9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 5
101
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Forgive me for asking another question, but I am really interested in the photo evidence: I can't see anything that looks like a tire. Can you overlay this or put it next to a schematic or photo of a 757? I am not seeing it.

Below, another photo of a tire with the same pattern as ones used on a 757, found in the Pentagon wreckage.




posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Now, the fuselage debris... If it is 3.5 to 4 feet as you say, then the rivets are only a few inches apart (maybe 6in?). I am trying to think of where on a American 757 there are rivets 6in apart and alos have some lettering. I am not doubting it (yet) but I can't figure it out. Can you show me where this fits the lettering and riveting on an American 757 jet? [edit on 14-9-2004 by piboy]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
What do I do with the witnesses that contradict each other and the theory of a 757 hitting the pentagon? How do I know who to believe? Do I go with the majority, or only those quoted in the big papers? What guidelines do you recommend that I use for knowing who to believe? Or are any reliable? I wish I could directly talk to some of these witnesses. What do I do with these?: "He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said" www.washingtonpost.com... "We live in Arlington, VA just outside of Washington, DC ... Then, at about 9:40 am Eastern Daylight Time, my husband and I heard an aircraft directly overhead. At first, we thought it was the jets that sometimes fly overhead. However, it appeared to be a small commercial aircraft. The engine was at full throttle." news.bbc.co.uk... ""It was 50 ft. off the deck when he came in. It sounded like the pilot had the throttle completely floored. The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there, then the plane cartwheeled into the building." www.time.com... "The eeriest thing about it, was that it was like you were watching a movie. There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went pfff. It wasnt what I would have expected for a plane that was not much more than a football field away from me." www.nylawyer.com... ""Instantly I knew what was happening, and I involuntarily ducked as the plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof of my car at great speed," Owens said. "The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon. The impact was deafening. The fuselage hit the ground and blew up."" www.delawareonline.com... ""The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately. Within five minutes, police and emergency vehicles began arriving," said Vin Narayanan" www.usatoday.com... ""It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."" www.usatoday.com... "William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft" www.s-t.com... "I then confirmed that the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building. " www.coping.org... Are some of them mistaken or lying? Do I just throw out the accounts that don't match the 757 theory? So which was it? A big jet or small? Did it hit the ground before hitting the pentagon or not? Did it get swallowed up by the pentagon or explode outside? Do I have to turn to the results of the investigation in order to properly interpret these accounts? What use iis eye-witness accounts if they are not all the same?



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I don't believe it was a 757, call me a fool, but your story is much too "easy" to explain it all. It's very selective and make good use of optical illusions. Just tell a believer what they want to hear and they'll believe you. Although that counts for both sides, those who say it's a Boeing 757 and those who say it's not. I'm convinced it was a flying object, no doubt, however I don't think it was a boeing 757. I think I've found the answer for once and for all. In the picture you outlined the plane, you can see it's tail indeed, however if you examine the outlined plane you'll see that the tail is different than a 757 tail. I see horizontal stabilizers on top of the vertical stabilizers, afaik a Boeing 757 does NOT have those ! Take a close look everyone and tell me, you'll see them, they're white !



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I still want to hear the black box recording. In something this big, I dont care about the families. This matter is of more importance than sparing a few people a few tears. Crying is very healthy anyway. Its very necessary that we all know our government isnt deceiving us. Nothing is going to make the loss of loved ones any easier or harder. I mean, doesnt it just record the cockpit, anyway? Its not like theyre actually going to hear their loved ones speaking. And what would be wrong with a transcript, if not the actual recording?

I highly doubt that local firefighters would be involved in any sort of a coverup. I highly doubt that local police officers would be involved in any sort of a government cover up. Cops and firemen are just average Joes like you and me
Sure, and like the average Joe, they probably know almost nothing about what 757 wreckage looks like. I dont see any blue seats. The only thing I can vaguely identify is the rim, and the one piece of recognizable debris that has AA colors on it. (The one on the lawn) I still cant figure out why the engines wouldnt be outside the building. At 40,000 lbs. apiece, it sure seems like theyd come off that way, doesnt it? How in the hell do heavy engines like that get inside the building without making holes of their own? Im still not sure about this one, but you did a fantastic job approaching this from a realistic standpoint. Nice work! A few things that had run through my mind, previously. 1) Who says whatever hit the building wasnt custom built and/or painted to look like an AA 757? Engine type, in that case, wouldnt necessarily be proof of anything. 2) Were the passengers really found and identified? I never heard a thing about this. It just kind of faded away. I think this is why many people are very confused about this. 3) Why was the security video that was confiscated never released/shown? Wouldnt that clear this up once and for all, if they do indeed have a better video? 4) Have you ever been to a Top Fueler drag race? It's very tough to see any detail on something moving at 270-300MPH, as it passes (and that's with good track-side seats), much less 400-500MPH. Unless you saw it from a distance, you're not going to get much of a look at anything. Witnesses that were close to the Pentagon are less likely to have seen much at all. Witnesses who saw it from a distance aren't likely to have seen much detail either, since it was at a distance. Unless you saw it from a distance, and had a clear view of the entire approach, you probably wouldn't have seen much. [edit on 14-9-2004 by Damned]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   

At 40,000 lbs. apiece, it sure seems like theyd come off that way, doesnt it? How in the hell do heavy engines like that get inside the building without making holes of their own?
40,000 pounds apiece. I believe you are mistaking the pounds of thrust the engines create for the weight of the engines.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum 40,000 pounds apiece. I believe you are mistaking the pounds of thrust the engines create for the weight of the engines.
No, I looked it up at Boeing. All info on the plane is available there. Here are the technical specs. Much of that 255,000 lbs. (max take-off weight) is the engines, no doubt. www.boeing.com... Is that thrust, or the weight of the engine itself? If it's thrust, then how much do these engines weigh? They can't be light. [edit on 14-9-2004 by Damned]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   

How in the hell do heavy engines like that get inside the building without making holes of their own?
You obviously havent looked at many pictures other than the cropped ones put up by conspiracy sites. I've seen pics of the almost 100 foot wide hole that is much wider than the 50 foot distance between the outsides of the engines.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   

No, I looked it up at Boeing. All info on the plane is available there. Here are the technical specs. Much of that 255,000 lbs. (max take-off weight) is the engines, no doubt.
Right I looked at that page if you look next to the 40,000 lbs you see a figure in parenthesis of the kN equivalent of the lbs of thrust.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum Right I looked at that page if you look next to the 40,000 lbs you see a figure in parenthesis of the kN equivalent of the lbs of thrust.
Ah, I see. How much do they weigh then, I wonder? They can't be light. I mean, people look like dwarves next to them. They're not small like the pieces pictured at the Pentagon. They've been known to suck people right through them, rather easily. Ok, I finally found a pic of one, with a person. This is a 757 engine. Alright, I found it. They weigh about 7300 lbs. www.1aerospace.net... It still seems that they'd break off, or create holes of their own. You would think that the wings would either 1) snap off and be left outside with the engines, or 2) blow up and leave the engines outside. Either way, I don't see how the engines could just enter the building like that. That's my biggest problem with this whole thing. [edit on 14-9-2004 by Damned]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The actual engine is only about 3 maybe 4 feet tall at most. The Turbine in front of the engine and the large housing the engine sits in make it seem like the engine itself is enourmous. Look at the pic you posted you you can see light through the turbine showing the outline of the actual engine.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   

It still seems that they'd break off, or create holes of their own.
you do realize that there was an almost 100 feet wide hole left by the aircraft? you do realize the distance between the outsides of the enginge is about 50 feet? I would say that that hole is large enough to accomodate the engines as well as most of the plane.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Can you show me the 100 ft wide hole?



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
100 ft hole.... haha yeah right, thats a laugh a minute that, the hole was about 10 ft wide if that...



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Thanks, abovetopsecret.
I don't know how anybody could be close-minded enough to deny that the airplane hit after reading that whole artical. I finally have a site I can show my friends who don't believe that the plane hit.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum you do realize that there was an almost 100 feet wide hole left by the aircraft? you do realize the distance between the outsides of the enginge is about 50 feet?
Please show me. That's the first I've heard of this. The hole shown in all the pics before the wall collapsed is definitely not 100ft. Not even close. It's small...not even wide enough for one of the engines to have entered without being mounted on the fuselage. In fact, it doesn't even look large enough for the fuselage to have entered. That's the whole controversy here. That video recreation thing that was posted in the first post doesn't take into account the wings or the engines. It just shows them disintigrating (or disappearing, really), which, IMO, isn't even close to rational. [edit on 14-9-2004 by Damned]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Herman, as long your friends don't ask you about where the pieces of the debris actually fit on the plane, you should be good to go!



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
- This post has been edited due to a warning - [edit on 15-9-2004 by zerocool]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum you do realize that there was an almost 100 feet wide hole left by the aircraft? you do realize the distance between the outsides of the enginge is about 50 feet? I would say that that hole is large enough to accomodate the engines as well as most of the plane.
The height of the Pentagon is only 77ft. or so. There's no way there was 100ft hole, until it collapsed. I have no idea where you got that idea. The entire controversy is surrounded by the fact that the hole wasn't large enough for the engines to enter, at the span they were at. In fact, the hole didn't appear large enough for a 757 to enter, at all. Again, this is really my only beef with this. I don't see how there wouldn't be wing and engine debris outside the building. [edit on 14-9-2004 by Damned]



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
you could have a 100ft wide hole on the pentagon. I haven't seen anything that big. I am hoping someone provides a picture.





new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join