9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by CHiram_Abiff

BULLsh_t Thread. two thumbs down Is this just more fodder for the numb and dumb patri-IDIOTS to embrace? Please do explain how a tin can boeing penetrated to the 'C' RING?

Ah because there was nothing to stop it You see genius there are no walls between the rings on the 2 lowest floors

Floor Space Between Facade and C-Ring is Mostly Unobstructed On the first and second floors, the Pentagon has continuous interior space extending from the facade to the inner-facing wall of the C-Ring, joining the C-, D-, and E-Rings. This is because the light wells between the C- and D-Rings and between the D- and E-Rings only descend to the bottom of the third floor. The only structural elements interrupting this space are columns apparently spaced on 10-foot centers along the direction perpendicular to the facade, with each first-floor column having a square cross-section measuring 21 inches on a side. A figure on the left shows a path from the center of the facade impact puncture to the center of the C-Ring punch-out hole. That path could describe the path of fuselage debris from the facade to the C-Ring wall, where it could have produced the punch-out hole. It shows that there was a narrow path for that debris between the columns left standing by the crash.

Plane would only need to penetrate the outermost (E ring) and the debris after slidding through the building to punch out the C ring wall The Pentagon walls are made of brick with a facade of cut limestone on the outermost E Ring wall So who is the IDIOT Now .....

sorry but im not going to look through the other 295 pages to see if this was already mentioned. the hole is almost centered vertically, and the plane never touched the ground, expert pilot i suppose. not only that but what we have is a single hole, where we are to believe the main body hit. airplanes are built to be lightweight, including the cockpit, which we are to believe caused this hole where the main body of the plane hit. why is there no specific larger damage areas on each side of the impact, where the hardest, heaviest parts of this plane would have hit(the engines)? how many seats are in that plane..and do they disappear when the plane crashes? where are any large portions of the craft, you know like big wing pieces? i saw the so called 'engine' picture and supposed landing gear, but still you have to look at every other plane crash and think how much different this one looks.

reply to post by SGTSECRET Jeebus.....yeah, I would suggest you read more of this thread.....or, just re-read the first Opening Post. Of course, there is also the fact of the DNA found that matched every passenger and crewmember on the airplane.....AND the "black box" (Flight Data Recorder) that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was American Airlines 77. And, the total area breached at first impact was over 96 feet wide.....what you see later is after upper floors collapsed, and fell into the gap. And, no.....it does not take an "expert" pilot to aim an airplane at a huge building!!

reply to post by Skibum Very true but There are over 300 cameras situated around the outside of the Pentagon. One I know about personally could pick up the finger used to pull your underwear out of your ass hiding in a bus stop cover. (I know this one personally.) This does not even begin to cover the internal cameras operated by the Pentagon police...and the hundreds of cameras operated by the military that even the police do not know about.... I am no expert but I do believe they have footage.

reply to post by ProudBird I am not a pilot but I have talked to a few who have said that "National Airport" is the hardest to land. They often refer to the river and the updrafts. Again I am no pilot but if the guy flying the plane I am on says its hard to do...then I believe the guy. And...the Pentagon is not actually that big flying at that altitude and that speed....wrestling with an airliner that you may or may not know how to fly that well.

reply to post by takaris7 No, National is not the "hardest" to fly into. Has nothing to do with "updrafts". If anything, they are referring to what's called the "River Visual"....and that is only used on clear days, when landing to the South. River Visual Runway 19 It actually is one of the most fun approaches to fly! I always enjoyed it, and never had any difficulty. It could be that the ones you talked to were, well.....not as capable. Face it, in every profession there are levels of competency....some are "just there", others well better. (Remember the old joke: What do you call the medical student who graduates at the bottom of his class? "Doctor"). For the Visual, above, it is simple airmanship, and part of the skill is knowing how to plan ahead....and be on speed, so that the descent rate is proper, to "hit" the recommended altitudes. Other than that, it's just follow the river, not hard to do. The descent angle is a normal 3° approximately, just as it is for all final approaches. There are far more challenging airports in the world....Tegucigalpa, Honduras for instance. The old Hong Kong airport, Kai Tak, now replaced by a new one off-shore. (Look for YouTube videos of Kai Tak). But for the purposes of this discussion in this thread, the other aspect of intentionally flying an airplane on a suicide attack into the side of a huge building? Far too easy, as we saw ten years ago.

reply to post by takaris7

Very true but There are over 300 cameras situated around the outside of the Pentagon.

