9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by SPreston It would be helpful, SP, if you had an aerial view to comport with Sean Borger (SP?) account. If you've been to the area you would know how far awy the Annex barracks are, compared to that pic (foreshortening of perspective) and the Air Force Memorial sculpture had not yet been built in 2001. (Those are the soaring semi-arcs you see under construction in the pic). So, a 'bird's-eye' view would be very illuminating....I personally know an individual who saw the 757 fly past his apartment building on Columbia Pike. I was home that moring in Arlington, lived about a mile from Ft. Myer. I know the area quite well, and the face of the Pentagon that was struck was clearly visible from I-95. Perhaps the jet WASN'T doing 535mph (I prefer to speak in Knots, but whatever) Even at 400KTAS (exceeding its stated VMO, but a darn sight more controlable, in theory) we're going to see a heck of a lot of damage. (And, we did, on the outer edifice. And, no, the wings didn't magically fold backwards..). Again, your version of events may have certain merits to back it, but there is a plethora of 'red-herrings' that keep popping up....such as the small hole. That hole is in one of the cinder-block walls that comprise the internal sturcture of one of the concentric rings. It could have meen made by the APU (purely wildly speculative, on my part) but it shows that not everything you read on the internet is entirely accurate at all times.... I am puzzled by the 'no-plane' theory because of all of the Arlington FD First Responders not one has yet come forward to write the tell-all book of the century?

posted by weedwhacker reply to post by SPreston

 

. . It would be helpful, SP, if you had an aerial view to comport with Sean Borger (SP?) account. . . If you've been to the area you would know how far awy the Annex barracks are, compared to that pic (foreshortening of perspective) and the Air Force Memorial sculpture had not yet been built in 2001. (Those are the soaring semi-arcs you see under construction in the pic). . . So, a 'bird's-eye' view would be very illuminating.... . .

. . [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07ab3f3dc0fa.jpg[/atsimg] . . Why? Trained and experienced Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger in the helipad control tower, was facing and looking directly at the Naval Annex when he saw the aircraft flying directly at him from Over the Naval Annex. That alone destroys the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY because from Over the Naval Annex the aircraft could not possibly knock down the five light poles to the south nor create the alleged aircraft damage path through the Pentagon interior. Nor could the aircraft fly the low and level flight path inches off the lawn as depicted in the obviously photoshopped official parking lot security videos. . . Boger also saw the aircraft banking to its right or to his left from Over the Naval Annex, which also destroys the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY because there officially was no bank to the right and the alleged 90 ton 535 mph official Flight 77 aircraft could not possibly have banked to the right while flying mere inches above the lawn according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report and the obviously photoshopped official parking lot security videos. . . The distance from the Naval Annex to the explosion point at the Pentagon wall is about 2500 feet, which the alleged official aircraft would take 3.2 seconds at 784 feet per second (535 mph) to travel. As most experienced aircraft pilots realize, 3.2 seconds is not enough time to do any actual manuevering of the aircraft. . . If you need an aerial view, then why can't you grab one for yourself off the internet? You are grasping at straws as your precious fantasy tale collapses around your ears. If ATC Sean Boger is looking directly at the Naval Annex and reporting the aircraft flying from Over the Naval Annex, then how can the aircraft be anywhere but flying from Over the Naval Annex? Flying from Over the Naval Annex would be agreeing with 20+ other eyewitnesses placing the aircraft Over the Naval Annex, and agreeing with the FAA also placing the aircraft Over the Naval Annex. What is so difficult with visualizing this concept with you people? . . FAA flight path 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb) Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive . . . . This image compares what Sean Boger would have seen if the aircraft was flying the official south flight path, with what he actually saw flying from Over the Naval Annex directly towards him and then banking to his left. . ' [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95fd93411642.jpg[/atsimg] . . [edit on 4/15/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston Well....I'm looking at Google Earth now. I'm a little puzzled, Preston, because you repeatedly say 'alleged' airplane, then point to Sean Boger as having seen the airplane 'tilt' its wings (an experienced Air Traffic Controller would have said 'bank' its wings, one would think). I'm also a little offended by your assertion that I cling to some fantasy about the event...touchy, are we? Taking a good look at Google, allow me to describe my drive home on I95/I395, exiting on Washington Blvd. That is how I drove home from National Airport, because, you see, I am one of those experienced airline pilots who wants to be perfectly clear on all the facts. (Oh, and 3 secs is actually a pretty long time, look at some NTSB Reports/transcripts). Back to Google....it is the Westernmost wall of the Pentagon that took the impact. There's even a little icon there to point it out. I'm merely suggesting that from the perspective of the heliport it could APPEAR that an airplane was over the Annex....without literally being over it. It would seem that some creative license may have been needed to plot a computer simulation, but there's no reason for its lack of perfect accuracy to mean its an intentional deceit. If the guy was yankin' and bankin' like the monkey he most certainly was, the exact path is likely never going to be perfectly depicted. We all want to be as accurate as possible, within the limits of what is available data....including the DFDR and CVR.

