statement that seems to imply that, but nothing that would hold up to scrutiny as definitively arguing this. It's a holographic straw man invented by no-planers. Most if not all of the plane was found, and a few photos have even escaped the secrecy dragnet and been published (an engine or APU rotor, a rotor and shaft, the fuselage debris inside and out, landing gear strut, wheel, possibly burnt passengers).

So. What is the purpose of not using a plane? Undeniably two were used in New York. What's a third? I want to know the motivation behind designing an elaborate alternative. If the Pentagon "factions at war" theory is to be beleived, then a missile may be an appropriate snub of sorts.

There is no damage from the planes tail because it went over the pentagoon. Why has there been no pictures of this released? You'd think if they had the tail section of a 757 sitting somewhere inside the pentagoon they would have released that pic to shut everyone up. Also imo opinion that which you claim is a hole is not a hole at all. It's the facade that was blown outwards knocking columns outwards. It looks nothing like something went through anywhere but the hole on the 1st floor (2nd for UK).

Anok: Actually the tail going over makes some sense. If the fin was intact it is odd theywould not have let us see any photos, but it wouldn't be the first odd thing of its type. that wad of electrical tape could represent a tailfin - but looks more like the whole assembly, which I can't see ripping loose and flying up and over all on its own. It's at least as likely something else. And as for the walls and columns going outward, which imples an internal bomb rather than incoming plane, I've asked you for evidence of that and have yet to see it. You showed me one column on the second floor, a spot the plane never touched, that was titlting outward AFTER the building collapse. Is there actual, relevant, evidence of this you're holding back? edit after looking closer at the graphic [edit on 18-5-2007 by Caustic Logic] [edit on 18-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I am still waiting to see the 40,0000 photos the FBI took and the photos they confiscated from the military media. Also where did they take the parts and pieces found and if they did a reconstruction.