9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by seanm Anyone know what happened to AA77?

Well my money is that it ended up smashed and incinerated inside The Pentagon. I take this rather surprising and unpopular view because the evidence is that recovered from the scene were a large mass of B-757 debris, the black box flight recorder, substantial semi-incinerated remains of the crew and passengers (most eventually identified and returned to the relatives) plus remains of much of the checked-in luggage. Also, more than 150 various eyewitnesses testify that they saw it flying over their heads immediately prior to impact, or actually watched it strike the building. But I realize this is against the conventional fundamentalist Truthseekers' opinion that it can not be so, because 'I think a jet can't do that' and 'I think it was an inside job'. So maybe AA#77 is on a tropical island somewhere and the missing passengers and crew living some alternative lifestyle isolated from the world, or maybe they were zapped by some top secret death ray and magically dematerialized to The Planet Zarg. Take your pick.

ok... i'll chime in on this.. i've spent the morning reading the plethra of posts and arguements... nothing new in any of it, as it's been all over the web for years... books have been written and people have done the talk show circuit... i personally don't believe a "highjacked" airliner crashed into the pentagon... a missle that some may have thought was a plane, as described by "eyewitnesses", yes... with all the photos i've seen i don't believe there is enough debris to make up a plane of that size... i haven't seen posted here (though many of the extrernal links lead no where) and maybe someday i'll look for the image i'm thinking about, but i'm sure you've all seen it... it's the pre-collapse of the impact where the second floor is exposed and there's a desk with paper still on it in "plane" view... doesn't look like the remnents of a giant fireball to me.... and guys in suits picking up pieces of metal from a mostly untarnashed field do little to convince me either... as in all things, we can throw as many theories and "facts" at something as we want... in the end we'll ignore the ones that don't fit with our vision of the world... i just read the post by one of the site owners where he said it was a sad day here at abt because cathearder had made such a convincing arguement and some people still didn't want to to accept...well to that i'd say, "wasn't such a convincing arguement then was it?"... what is good to see though, is the independent investigations still going on.... remember people, we're not the enemy... "they" are..... and they're capable of anything.... carry on.... [edit on 3-11-2007 by never_tell]

here's that photo...

Um, you said that was a pre-collapse photo. It isn't. That portion of the building collapsed, separating cleanly at the section joint. After fire weakened the steel and concrete to the point that it could no longer support its load. Feel free to call all the witnesses, first responders, and investigators liars: wtc7lies.googlepages.com... [edit on 6-11-2007 by Mark Roberts]

Originally posted by bovarcher I take this rather surprising and unpopular view because the evidence is that recovered from the scene were a large mass of B-757 debris, the black box flight recorder, substantial semi-incinerated remains of the crew and passengers (most eventually identified and returned to the relatives) plus remains of much of the checked-in luggage.

Do you have any official reports that match parts of the plane to Flight 77? Do you have any reports matching the luggage to Flight 77? How did they id most almost all the people (specially the terrorist) when the fire that destroyed the plane would have also destroyed the DNA. NIST DNA experts had to coem up with new DNA testing for 9/11.

Look at the representations, and then imagine one of them being placed over the Pentagon photograph so that the yellow lines match up with the left wing. Then look above the alleged wing damage. Where is the damage from the top 3/5 of the fuselage? I don't think it's really that big of a point, for example, if you were to just admit that the black line could not possibly have been damage from the left wing of a 757. At least, not in this situation. If it is, then there was something horribly wrong with the placement of the fuselage. [edit on 28-8-2005 by bsbray11] I just had to join to reply to this from bsbray back in Sept, 2005, page 92. Please tell me that someone caught the error in this post. The hole he's showing is from the port engine, so then of course the wing strike mark would be totally below the hole the engine made. He's misrepresenting the hole as from the fuselage. Can't believe you guys didn't catch this right away. [edit on 13-11-2007 by Haroki] [edit on 13-11-2007 by Haroki]

Well, that sucked. Here's what I said above: I just had to join to reply to this from bsbray back in Sept, 2005, page 92. Please tell me that someone caught the error in this post. The hole he's showing is from the port engine, so then of course the wing strike mark would be totally below the hole the engine made. He's misrepresenting the hole as from the fuselage. Can't believe you guys didn't catch this right away.

reply to post by Haroki Good catch then! There's way too much crap to catch it all. Lots and lots of 'errors' in reading the Pentagn damage. The best evidence for placement of the left wing is the bend of column 9AA my blog post It would seem to place the plane more level than what's indicated by the right-wing damage area (which shows a bank of about 6 degrees right wing up). Right wing about right in this ASCE graphic, left obv. not. I believe this is because the plane lost its high right wing first (angle of impact = order of impact - fuselage, r wing, l wing, tail), and then rolled left up a bit as it entered, perhapps after the left engine struck the vent structure. If the wing edge hit column 9AA at its bow point, the engine would be just above the foundation.