Any proof??

reply to post by samkent Let's reverse the question. How many do you think were installed and working on 9/11/2001 ? I have quite a few on photos shot on 9/11. So, what's your guess? And, somewhere early in this thread, I mentioned a link to a military news source, that had the account of a Security Detail member, a Captain, Major or Lt Colonel, that ran to his video control room beside the Main Entrance, and spooled the tapes back. And then ""watched the scenes in horror."" Isn't that a tad bit strange, that we never heard any word anymore about that video room? And the taping of those security cameras?

Here is audio of Arlington police calling in their reports of an American Airlines plane crashing into the Pentagon :- www.youtube.com... I suppose they must be in on it too.

reply to post by Alfie1 That is EXACTLY what so many laypersons NEED to hear!! Folks.....the reality is NOT like a Hollywood film and how it's depicted there. A Dispatcher at a Police facility, or a Dispatcher at an airline....different jobs and tasks, but much the same in many ways....

the air traffic controllers at dulles thought it was a military plane

According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org) The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."

www.911hardfacts.com...

reply to post by Danbones Why do you suppose the Arlington police officer called in an "American Airlines plane headed east over the Pike " ?

reply to post by Danbones THIS has been addressed. It was NOT a "military" airplane. Please, go learn.....

Absolutely delighted that someone did the heavy lifting and tough research to debunk one of the trufers' pet stories. I had the good luck to meet someone who had been in the Pentagon Navy Annex - about a mile to the west and up a hill from the Pentagon. He had been at a meeting there on Sept 11th. He said the airplane sounded so close they thought for a moment it was about to hit the Annex they were in. He figure's the plane cleared the Annex by just a few yards. People in the meeting room immediately rushed to the windows to see what it was, and he saw a commercial jetliner heading for dead center on one side of the Pentagon. He figured the pilot had engaged the thrusters for maximum impact. The side of the Pentagon was a well-chosen target; it was near the helipad so there were no tall trees or power lines in the way. As it was, the jet knocked off the tops of some street lamps as it approached the Pentagon. The interior walls of the Pentagon are considerably flimsier than the exterior wall; various generals, admirals, and the like are frequently having walls between offices either knocked down or set up, so once the jet had crashed through the exterior wall it encountered minimal resistance. Again, great praise for this detailed research. I hope this puts to bed some absurd conspiracy theories.

