9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times


reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 04:26 AM by CatHerder
An update showing the starboard (right) wing impact mark on the Pentagon. I am going to expand this "damage to the building in comparision to a Boeing 757 - to scale" so please bear with me while this particular post grows. This is a very clear photo of the impact scar across the Pentagon on the right side of the primary hole. Above photo - without above notations I keep finding something new and supportive every time I visit a website looking at 9-11 stuff (working on reviewing the WTC collapses). It is beyond me how all these other websites can offer the same "no 757" opinions but never manage to FIND this stuff... Perhaps they just choose not to. Location of bodies recovered in Pentagon (includes passengers / flightcrew / terrorists / Pentagon staff) You're also welcome to go review the ACSE/SEI (American Society of Civil Engineers / Structural Engineering Institute) Pentagon Building Performance Report which has been freely available online since January 2003. This document outlines the damage done to all areas of the Pentagon, includes the identiity of the locations of each body found, includes information on objects hit outside the building prior to the plane impacting the wall (as I said in my outline - the right engine and wing hit the generator, and now it's revealed that the left engine hit the steam vent. According to the NTSB: Data from the flight recorder showed that; the plane was travelling at 400 knots (780 ft/s) (512.9 mph) at a magnetic bearing of 70 degrees when it struck the Pentagon. It had approximately 36,200lb of fuel (5,300 gal) and weighed approximately 181,520lb According to Boeing Engineers: The weight in each wing was composed of the following:
  • Exposed Wing Structure: 13,500 lb
  • Engine and Struts: 11,900 lb
  • Landing Gear: 3,800 lb
  • Fuel: 14,600 lb
  • Total: 43,800 lb The balance of the weight was in the fuselage. In the normal course of use, the center fuel tank is the last filled, and the first used. Thus the weight of the fuselage was 181,520-(2x43,800)= 93,920 lb. Of this, 36,200-(2x14,600)= 7,000lb was fuel in the center tank. While I believe one of their opinions on the paper is incorrect (they have the wrong object noted in the surveillance photo as the plane), this is an extremely accurate document based entirely on fact and not conjecture, half baked ideas, or fear of the truth. The facts don't lie. Oh yes, and here's an updated (better quality) zoom in of the gate camera... [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder] [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]


  • reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 09:50 AM by piboy
    Originally posted by CatHerder
    Your telling me the wing hit across that window and the window didn't break?



    reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 10:04 AM by CatHerder
    Originally posted by piboy
    Originally posted by CatHerder
    Your telling me the wing hit across that window and the window didn't break?
    Yes, and if you've read anything in this thread - or especially the FIRST post and the facts about the Pentagon, you would know that window is a 2 inch thick, bulletproof, blast-resistent (means they're designed to not shatter if a bomb went off outside from a carbomb or similar attack) window. Almost every window they found in the Pentagon that was blown out was laying flat, on the floor, in one peice. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]


    reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 10:17 AM by CatHerder
    Originally posted by piboy You have to careful using the pentagon surviellance video for evidence of a 757. First, the pictures are not consistent with a 757. The plane could not fit in the dimensions you outlined, and the white vapor trail is inconsistent with jet engines.
    Funny, considering that is a real 757-200, 100% accurate (it's just reduced in size from an original photo of one). I wonder how it fits? And all 757's smoke with engines that have ran through 10 steel lightpoles and sustained damage. Those engines smoke like that when they run into a flock of Canada geese while flying 400MPH, nevermind a steel lightpole at 515MPH.
    The date on the video is Sept. 12, and the time stamp covers 4 seconds. Also, the DoD does not know who released the video or even if it is authentic.
    The date on the video is where again??? If you view the ORIGINAL video from CNN and not the faked one from the french fraud site, it has no date stamp saying Sept 12th.
    Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras. "The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin. A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."
    That's pretty strange, considering the DoD and the FBI aided the investigation (Pentagon Performance Report) done by the ASCE and SEI includes released frames from the Pentagon Surveillance camera. Wonder how I managed to get my hands on the originals without the edits/changes and fraud from the french website version? I mean THE LINK TO THE REPORT is provided right above your post... and did you even look at the first post in this thread or just jump to the end? But, here it is yet again!
    fire.nist.gov...
    Washington Post For 757 proponents, it's good the video is not reliable because it does not support the 757 theory anyway.
    It's amazing how conspiracy sites make stuff up, then post it all over the web, treat is like gospel and then when the REAL videos are shown they're pooh pooh'd as if they're fakes. At least do us both a favor and READ the ENTIRE thread before your next comment. It will save you some embarassment, and me some typing. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]


    reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 10:27 AM by piboy
    Originally posted by CatHerder
    Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras. "The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin. A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."
    That's pretty strange, considering the DoD and the FBI aided the investigation (Pentagon Performance Report) done by the ASCE and SEI includes released frames from the Pentagon Surveillance camera. Wonder how I managed to get my hands on the originals without the edits/changes and fraud from the french website version? I mean THE LINK TO THE REPORT is provided right above your post... and did you even look at the first post in this thread or just jump to the end? But, here it is yest again!
    fire.nist.gov... [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]
    Whoa. Take a deep breath. If the video was not released by the Dod, does it gain any more credibility when another department in the government uses it? Is the video from the surveillance camera reliable or not? The Dod said they neither they nor the Justice Department nor the FBI released it. Don't you think then that anything else that tries to use that video as evidence should be questioned? Again, I think the video actually hinders the 757 argument, not helps it.


    reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 12:04 PM by piboy
    Ok. I am looking at the photo with the alleged APU (which no one but a handful of people will have any idea about what it is). I am very interested in whether the photo evidence is consistent with an APU. This site has some good information for a 737 APU (not a 757 mind you). Where does this go? It could fit somewhere, but I fail to see any proof of anything. It could also fit other pieces. Can you show me what part of an APU that piece in the pentagon photo belongs to. I hear your argument, but can you be more specific?


    reply posted on 14-9-2004 @ 12:22 PM by piboy
    Can you be more specific about the above pictures' "engine parts?" Where does it go in the picture below? What piece is it, and how large is it? (I am trying to determine scale). What are the large holes part of? I can't tell what that is part of. link Are the remains of the other parts visible, like the casing? [edit on 14-9-2004 by piboy]
    Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



    9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
      Posted 12 days ago with 14 member flags
    9/11 Actors re-visited
      Posted 5 days ago with 12 member flags
    Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
      Posted 16 days ago with 11 member flags
    Building Collapses in Rio
      Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags
    new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
      Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags