9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

The C-130 is a straight winged 1950s era airplane with 4 propeller driven engines....some of the comments above about pictures identifying them as C1-30s are erroneous..... many of the pictures above come from an excellent article about the Pentagon 9/11 attack. It is at : www.tomflocco.com... Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks by Tom Flocco Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com -- According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado. The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757. It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources. The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon. The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz (left) "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone." .......................... much more is there

Originally posted by 25thID Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com -- According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

Why would they do this at a municipal airport? There are plenty of military airports with secure facilities out there. My spidey senses are telling me that this is B.S.

PPL DO NOT BELIEVE THIS DIS INFO THE PLANES WERE HOLOGRAMS!! Its all just one big sick movie, DONT FALL FOR THE LIES SAVE YOUR SOUL

Originally posted by Vertu There is one Boeing 757 engine on one photo of the ruined Pentagon wreckage. But some ppl just can't understand that it's the third, rear inbuilt engine designed to help takeoff and landing navigation!

This statement is both right and partly wrong at the same time. There is a third engine of sorts inside the 757, it is the APU engine. This is the Auxiliary Power Unit, and is not used in take off, landing or navigation, but is what provides power, air conditioning, and air start power for the engines while the engines are shut off. It’s kind of like a big generator.

Originally posted by Sauron Pratt & Whitney engines are not part of a Boeing 757

Sorry to say that this is entirely bogus. I have worked on aircraft from different airlines, and the same type of aircraft my in fact have different engines installed, from airline to airline. For instance an L1011 at Delta might have General Electric engines, yet all British Airline L1011’s have Roles-Royce Engines on them, same aircraft, upgraded engines. Edit to add:

Originally posted by Sauron Remember these photos Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757.

This might very well be a section of Aileron or Elevator IMHO. [edit on 5/27/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Sauron Remember these photos Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757.

This might very well be a section of Aileron or Elevator IMHO. [edit on 5/27/2005 by defcon5]

Or as it has been pointed out before, it is simply a light weight, portable shlter system (i.e. a tent)

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Sauron Remember these photos Curiously, a large piece of wreckage was found in the entry hole; but the public was kept from closely observing what appears to be a sheared-off piece of wing from a much smaller jet than a Boeing 757.

This might very well be a section of Aileron or Elevator IMHO. [edit on 5/27/2005 by defcon5]

Or as it has been pointed out before, it is simply a light weight, portable shlter system (i.e. a tent)

OK. I'll run with that! Now, just why are they hidding it under a tarp? [edit on 113131p://u14. by PepeLapiu1]

For the same reason that I keep my Coleman cabin tent in its bag when I'm not camping. You want to keep it clean in storage and while transporting it. I looks like the tarp is fitted to it.

What's that name of that river in Egypt again? The pile, no wait I think it's the kyle ... I don't remember! Do you know the name of that river, Howard? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by HowardRoark For the same reason that I keep my Coleman cabin tent in its bag when I'm not camping. You want to keep it clean in storage and while transporting it. I looks like the tarp is fitted to it.

While its doubtful that it is the same tent I think there are similarities. On the right side of the second picture you see a "blue tarp" on the ground That probably serves the same purpose as the "blue tarp" in the first pic, either a storage cover or a "rainfly" to be put on after the tent is finished being erected. Edited to add.. Does anyone know the original source of the first photo? [edit on 27/5/05 by Skibum]

Of course, a 3 foot high tent ... makes sense to me .... duh!

Originally posted by defcon5 This statement is both right and partly wrong at the same time. There is a third engine of sorts inside the 757, it is the APU engine. This is the Auxiliary Power Unit, and is not used in take off, landing or navigation, but is what provides power, air conditioning, and air start power for the engines while the engines are shut off. It’s kind of like a big generator.

Yes, I thought that after I had my post. But I wrote what the ATSNN article posted, and I have seen documentary on different planes' third rear engine as power unit. Anyway, according to the article, the pictures are showing this third engine, so I guess we should examine that.

Sorry to say that this is entirely bogus. I have worked on aircraft from different airlines, and the same type of aircraft my in fact have different engines installed, from airline to airline. For instance an L1011 at Delta might have General Electric engines, yet all British Airline L1011’s have Roles-Royce Engines on them, same aircraft, upgraded engines.

I think, everyone should agree with that.

Originally posted by Skibum Does anyone know the original source of the first photo?

My copy had the URL jccc.afis.osd.mil... embedded as the file description. It doesn't work any more, but presumably that's where the original came from.

Look a whole buncha mystery crates wrapped in blue tarps.

What's a bunch of mystery?! I mean, how the heck could that Boeing 757 fit into that tiny hole?! Now really! Just look at that building!

had some photos I tought were new but turned out to be repeats from earlier in the thread. [edit on 27/5/05 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Skibum No real commentary just adding photos I haven't seen on here before. Looks like they were taken immediately following the impact.

These are still images from a surveillance camera. I have seen the footage once, but never after. Still, I don't understand where was the plane from the footage. It starts with the explosion only. Anyeay, it is cool.

Originally posted by Vertu

Originally posted by Skibum No real commentary just adding photos I haven't seen on here before. Looks like they were taken immediately following the impact.

These are still images from a surveillance camera. I have seen the footage once, but never after. Still, I don't understand where was the plane from the footage. It starts with the explosion only. Anyeay, it is cool.

They were taken by a witness not a surveillance camera

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by johnlear Just tell me, on either side of the hole that the fuselage supposedly went through, where is the imprint or damage or any indication that the wings (both left and right) and tail (both horizontal and vertical) made?

This is not the Saturday Morning cartoons, objects do not create holes that represent their exact profile. As compared to the rigid fuselage hitting head-on, the relatively soft wings and stabilizer struck side-on, and as a result likely disintegrated from the high kinetic energy of impact. If you were to dive into the water with arms out straight, they would immediately fall to your side.

OK. Please know this. I have been a pilot for almost 50 years. No airman has more FAA certificates than I do. I had over 19,000 hours when I retired in 2001, 16,000 in large jets. I have participated in many crash investigations. I have built airplanes, I have flown them, I have instructed in them, I have raced them and I have crashed them. The hypothesis that the wings and tail and fuel from a Boeing 757 disintegrated from the high kinectic energy of impact is pure, unadulterated, unmitigated B.S.

John, while I do not have your expertise as a pilot, I am building my own little Sonex airplane with basically the same thechniques as the Boeing uses (monocoque 6061-T6) and I understand the strenght wings are built with. The mental gymnastic required to believe the wings. which are by far the most sturdy component of an aircraft, simply folded is behond my fragile brain's capabilities. As I heards reporters on the radio flying over the pentagon crash mentionning that the wings folded in, I knew "something stunk in the state of Denmark".

What about the "C" of American Airlines?

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1 ... (monocoque 6061-T6) and I understand the strenght wings are built with. The mental gymnastic required to believe the wings. which are by far the most sturdy component of an aircraft, simply folded is behond my fragile brain's capabilities.

I don't think you do understand. For you to make the statement that the wings are "by far the most sturdy component" of an aircraft leads me to think you haven't studied enough on it yet. Also, you admit you are working with the same grade of aluminum - but then you talk about it like it's hell for stout???