hey, Im just referencing qualified opinions to balance out the ones that aren't

Read all my posts on pages 199 and 200 in this same thread : www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com... That's where my remarks out of the military printed source are posted, about the Colonel who ran into the Pentagon video room, and about the white Lear Jet which was already the whole day in the air, after all planes were ordered down. It had not landed in between these hours, thus must have been refueled in the air. Must have been an agency plane. There was no remark in those articles I read, how they knew that the white plane was so long already in the air. Possibly they got that info afterwards, when the jet fighter that intercepted it, had landed again and its pilot reported about his radio exchange with that plane. It's obvious that nobody wanted to tell more than the minimum about this white plane. It was on an intercept course from 60 miles away from Air Force One, when GWB and entourage neared Washington DC at 17:30 p.m. Air Force One was flying at about 20,000 feet, and the white Lear Jet at about 40,000 feet, when the white plane was about 60 miles out from GWB. It was chased away by one of the extra security detail jets ordered up by the Secret Service or NORAD, which seemed to have gotten notice that an unknown threat to GWB was in the air. That seems a bit strange, that flight control seemingly was unaware of that white plane, before it came so close. There were only military and agency planes in the air, and a handful of emergency flights, like the one who brought a heart for a heart transplant to the east coast. These FAA controllers must have been living on the top of their nerves, while keeping an eye on all restricted airspace in Washington, and must have constantly controlled a wide chunk of DC and surrounding airspace for at least an hour before GWB would arrive. And most of their checks must have gone via main radar connections with NORAD, that also shows rogue planes without transponder on. Had the white plane no transponder on, or did it have stealth properties? How could it be that it was seen only 60 miles away from AF1 ? The sky, around that time in late afternoon, in ALL of the USA, was as good as totally empty, as never had been seen before, and all these experienced guys miss ONE Lear Jet in that EMPTY sky, until it nearly reached AF1...??? And it must have been an unknown aircraft to them before, because they asked the extra fighter jets that were send up to escort AF1 shortly before, to go and have a look at it, which they did. You do not send a jet fighter to intercept a KNOWN friendly aircraft. It must have been quite a surprise, according to this response. And both military and civilian air space controllers alike, must have been unaware of this strange white Lear Jet. Otherwise the military would have informed the FAA personnel to not worry. But they were also worried. And I do believe GWB was worried too, it would not surprise me when he gave the ultimate order to intercept. He seems to have been extremely confused the whole next week, up to his speech in Congress. All his public appearances on national TV showed a very nervous man who couldn't nearly speak coherently anymore. He only repeated that one sentence all the time. That he must not be misunderstood...(Make no mistake etc., about 50 times alone, just that week) as if he was warning some (military? ) faction that he would not go down without some countermeasures already in place, that would be send public when he would enter into an "accident" scenario. But his speech in Congress was a bummer. Not one of his usual abundant slip-of-the-tongue's, just one coherent fluent speech. Seemed to me he was sure by then, that he would not become "accidentally" murdered, a la the Kennedy's.

reply to post by LaBTop Hi, Labtop... Where have you been? Do you mind listing a source for the Lear Jet near AF 1 story? Why is it that you seem to be the only one who has ever mentioned this encounter? I have never heard of that before.... Have you decided to abandon your other threads? Can't say that I can't blame you!

reply to post by LaBTop A Lear Jet???

and about the white Lear Jet which was already the whole day in the air, after all planes were ordered down. It had not landed in between these hours, thus must have been refueled in the air.

OK....you're on....GO!!! (Grabbing popcorn for the show....).....

Originally posted by LaBTop and about the white Lear Jet which was already the whole day in the air, after all planes were ordered down. It had not landed in between these hours, thus must have been refueled in the air.

Oh, wow! I missed this the first time. Very interesting. Who refuels this one of a kind aircraft?

Originally posted by Reheat reply to post by LaBTop

 

Hi, Labtop... Where have you been? Do you mind listing a source for the Lear Jet near AF 1 story? Why is it that you seem to be the only one who has ever mentioned this encounter? I have never heard of that before.... Have you decided to abandon your other threads? Can't say that I can't blame you!

Again, act as if it's the usual selective reading problem with all JREF-debunkers here. (Oh dear, can't find a linky.) However I don't think so, it's their latest technique to play dumb, to force you to do as much typing work as can be, to keep you off the real research, which is still developing. OMG, there are also numerous paper printed-only sources, you misinformed mis-argumentation-geniuses. By the way, Reheat, I have completed a long rebuttal of your signature link, I'll post it shortly after, then add that post to my signature (WISDOMwillWIN). So it will occur from then on also in my signature as a link, and thus also in this post. And I answer posts in my own pace. And do research to counter your task-force its few-liner arguments with solid rebuttals, that make it clear to the readers, that your task in this forum obviously is to post as many few-liners in as short a period as you all can manage in a 12 hours working day. Without any proper argumentation, or backed by your own research. I will answer all these posts that as usual have the bulk of disinformation in it, and drive that drivel into the ground, as usual. Btw, it's showing lately a tad bit too clear, that none of you JREF-debunkers taskforce participants here, do ever address the real arguments in the threads and posts, you try to derail. And flood with drivel with no substance AT ALL. As is perfectly demonstrated again by your above posts. You all act as if you did not READ what I offered you on a plate : Page 199, this post :

This is not online, so I typed it out : F-16 Pilots Considered Ramming Flight 93 By William B. Scott / Aviation Week & Space Technology September 9, 2002

Editor's Note: This is Part 3 of an ongoing special report on how the military responded to terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Earlier articles appeared in the June 3 and June 10 issues.

