9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

The only place I have even seen a slight comparison between the building and the size of the aircraft are the pictures on this site from Harvard.edu, and I would say that those pictures are skewed anyway. They show the plane as though it’s standing on its gear and therefore hitting the second story. It’s obviously not an impartial study, but rather a group with an agenda. To reconstruct the scale from the movie would be difficult since you have to know the angle of the camera to the aircraft and the distance (which will change with angle and position of the aircraft). May not be impossible, but not something I know how to do.

Hello to everyone, this is my first post. I wanted to add my thoughts on this extremely interesting for me subject, hoping to exchange ideas and insight with others that share these similar interests regarding 9/11 and all that that event encompasses, from the actual tragedies to their impact on our daily lives. I feel that getting to the bottom of the mysteries (and yes, 4+ years on and they are still mysteries!) that occurred on that fateful day is extremely important because they have shaped American geopolitics and int’l affairs in general, something that we can plainly see in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, Madrid, Riyadh, London etc etc. but also in homeland security and civil liberties not only in the US but also in little Greece as well. CatHerder, I commend you on your effort to research this as painstakingly as you have. However, I am still far from convinced by your arguments and I shall elaborate. Before I do so, before I delve into the specifics of Flight 77, I feel I ought to summarize the entire scope of 9/11 events and investigations thus far, not because they are relevant in proving/disproving Flight 77 particulars but rather because they indicate the scope and context of this specific incident: the events of 9/11 and its subsequent investigations are a total farce with the US gov’t doing nothing but spreading disinformation, stalling, underfunding/limiting said investigations, contradicting itself, suppressing/destroying evidence etc etc. For example, with two planes having just been hijacked into the WTC complex, with the President at a well-publicized photo-op 4 miles from a major airport 4, the Secret Service did……nothing. One would expect the first thing they would have done would have been to have grabbed the Prez from the armpits and carry him with his feet dangling in the air to his limo and get the heck out of there. I mean it’s their job to protect him if they feel his safety is threatened, yet they did nothing?!?!?! Planes are raining from the skies, thousands more are still in the air, yet the President’s Secret Service felt he was under no threat where he was?!?! It stinks to high heaven, as do sooooo many other aspects of that fateful day (see the latest leak regarding gov’t suppression of “Able Danger”) but I digress. Other members have mentioned some of these aspects but let’s stick to the topic at hand. It has taken me several weeks of spare time here and there, but I have carefully read the entire 106 pages of this topic thus far. Being human, forgive me if I reiterate previous comments as it is hard to memorize every single comment in here thus far; it’s not like I was keeping notes, at least not until page 60 After page 60, though, I have kept some notes, aiming thus to not only summarize CatHerder’s and others’ points but also to rebut certain comments that were recently made. Getting down to business: CatHerder offers an analysis which concludes, “you cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon”. Thus, this is the theory that CatHerder puts to the test. Proving or disproving this theory does not require offering alternative theories. Therefore, asking me questions of the like, “well then, how do you explain so and so” is meaningless. For the sake of argument, let’s say I cannot. That does not mean I cannot dismiss claims that aren’t irrefutable proof, which is what is needed to assuredly claim, “you cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon”, as CatHerder has. Before I analyze this 757 theory, I would like to stress that if I have missed or forgotten any clarifications, follow-up and rebuttals by CatHerder and others that support it, please bear in mind that remembering every single follow-up post through 106 pages is impossible without exhaustive notes from start to end. Thesis: It is undisputable that a 757 hit the Pentagon Supporting Topic 1: Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building ST 1 Evidence: The 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high and the hole is 13-16 ft wide. My analysis on ST 1: Inconclusive. So do other fuselages and objects of similar diameter. As for the almost exact match, as one member put it “This assumes the plane would retain its exact shape at impact, and not behave like a stubbed out cigar. Silly, really.” Supporting Topic 2: Rims found in building match those of a 757 ST 2 Evidence: Rim photographed in the Pentagon wreckage that looks like a 757 rim. My analysis on ST 2: Inconclusive speculation. There are other aircraft, such as the 737, for example, whose rims look like the one in the wreckage photo. Are there any others perhaps? Furthermore, from “looks like” to “matches” is a huge leap. From “matches” to “only possible match” (which would need to be proved so as to make this claim irrefutable) is an even further leap. Supporting Topic 3: Small turbine engine outside is an APU that 757s equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines have. ST 3 Evidence: Photo of a small turbofan disc in the wreckage My analysis on ST 3: Unsubstantiated claim with no supporting evidence. According to Karl