Very nicely researched. but... I am still 100% convinced that a Boeing 747 did not crash into the pentagon. The hole in the pentagon was only 16 feet wide! You're trying to tell me that a plane that is over 100 feet wide... fit into a hole that is only 16? Also, to quote a man [i forget his name] who works for rolls Royce and knows what a rolls royce engine looks like he said when he saw the damaged engine "that's no rolls Royce engine that i've ever seen," Furthermore, where is the video tapes? Why was the video from the gas station confiscated? The pentagon is the most surveillanced building in the united states... and we have not one video of the plane crashing into the building? hmmm... The height of the boeing 747 is higher than the height of the pentagon. And yet, the ceiling right above the crash site, did not collapse until AFTER the plane had already crashed into the pentagon. How does that happen? And if you examine a picture from the impact site. Where the 16 foot hole is. You will see a few things. First, look toward the top of the picture on the left hand side, you will notice a computer in the other room, completely un singed, in perfectly good condition. Look a little lower, you will notice an open book, laying on a table. Perfectly, unharmed. The 747 plane that crashed had up to 8000 gallons of fuel still left in it. Enough fuel that it should have blown up MUCH MORE of the pentagon then they're saying it did. just a few pieces of information that i watched on a tape about the subject... if i could remember it all, this would be a bit more in - depth, but ehh.

reply to post by Cherrybabii12507 Cherry....a B757, not B747....BIG difference. The "16-foot" hole is NOT the entry point, it is the exit of some debris on one of the inner concrete block walls of one of the rings. An R/R engine will NOT survive those forces intact. They will be shredded/crumpled/disintegrated. Please, also remember that there is an APU in the tail...it is really just a jet engine, without the huge Fan blade. There are valid questions being raised....but there is a plethora of outright falsehoods floating around, some intentional, some likely innocent.

Originally posted by SPreston . . Why? Trained and experienced Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger in the helipad control tower, was facing and looking directly at the Naval Annex when he saw the aircraft flying directly at him from Over the Naval Annex. That alone destroys the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY

"the nose and the wing of the aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer... I am watching the plane go all the way into the building, " he stared as the Boeing 757 smacked into the building less than 100 feet away Hmmmmmm what Fairy Tale is exposed here?

I posted this on another 9/11 thread by accident....but it will stay there. This is essentially what I posted: A tribute to Captain Burlingame, First Officer Charlesbois, the four F/As, the passengers (including a group of inner-city school children on their first airplane ride) and, of course, all the victims in the building.... Please remember to shed a tear.... EDIT** Risk of seeming morbid, but here's something else I've found... [edit on 4/15/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker The "16-foot" hole is NOT the entry point, it is the exit of some debris on one of the inner concrete block walls of one of the rings.

yeah right! *some* DEBRIS is responsible for creating an almost geometrically perfect round hole in one of the most reinforced concrete defence structures? what kind of DEBRIS can do that? another coincidental and miraculous anomaly that again suspended physical laws, impossibilities and obvious common sense video evidence that day eh? you can't make this shit up! the lengths you oct supporters are willing to go to dismiss these obvious problems plaguing the OCT is truly bizarre and beyond pathetic.

Originally posted by weedwhacker An R/R engine will NOT survive those forces intact.

but it will over at the WTC? reallllly?

Originally posted by weedwhacker They will be shredded/crumpled/disintegrated.

But of course you don't have any problem that there's an entirely different set of rules, standards and physical LAWS over at the WTC that day huh? If you're an RPT supporter, its no wonder you guys never win an argument. [edit on 15-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by weedwhacker An R/R engine will NOT survive those forces intact.

but it will over at the WTC?

reallllly?

