CNN Reported No Plane Hit The Pentagon

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Not to mention that you have the engines that hang down several feet from the wing that could have been clipping the light poles at the Pentagon.

The path and alignment of the poles excludes this scenario.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
...and have seen the strength differences in the wings...

This is the same "argument" you use for the light poles... you can SEE strength... That is just silly. I agree they are stronger, I am trying to surmise EMPIRICALLY how much stronger they are. Your eyes are not helping me with that.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by Pootie]

I don't remember hearing that reported. I know that DEBRIS hit cars that were on the ground, but I don't remember hearing the PLANE hit an antenna.

Plane Clips Lamp-Posts

Hagos Afework -- stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon
It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.


Lee Walker Evey --
The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building, said Lee Evey, the manager of the Pentagon's ongoing billion-dollar renovation.


D.S. Khavkin -- eighth floor of building in Arlington with panoramic view
First, the plane knocked down a number of street lamp poles, then headed directly for the Pentagon and crashed on the lawn near the west side the Pentagon.


Stephen McGraw --
I had no awareness of the incoming plane until it was above our cars, having knocked over the street lamp at the edge of the road.

Source: 911research.wtc7.net...

Those are from official eye witnesses.

Is that enough or do I need to find more?

Oh, right, I forgot that if you say "see" it means that you LITERALLY see the strength. Sorry I forgot how literal everyone on here is. I have refueled 757s and I have refueled MD-82s. A 757 carries a HELL of a lot more weight in the wings than the MD-82 does, even BEFORE you add in the weight of keeping the plane in the air. Here, just for you, here are some weights for you.

An MD-82 carries 5,480 gallons of fuel. Probably 65% of your fuel is in the wings, I don't have the exact breakdown right off the top of my head, but the airlines tend to carry more in the wings than the fuselage. So that would be roughly 3500 gallons. IF IT WAS FILLED TO CAPACITY. One gallon weighs 6.8 pounds, so filled to capacity, an MD-82 carries an ESTIMATED weight of 23,800 pounds statically in the wings.

A 757 carries 11489 gallons of fuel. Using the same 65%, that's a little under 7500 gallons. Before adding in the engines that hang on the wings of the 757, you're ALREADY looking at 51,000 pounds on the wings statically. But the 757 doesn't have a much stronger wing?

Doesn't anyone realize that the pentagon is a hardened structure? It was built to withstand explosions, missles, bombs, and whatnot. That is why the damage was small compared to the size of the plane.

Some guy who worked in DC, not sure if in govt or not, got a call from his wife who was on the plane. She told him what was happening and he could see the plane out his office window flying into the pentagon. Was this a fake story planted in the media by the govt? I really doubt it.

Really guys, do any of you have 100% proof either way fo what you are claiming? I don't think anyone here has tested an airplane wing hitting a light pole while in flight. I realize that many of you can make educated guesses based on your experiences, but that is all they are, Guesses! There a a lot of people here who get mad when their opinions or guesses are challenged but they need to realize that we are all entitled to our own opinions and guesses.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good discussion but please stop touting your guesses and opinions as fact. Oh, and not everything that happens is a conspiracy!

Lee Walker Evey --
The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building, said Lee Evey, the manager of the Pentagon's ongoing billion-dollar renovation.

BTW, that's a pretty darn sturdy plane to be able to hit all those things and still be able to fly. Now, I understand that some of that stuff was near the pentagon and momentum would have pushed the plane into the building. But, isn't it funny how momentum is considered when talking about the pentagon but totally ignored when talking about the cap of WTC2 tilting. But that is another thread.

It was a cruise missle and everyone knows it. I've seen enough and read enough on this to be certain that the Pentagon attack wasn't foreign. Flying a plane that large so close to the ground is difficult and no eye witnesses ever said they saw a plane. Not only that, but all of the good video footage of the crash was immediately taken by the govenment so any real investigation wouldn't be possible.

I can see that you actually READ the post about three above yours where there were several eyewitnesses saying "THE PLANE". But you're right. There were no eyewitnesses that said they saw a plane, and they all said it was a missile.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's actually "easier" to fly low, because once you get into ground effect the plane tends to "bounce" and WANT to stay in the air. The air is being forced down and bouncing off the ground and pushing back up at the bottom of the wings and the plane, and keeping it airborne.