Schwarz, a technical editor at Flug Revue, a German magazine about aviation equipment, it could be the solid disc found behind the front fan of any turbofan jet engine. Furthermore, according to American Free Press, Martin Johnson, head of communications at Rolls Royce in Derby, England, declined to identify the disc or to assist in this issue’s resolution (referral to Honeywell for eg). Supporting Topic 4: Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine ST 4 Evidence: Comparison of disc in photo wreckage with Global Hawk front fan. My analysis on ST 4: Gravely erroneous logical inference and subsequent linkage. The grave error here is that the photographical evidence is of a disc and not necessarily the front fan. Thus, the comparison is erroneous as it may be the disc behind several types of turbofans, perhaps Global Hawk included, perhaps not (see previous ST). Finally, “clearly stated” by whom? Supporting Topic 5: Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211 ST 5 Evidence: Photos of debris in wreckage My analysis on ST 5: Unsubstantiated claim with no supporting evidence. One of the photos does truly show a jet engine ring. Is this specific only to the 757? No. The other photos are of debris that may be anything. Supporting Topic 6: Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos ST 6 Evidence: Photo of some wreckage My analysis on ST 6: Inconclusive speculation. Unless my eyes greatly deceive me, that blue debris may be anything, much less a seat that is specific to the 757s of AA. Supporting Topic 7: Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo ST 7 Evidence: Photo of said fuselage logo My analysis on ST 7: Inconclusive and highly suspect. As www.physics.ca summarizes: “Has American Airlines invented a new kind of indestructible paint? This fragment has allegedly been violently flung out from an explosion which reduced a giant airliner to dust and ashes and unidentifiable tiny fragments... And yet the paint is as shiny and new as the day it was applied. Does it take more energy to peel and blacken paint, than to destroy 100 tons of aircraft? Clearly painted sections survive most crashes, as shown in the crash photos. But in those cases, no one is alleging an explosion catastrophic enough to vaporize 100 tons of plane. They break up and perhaps burn a bit. In really fierce crashes, some of the plane may actually be destroyed, but even in these cases, tons of reasonably intact wreckage remains. So these scenarios are consistent with the recovery of painted sections, even in bad crashes. The allegation that this brightly painted fragment survived is irreconcilable with the claim that 99.99% of the plane was vaporized. The metal is also shiny and new looking, and there is no sign of grass singeing from the heat in the area where it landed. It is quite impossible for this to be from an aircraft which had just been reduced to a pile of ashes. And as another member astutely pointed out elsewhere in this thread, “The single piece of 757 part, the painted section, is the most suspicious of all. Why doesn't it appear in any wide shots, pre-collapse? See the Pentalawn site, for example. Why isn't it burned? How did it fly so far from the Pentagon, being that light, and shaped the way it is? Why aren't the rivet holes torn? I'm afraid that photo is the most suspicious of the lot. Come to think of it, the position it is in is the least likely position for it to land in. Things usually land heavy side down... this looks like it was carefully placed there. That is a large number of unresolved issues. Supporting Topic 8: Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes ST 8 Evidence: Photograph of wreckage My analysis on ST 8: Inconclusive extrapolation. Is Boeing’s 757 the only object to have yellow primer? Supporting Topic 9: Large diesel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object; probably the starboard engine ST 9 Evidence: Photos of generator wreckage My analysis on ST 9: Inconclusive extrapolation. Something did indeed hit that generator, but what? This is indisputable proof it was a 757 engine? And where is that “something large”, where did it go? CatHerder only mentions a 757 starboard engine as the most likely candidate without any supporting evidence. Do his measurements disprove that it could not have been the engine of, say a 737, or perhaps some other protruding part on another object other than a 757 for example? No. Supporting Topic 10: Large diesel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion ST 10 Evidence: Photos of generator wreckage My analysis on ST 10: A logical assumption which does nothing to narrow the field down to only a 757 engine being capable of doing this. Again, an inconclusive extrapolation (see ST 9). Supporting Topic 11: Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon ST 11 Evidence: Selected eyewitness accounts My analysis on ST 11: Inconclusive. Numerous studies have shown that eyewitnesses to the same incident, standing right beside each other, claim to have seen totally different things. Furthermore, this topic has deliberate suppression of contradictory claims as CatHerder intentionally fails to mention the numerous contradicting eyewitness reports. He not only does not lay out the counterarguments so as to effectively disprove them, he actually suppresses them from his analysis entirely, a tactic that immediately and by itself alone discredits his entire thesis. Supporting Topic 12: 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage ST 12 Evidence: None. Repetition of “the official explanation”. My analysis on ST 12: Highly suspect and disproves other supporting allegations regarding lack of sufficient debris. You cannot have it both ways; an explosion and subsequent fire whose temperatures supposedly and instantly vaporized 99% of