The engine at the WTC was far from intact. It was severely damaged, and only recognizable as an engine. It also didn't go through as much impact stress as the one at the Pentagon, until it hit the ground.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by weedwhacker An R/R engine will NOT survive those forces intact.

but it will over at the WTC?

reallllly?

The engine at the WTC was far from intact. It was severely damaged, and only recognizable as an engine. It also didn't go through as much impact stress as the one at the Pentagon, until it hit the ground.

I think u missed my point zaph..and it flew way over your head... (pun intended) not to mention actually there was ZERO impact stress but wait... what do you mean by UNTIL IT HIT THE GROUND? what hit the ground? the engine? really..................

reply to post by matrixNIN11 I know someone who was there when the engine hit the ground. He SAW it hit, and was damn near killed by it, so yes, the engine hit the ground. It wasn't dropped from a helicopter, and it wasn't planted by some guys in a van.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I know someone who was there when the engine hit the ground. He SAW it hit, and was damn near killed by it, so yes, the engine hit the ground. It wasn't dropped from a helicopter, and it wasn't planted by some guys in a van.

i'm sure you know the drill here zaph and what i'm gonna say next but i gotta do it anyways.... so you know "someone" (?) who was "there" (?) who "saw" an "engine" (?) "hit the ground" (?) etc etc. let me guess: you don't feel you have to support any of these amazing claims up because you don't care whether people believe you or not. am i right? okay... thats fine. But I should let you and everyone know here that I saw a helicopter drop off a white van over by the south tower and then i watched 3 men in white coats get out and carry a beat-up looking engine over to the side-walk just behind the agents who cordoned off the street, and plant the engine next to the fire hydrant. It happened. I saw it with my own eyes. Go ahead, Prove me wrong. If you'd like I can show you a pic of the van and the 3 men. don't worry about the date on that... its totally wrong. it should say 9/11/01 but i guess when those 3 dudes confiscated the photo, they must have tampered with it a bit. [edit on 16-4-2009 by matrixNIN11] [edit on 16-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]

reply to post by matrixNIN11 It's HIS choice not to come forward and tell his story, because of people like you. You would just call him a BS liar, no matter what amount of proof he had, so he doesn't bother to tell anyone his story anymore. You just go right on believing that it was alien holograms that blew up the towers and the Pentagon, and live in your little world.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 It's HIS choice not to come forward and tell his story,

so what was the purpose of your comment then? anyway, i've already addressed this "i saw a plane" and "he doesn't want to come forward to tell his story" issue here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58 because of people like you.

whatever dude. Its people like me who have helped to FILTER OUT the DISINFO and bullshit, separate facts from fiction or hearsay and opinions, and contribute to intelligent discussions and objective analysis of BOTH SIDES of the evidence/arguments. Its people you and your friend who contribute to the confusion that does the real dis-service or damage to the truth movement. How is what you're asserting useful in the determining the TRUTH of 911? You have the right to your opinion, but in a forum such as this thats about intelligent discussion, if you're going to make claims, you better have evidence to support it, or you open yourself up to this type of criticism.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 You would just call him a BS liar, no matter what amount of proof he had, so he doesn't bother to tell anyone his story anymore.

yea whatever. when there's evidence from other witnesses that contradict claims like his and are just as ademant about what they saw, what do you expect? should people just BLINDLY accept what people like you and your friend CLAIM? Or do you think such CLAIMS deserve to be scrutinized to find the TRUTH? how do you think TRUTH is discovered anyways? by making wild assertions and stating opinions? surely you're more intelligent than that to understand the reasons why you and your friend would be CHALLENGED to PROVE or support their CLAIMS. why do you think there's so much DISINFO and confusion about 911 to begin with? Its because of people like your friend who perpetuate claims as truth without ever being held accountable or challenged to show supporting evidence. do you think truth is determined by ones opinion or claims? Or by backing up ones claims?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 You just go right on believing that it was alien holograms that blew up the towers and the Pentagon, and live in your little world.

and you go right on believing thats what I believe and acting like an ignorant childish fool. now you know why you and your friend aren't taken seriously. You don't deserve to be.

reply to post by matrixNIN11 matrix, instead of throwing accusations and childish insults at people how about telling US what really happened at the Pentagon. Please, details would be appreciated. Feel free to refute the various eyewitness accounts and photo evidence of airplane debris, and the First Responders' reports of human body parts seatbelted into airline seats....

Originally posted by weedwhacker Feel free to refute the various eyewitness accounts and photo evidence of airplane debris,

None of which has ever been positively identified as belonging to the alleged Flight AA77. Remember that. Scrap wreckage is scrap wreckage, weedwhacker.

and the First Responders' reports of human body parts seatbelted into airline seats....

Complete, utter disinfo. You need to read this thread to see how no one was able to prove that a single airline body was found strapped to a seat. Unless you have some new information, weedwhacker, that can prove there were bodies found strapped to airline seats? Please, enlighten us all if you do... The other thread went for 24 pages without a single official story believer being able to offer anything but HEARSAY.

reply to post by tezzajw Did you see Catherder's thread from back in 2004 (do not know how to link, but search should find it). It is compelling, should read the entire OP. Meantime, enjoy this: www.debunk911myths.org... It includes UA93, so don't want to be accused of 'off-topic'!! There is another, more esoteric one....www.debunk911myths.org... You should find, when rummaging around there, a link to a site that I believe is run by James Randi....a very scholarly discussion of how the Flight Recorder works....the modern Digital ones, not the ancient foil-tape units. Enjoy! EDIT: To provide full second linky, and to wonder what happened to my paragraphs?? [edit on 4/17/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker matrix, instead of throwing accusations and childish insults

what the hell are you talking about? what insults? ohhhh, you mean my derogatory reply as a response to zaphs insults? I find it interesting how you accuse me of insulting when in fact i'm merely defending myself against insults. more proof that you're hardly unbiased or objective and employ double-standard tactics. i'm amazed i even bothered responding to you.

Originally posted by weedwhacker at people how about telling US what really happened at the Pentagon. Please, details would be appreciated. Feel free to refute the various eyewitness accounts and photo evidence of airplane debris, and the First Responders' reports of human body parts seatbelted into airline seats....

no need... its been done on numerous occasions including by tezzajw here... www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by matrixNIN11 matrix...YOUR post, in response to mine, posted on 16 April, 2009 at 0014 EDT. THAT is the 'childish' response I AM REFERRING TO...but, of course, you'd simply have to click on the blue linky to know that....so don't play games, OK? I've read tezza's thread....I've brought up an adult, cogent response to HIM, and I am sorry that YOU feel a need to jump in where you aren't needed....unless you are now tezza's spokesperson??? Why not scroll up, matrix, and check out the links I found as well....so now you can be part of the discussion. You are NOW invited.... *EDIT*....as to the 'childish' remark? Four LOLs, six question mark emoticons, and one rolling eyes emoticon. That's eleven in just a few sentences. THAT is what I referred to as 'childish'. [edit on 4/17/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker matrix...YOUR post, in response to mine, posted on 16 April, 2009 at 0014 EDT. THAT is the 'childish' response I AM REFERRING TO...but, of course, you'd simply have to click on the blue linky to know that....so don't play games, OK?

that its childish, is your OPINION. if you can't take the heat.....errr uh,, u know the rest.

Originally posted by weedwhacker I've read tezza's thread....I've brought up an adult, cogent response to HIM, and I am sorry that YOU feel a need to jump in where you aren't needed....unless you are now tezza's spokesperson???

since when did these new rules and restrictions start? its a public forum right? you made some outrageous remarks and claims so what do you expect? i jumped in and called you out on em as one should when someone states falsehoods etc... and I still don't see any counter-argument showing how i was wrong, nor any evidence to support what you claimed. so as to your cogent response, what are you talking about and specifically referring to?

Originally posted by weedwhacker Why not scroll up, matrix, and check out the links I found as well....so now you can be part of the discussion. You are NOW invited....

which links are you talking about and what part of the discussion?

Originally posted by weedwhacker *EDIT*....as to the 'childish' remark? Four LOLs, six question mark emoticons, and one rolling eyes emoticon. That's eleven in just a few sentences. THAT is what I referred to as 'childish'. [edit on 4/17/0909 by weedwhacker]

its called HUMOR dude. the emoticons are there for a reason and available for use for a reason. if you're that anal and sensitive, maybe you shouldn't be here.... just a suggestion