Here's a good explanation of ground effect and how it affects a plane in flight.

If it is easier to fly low then why is every 'other' expert on flying (other being the operative word considering the 'official story' experts say it is so without proof) state that it is actually EXTREMELY unlikely and that it would take the skills of one of the best pilots on this planet to pull it off. Plus, the light poles are designed to sheer off when hit at the base by a vehicle. If they are hit in the center at the supposed speeds that the plane was going it would have wrapped the pole around the wing or actually damaged the wing in some way where debris would have been found. It would have also rendered it almost impossible to maintain control. Especially the amount of control that was obviously displayed that day by one of the best pilots this planet has ever seen.

Or maybe not. Maybe the black box from the flight was telling the truth and the plane was actually much higher in elevation at the time of impact and coming in from a completely different angle. Hmmm, but then black boxes have been known to lie.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Problem with your theory is that the wing sizes and strengths are different as well. The 757 wing is larger and stronger than the wing in that crash. It would probably still have been damaged, but a lightpole like the ones at the Pentagon probably wouldn't have torn it off.

Maybe not one but 4 would have done something. Like maybe pull the plane in one direction since it was one wing hitting each one. Sorry my friend but it is not adding up. Sure, the 757 wing was stronger than the plane that Bush Sr. was going to use but the thing is that at the speeds this plane was supposedly moving it would not have been a simple rip and tear. The poles also would NOT have fallen within feet of the base either as the pictures I have seen show. They would have been dragged or knocked a few hundred feet at least with that much force hitting them.

The math isn't adding up.

Eh, forget it. Why bother.

[edit on 3/29/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Eh, forget it. Why bother.

[edit on 3/29/2007 by Zaphod58]

The reason we bother is because we have been told that if we question this 'official story' then we are terrorists.

If you don't believe that then what does the statement, "If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists" mean?

In other words, we are being told that we no longer can question our government. If we do then we are not patriotic. Once we get to that point then this entire planet is in trouble.

That's why we bother. When the story doesn't add up it is our PATRIOTIC DUTY to question the people that told the story.

That's why.

I'm not trying to attack you. I see your points and know that you are truly trying to give an explanation. However, it is just not adding up to what the visual evidence and lack of evidence is showing.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Problem with your theory is that the wing sizes and strengths are different as well. The 757 wing is larger and stronger than the wing in that crash. It would probably still have been damaged, but a lightpole like the ones at the Pentagon probably wouldn't have torn it off.

The wings are not that strong. here is a photo of what small birds can do to a 767 wing. This was at low speed on takeoff.

i114.photobucket.com...

I also have some information about RC-135s carrying pods on the other thread.



[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I just always wondered, since we all know it was the jet fuel that caused the I-beams to melt at the towers.
Why then did so many things in the pentagon, only seem a little bit "scorched"?
In some of the images you can actually see some computer monitors, chairs and desks etc..
I do realize that fire crews were actually able to get to the pentagon but still, something just isnt right, there is tons of debris in the hole and around the hole that doesnt even seem touched by fire.
The grass around the hole is almost in perfect shape and the huge spools just under the hole, look completely un-touched.
Anyone ever notice all the wiring, phone cables, electricity cables etc, should be melted.
Also, I know all about the phenomenon that supposedly caused the fuselage to "punch" through making a clean hole but what about the engine on the wing? The engines are made with harder metals, i believe the fins are titanium, in any case they should have made their own hole completely through all layers (rings) of the pentagon.
And finally you have some slips by a few top ranking officials when talking about the pentagon. More than one said when the "missile" hit before correcting themselves.
There is more evidence of this NOT being a plane than there is for it.
Good day all

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Eh, forget it. Why bother.


boy can't seem to separate my quote from Zaphod58's

I am such a newbie!

Why bother, are you giving in? Anything traveling at 450mph when coming into contact with a stationary object, any stationary object, will experiance major problems. It's high school physics, were you paying attention in class, or checking out the girls?

[edit on 29-3-2007 by infinityoreilly]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by infinityoreilly]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by infinityoreilly]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by infinityoreilly]

Has anyone gone back and watched news reports the infamous day of 9/11? Crazy stuff was being said left to right. A lot of slip ups were made as well.

So you're saying that hitting the building, driving a hole through it, and exploding isn't a major problem? I'd say that's pretty major.

Yes that is a major problem I will agree!

Originally posted by LATBPYSF
it amazes me how quickly people will latch onto a belief simply because they need closure on a subject.

Yes Planes hit these buildings. There were no bombs going off in buildings no missle that hit the pentagon. And Yes there was Wreckage at the pentagon of a plane,

Anybody with access to Google can see them, type in Pentagon Plane Wreckage. Oh and under Advanced search Exclude sites with the word Conspiracy because there are so many of you retards out there you clog up most of the known World Wide Web. Get off the computer and try Reading about structural support. architectural engineering integrity.

You may just pick up on the simple truth that when fuel is burning out of control bad stuff happens.


What you people are talking about could quite honestly be the Biggest Story the entire WORLD ever saw.

Now let me ask you this. If in fact any of this was plausable, THEN WHY IN GODS NAME ISN'T ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT IT. And and try to keep up morons cause THIS IS WHERE YOU PAY ATTENTION. NO REPORTERS, NO NEWS STATIONS, NO POLITICIANS, ANYBODY CREDIBLE FOR THAT MATTER, NOBODY, NOT EVEN THE LEFTY NEWS STATIONS MENTION A SINGLE WORD ABOUT THIS AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IT ISN'T, ITS ALL THEORY BULL#. THERE IS NO PROOF IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM THAT YOU TYPES HAVE TO SUPPORT ANY OF THE BULL# ALLOGATIONS YOU CLAIM. IF THERE WAS WE WOULD BE SEEING IT ALL DAY AND NIGHT ON EVERY NEWS CHANNEL UNTIL BUSH WAS ASSASINATED. BUT IT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE. AND WHILE ON THE BASTARDS NAME, LET ME ASK YOU THIS TOO, DO YOU REALLY HONESTLY IN YOUR HEART BELIEVE THAT BUSH HAS THE BRAINS TO PULL OFF WHAT COULD BE THE BIGGEST GOVERNMENT SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY?? OF COURSE NOT, HE'S A TEXAS HICK. WITH HIS HEAD UP HIS ASS AND HIS TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS....

YOU MAY BE SAYING "BULL#" "BULL#" I SAW THIS GUY ON CNN SAYING THAT NO PLANE HIT.. --- WRONG --- WRONG HE SAID IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A PLANE HIT, KEY WORDS YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL WITH, AND AT NO POINT DOES ANY OF THEM PIN POINT OUR GOVERNMENT FOR PLANNING THESE ATTACTS.

AND DONT TRY AND PASS IT OFF THAT THE GOVERNMENT OWNS THE NEWS STATIONS, BULL#, THE GOVERNMENT CANT PAY THEM AS MUCH AS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC CAN AND THEY GIVE THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY WANT,

GOVERNMENT COULDN'T STOP PRESS ON WATERGATE, COULDN'T STOP PRESS ON KOREAN FLIGHT 007 COULDNT STOP PRESS ON JONESTOWN, OR THE CLINTON DISSAPPEARING CIGAR ACT FOR THAT MATTER.

IF THERE WAS A STORY WE WOULD BE SEEING IT.

NOW RATHER THEN GETTING YOUR NEWS FROM CYBER WORLD *snip*, TRY TURNING OFF THE COMPUTER AND GETTING WITH IT IN SOCIETY, TRY READING THE PAPER, TRY WATCHING POLITICAL DEBATE, WHERE REAL PEOPLE, (not children) MIGHT BE TELLING YOU THE TRUTH.

*Moderator Edit - Removed unnecessary Text.*
Please don't type in all caps. It's harder to read your post.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by dbates]

Yes, I know...it is hard to believe it, isn't it? You just can't believe that ALL MEDIA IS UNDER CONTROL. I know, and I understand. The whole world, your life, everything changes once you accept a concept like that...that there was no plane that hit Pentagon. You really do not have to accept it. There are people who still love Stalin, Hitler...and some of them are good people. They simply believed that Stalin was a good man and that Hitler wanted to save the humanity. They are not bad people.

Neither are you. You are a good guy. Slightly misinformed, though...