reply to post by never_tell Hey, that's my graphic! Cool. I made that actually to make fun of 911 in Plane Site. orignal context The plane hit and breached walls on the first two floors, mostly the first, in the renovated section. This means strong ass new windows, so any jet fuel splashing the upper facade would remain out side. To the left was unrenovated, windows that broke when thedeflecting fireball hit them and so we had upper floor fires there on 43 and 4, but NOT right above impact. IPS claimed to show no jet fuel there by pointing out here, right above the impact point, “On the 3rd floor it's plain to see a file cabinet with a computer monitor. Neither of them are damaged. On the second floor you can see a wooden desk, it hasn’t burned. And on the first floor, a very curious sight indeed, a wooden stool with a book that is laying open. The pages aren’t even singed.” So do we see the problem with an unburnt stool w/boook on 'the first floor?'

reply to post by CatHerder An interesting view. However after viewing the compelling facts in the documentary "9-11 Ripple Effect", It seems theres a few "holes" in your theory, Most notably that the wings and tail section of the airplane must have somehow vanished and/or vaporized (highly unlikely). There are numerous other inconsistancies as well. Nice try though. You would be doing yourself a favor by viewing the above documentary and at the very least, even if you hold on to your position, you would be armed with more information. Still ,though, I look forward to more of your posts!

reply to post by Caustic Logic I don't see a problem at all with the book/chair/whatever. The wall that protected that room (concrete?)collapsed when the fire was at a lower level of intensity, and that room received no fire damage at all. Evidence of this is that the walls also have virtually no smoke damage. No smoke damage=no fire, right?

reply to post by Haroki Yep. Miraculous unburnt first floor stool (actually a bible lectern it seems) DOES NOT mean no fire on first floor, no jet fuel, no jet. Nor does it mean a miraculous sign from God. It means the stool was on the third floor, where there were no fires at all. Note below that is black, at third floor slab and above is not. So all Anyone who points to this is illustrating is whatanyone who's studied the evidence already knows, but by mislabeling the floors by two stories, In Plane Site tried to discredit the jet impact but discredited themselves instead. That was probably the goal to begin with since this seems too stupid a mistake to make by accident.

Curious, whatever happened to the tail?

There was a accident in Poland with Boeing 737-800 at the end of last month. "...Boeing 737-800, hired by the UN to transport soldiers returning from the peace mission, with 114 Polish soldiers and 11 crew members on board, came to low while landing and destroyed guiding lights at a stretch of around 870m, but managed to land safely..." Here is the link to the photos from that accident: Lightpoles Boeing 737 accident. I hope this info would be usefull. Were there any plane parts found where the light poles were destroyed at the Pentagon ? Looking at the photos from that accident in Poland that lights made a nice damage to the plane and it was at landing speed. I guess that if that was speed at which 757 struck the Pentagon the plane would have big problems and the damage would be hmmmmmmm much bigger :] [edit on 14-11-2007 by STolarZ] [edit on 14-11-2007 by STolarZ]

Originally posted by antsi Curious, whatever happened to the tail?

order of impact - by the time the tail reached the wall, the rest of the pane would be inside - blown up and tearing up more. If the tail was even upright to hit the wall, with nothing much else attached to give it any force it'd fold back and fly in base first without hardly chipping the upper facade. It's the wings - solid, bearing the engines, firly attached, and hitting with most of the inatact plane's weight behind them - that would do damage to the left and right. And look at that span - 90 feet of outer wall gone on floor 1. So much damage even this best single photo fails to capture it all.

reply to post by STolarZ Thanks! This one in particular: Possibly relevant to this issue: Generator trailer damage

reply to post by STolarZ Thanks! This one in particular: Possibly relevant to this issue: Generator trailer damage

reply to post by STolarZ Someone posted, waaaay back, that a woman had a piece of carbon fiber or something similar type material fall through her sunroof as the plane went overhead. Since it was painted white, the CTerz were trying to use this as evidence of a Global Hawk, since it's mostly carbon fiber and painted white. But when another dude posted that the leading edge slats(?) were made from carbon fiber and painted white and supplied photos, the claims ended.....

This has probably been mentioned but I'd like to know what has been said about it (too many pages to look through, and search has come up with nothing). I recently saw a video of a jet crash test, in which a jet was flown into a peice of concrete. Upon impact, the jet was completely atomized. There was nothing at all left. Has this been shown here before? What are the thoughts on it? I will try and get the video if I can.

Originally posted by Haroki reply to post by STolarZ

 

Someone posted, waaaay back, that a woman had a piece of carbon fiber or something similar type material fall through her sunroof as the plane went overhead. Since it was painted white, the CTerz were trying to use this as evidence of a Global Hawk, since it's mostly carbon fiber and painted white. But when another dude posted that the leading edge slats(?) were made from carbon fiber and painted white and supplied photos, the claims ended.....

I believe this is what you are referring to. I also believe, ( if it truely is a piece of AA77 ), that it's a piece of wing faring. I say IF because when I contacted the Smithsonian with respect to what they did to research the chain of custody & validity of the object I found out they did NOTHING but accept Ms. Elgas's word and her account! They didn't even have Boeing look at it to verify it was a piece from one of their planes. What a joke!