Source :

Originally posted by LaBTop

In the afternoon, Sasseville and Lucky were flying their second mission of the day--armed with AIM-9 missiles now--when they were told to contact an AWACS aircraft in the area and "expect special tasking." They were directed to fly a 280-deg. heading for 140 naut. mi.--almost due west of Washington. Unable to communicate by secure or encrypted means, the AWACS controller lowered his voice and told Sasseville via radio they were going to "escort Air Force One," President Bush's aircraft. Two Langley F-15s offered to go along, and Sasseville concurred. Soon, an AWACS controller reported a fast-moving, unidentified aircraft southwest of Air Force One, approximately 60 naut. mi. away, but on a "cutoff vector" to the President's Boeing 747. It was above 40,000 ft. and the 747 was "in the 20,000-ft. range," but Sasseville sent the F-15s to intercept the unknown aircraft. It was a Learjet that had not yet landed after aircraft nationwide had been ordered out of the air.

And a moderator should order you to stop spreading such obvious lies as you post multiple times lately. I DID NOT WRITE THAT LINE, NOR DID I INVENT A LEARJET. It's called SMEAR-TACTICS in my circles. That red line is from that weekly issued Aviation Week & Space Technology publication, NOT from me! You also did not read this post about the myriad of identified helicopters and light aircraft who did not know yet what had happened in the early morning. These intercepts were however a long time over already at the time of GWB return to Washington DC. You, as identifying yourself as an experienced former jet fighter pilot, do know perfectly what is so strange in that remark. It was not identified before it was in a 60 miles circle around Air Force One, by AWACS or FAA controllers at Reagan National, who were "BullsEye" for the Pentagon area protection task. Especially the remark that it had not yet landed after aircraft nationwide had been ordered out of the air. And that order was given around 09:30 in the early morning.! A Lear Jet can't fly around from before 09:30 a.m. up to 17:30 p.m. (8 hrs) without refueling in the air (since the article says: had not yet landed) or carrying a huge extra tank on board. That was a hell of a strange encounter for Air Force One, and the AWACS operators knew it. And they directly identified it as a thread to AF One. You act dumb, or you are...whatever..?!

"The FAA controllers were doing their best to get us information [about unidentified aircraft], but we were used to working with AWACS and their weapons directors and controllers," Rasmussen said. Eventually, Washington Reagan National Airport was designated "Bullseye," and fighters were given range and bearing to targets from there. Possibly the highest ranking pilot in the area, Sasseville "essentially declared myself the CAP [combat air patrol] commander and set up deconfliction altitudes so we didn't run into each other. There really wasn't time for niceties." For the rest of the day, a dozen or so fighters rotated in and out of the region, running intercepts on myriad helicopters and light aircraft.

You probably also did not read anything else on page 199 of my extensive posts there, and missed this very interesting link : www.oilempire.us... It's quite a read, with hundreds of questions about 9/11 which have never been answered by any US government to this date. You probably also missed this post about the then NEXCOM operated gas station on a hill SOUTH of the Pentagon, with it's security camera that had an unhindered view on it's west wall, that contained coverage of a 757 airliner slamming in the side of the Pentagon. The gas station's crew who had first reviewed that footage, later handed the tape over to the FBI on their own initiative. This is NOT the CITGO station, which is located WEST of the Pentagon, and surely not on a hill. And where the FBI came within minutes to confiscate their security camera tape. That footage probably had a too sharp view at the attack path, and showed irrevocably that AA 77 came from a NoC flight path, and that's why this footage was "disappeared". Btw, strange ain't it? All my interesting links from those early years are for the most part defunct by now. They certainly were not at the time of posting. I again advice the readers, to re-read my page 199 and 200 posts. There is a lot of extra good information in them.