Simply put, youre the blind "retard" that is willing to believe whatever story suits the Government and the situation.
Why dont you go somewhere else if you dont like what is said here, somewhere with people more like yourself, where they wear blinders on their heads, Government issued blinders.
Surely there must be somewhere else you want to be, somewhere there is not a bunch of "retards" that are executing their rights to getting to the bottom of what really happened, people that are not satisfied with the BS the govt spews to us and expects of to believe.
On top of some sort of superiority complex, youve also got an attitude problem. Why dont you try using the other 99% part of your brain, the part that maybe hasnt been brainwashed yet.
So lets try that and if that doesnt work take your smart*** and your ALL CAPS to another thread

Originally posted by LATBPYSF
it amazes me how quickly people will latch onto a belief simply because they need closure on a subject.

Yes Planes hit these buildings. There were no bombs going off in buildings no missle that hit the pentagon. And Yes there was Wreckage at the pentagon of a plane,

Anybody with access to Google can see them, type in Pentagon Plane Wreckage. Oh and under Advanced search Exclude sites with the word Conspiracy because there are so many of you retards out there you clog up most of the known World Wide Web. Get off the computer and try Reading about structural support. architectural engineering integrity.

You may just pick up on the simple truth that when fuel is burning out of control bad stuff happens.


What you people are talking about could quite honestly be the Biggest Story the entire WORLD ever saw.

Now let me ask you this. If in fact any of this was plausable, THEN WHY IN GODS NAME ISN'T ANYBODY TALKING ABOUT IT. And and try to keep up morons cause THIS IS WHERE YOU PAY ATTENTION. NO REPORTERS, NO NEWS STATIONS, NO POLITICIANS, ANYBODY CREDIBLE FOR THAT MATTER, NOBODY, NOT EVEN THE LEFTY NEWS STATIONS MENTION A SINGLE WORD ABOUT THIS AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IT ISN'T, ITS ALL THEORY BULL#. THERE IS NO PROOF IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM THAT YOU TYPES HAVE TO SUPPORT ANY OF THE BULL# ALLOGATIONS YOU CLAIM. IF THERE WAS WE WOULD BE SEEING IT ALL DAY AND NIGHT ON EVERY NEWS CHANNEL UNTIL BUSH WAS ASSASINATED. BUT IT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE. AND WHILE ON THE BASTARDS NAME, LET ME ASK YOU THIS TOO, DO YOU REALLY HONESTLY IN YOUR HEART BELIEVE THAT BUSH HAS THE BRAINS TO PULL OFF WHAT COULD BE THE BIGGEST GOVERNMENT SCANDAL IN U.S. HISTORY?? OF COURSE NOT, HE'S A TEXAS HICK. WITH HIS HEAD UP HIS ASS AND HIS TAIL BETWEEN HIS LEGS....

YOU MAY BE SAYING "BULL#" "BULL#" I SAW THIS GUY ON CNN SAYING THAT NO PLANE HIT.. --- WRONG --- WRONG HE SAID IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A PLANE HIT, KEY WORDS YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL WITH, AND AT NO POINT DOES ANY OF THEM PIN POINT OUR GOVERNMENT FOR PLANNING THESE ATTACTS.

AND DONT TRY AND PASS IT OFF THAT THE GOVERNMENT OWNS THE NEWS STATIONS, BULL#, THE GOVERNMENT CANT PAY THEM AS MUCH AS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC CAN AND THEY GIVE THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY WANT,

GOVERNMENT COULDN'T STOP PRESS ON WATERGATE, COULDN'T STOP PRESS ON KOREAN FLIGHT 007 COULDNT STOP PRESS ON JONESTOWN, OR THE CLINTON DISSAPPEARING CIGAR ACT FOR THAT MATTER.

IF THERE WAS A STORY WE WOULD BE SEEING IT.

NOW RATHER THEN GETTING YOUR NEWS FROM CYBER WORLD *snip*, TRY TURNING OFF THE COMPUTER AND GETTING WITH IT IN SOCIETY, TRY READING THE PAPER, TRY WATCHING POLITICAL DEBATE, WHERE REAL PEOPLE, (not children) MIGHT BE TELLING YOU THE TRUTH.

*Moderator Edit - Removed unnecessary Text.*
Please don't type in all caps. It's harder to read your post.

[edit on 29-3-2007 by dbates]