the claimed 757 cannot have left 98% of the passengers’ DNA samples intact. Regardless of this obvious impossibility, did CatHerder or any other source independently confirm that 63 of the 64 alleged passengers’ DNA was matched at the Pentagon crash site? No. Simply repeating others’ unproven claims without verifying them yourself either, immediately and by itself alone discredits the entire thesis. My conclusion on CatHerder’s thesis: It offers absolutely no indisputable evidence in any supporting topic whatsoever and is nothing but conjecture and speculation. Furthermore, it does not even adhere to the basic principles of thesis analysis and support. What disappoints me is that CatHerder’s analysis is hardly empirical. His approach is to attempt to link flimsy self-proclaimed “facts” (such as vague photos, speculative dimensions, measurements and erroneous logical links) or other “facts” (such as unverified, uncorroborated and unproven “official explanations”) to his thesis, a tactic that would get him an F if this were an essay and ridicule if it were a scientific paper. For example, for someone to say “you cannot dispute”, “it is clear” and “there is no doubt”, one has to rule out all other possibilities. This is called disproving the counterargument and is a cardinal rule in thesis development. CatHerder has hardly done this, and what is more saddening is that he hardly even attempted to do so. Twelve iffy “probably’s” don’t add up to a single shred of “definitely” and this, combined with CatHerder’s refusal to address, much less effectively disprove the possible counterarguments in most of his topics not only does not make his entire thesis “indisputable and clear” but rather weakens it even more via the inconsistencies and further alternate possibilities it opens up, upon closer inspection. I do realize that CatHerder’s task, namely, that he can prove a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, is most difficult. The proper conclusion should have thus been, “as none of the individual topics can be ascertained with a high degree of confidence, much less indisputably proven, and as numerous other questions that I have not addressed are still inexplicable (including “official claims”), the thesis in its entirety, with the evidence available, is pure speculation and should be treated as such.” Finally, CatHerder’s second conclusion, “It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it” is yet another erroneous logical inference. Even if he had proven that a 757 had indeed crashed into the Pentagon, something that he hardly accomplished, he offers absolutely no evidence to base this second conclusion (or rather feeble extrapolation) on. Even if a 757 “indisputably” crashed into the Pentagon, for all I know, Elvis may have very well spearheaded an alien attempt to conquer America, based upon the evidence that has so far been (or rather not been) presented to us by CatHerder (and the US gov’t as well, for that matter). And for the record, a conclusion is absolutely no area for personal extrapolations and opinions. Said opinions on “high doubts” should have effectively been addressed in the relevant body of topics. Said opinions on “ignorance” of opposing views to his have absolutely no place anywhere in the thesis as it is a personal opinion. This only serves to undermine any credibility CatHerder has as it shows that his analysis is tainted with personal opinion and is thus not objective.

Now, with regards to some subsequent comments that I have read, I will start off with CatHerder since I have been mentioning his analysis thus far. CatHerder, I will once again say that I appreciate and commend your effort in this analysis. That does not mean, however, that I will not dispassionately and objectively point out inconsistencies, fallacies and lack of knowledge as I see them. 1. You had mentioned, “Yes, EXACTLY. The "video" with the September 12 timestamp is the altered one. The video without the Sept 12 timestamp is the original one”, and, “I still don't know why the animation you're showing jumps around like that, but I do know why the 2nd frame "flashes" brighter than the other frames -- it's the one that was altered by the french website originally (by their own admission).” Problem: now, 106 pages of dialogue is too much for me to go back and search in so as to attribute the member, but I do clearly recall that a member kept referring to this exact point and the silence was deafening. I’ve read you getting testy with quite an attitude when members have not read your clarifications and subsequent comments so I was most surprised to read you claiming “I still don’t know why the animation jumps around like that…” when in fact a specific member kept doggedly asking his same pertinent and pointed question, over and over again for pages. He was saying that the first video looks like the real one because the “jumping around”, as you call it, looks like it’s due to the shockwave from the explosion whereas the one that you claim is the original one, the one without the timestamp, certainly looks like someone doctored it by using the same fore/background from frame 1 and just added the explosion to create the rest of the frames. Personally, seeing those two videos looping concurrently makes the one without the timestamp look really phony. The one with the timestamp looks realistic in terms of shockwave blast whereas the one you claim is 100% authentic looks like someone took one frame’s fore and background and used it again and again to make new frames. And this does indeed raise a serious question, the question that that member kept asking, the question no one addressed: “where’s the shockwave in the supposed original?” Was this supposed dime-store security camera blast and shock resistant? 2. You also mentioned, “there was a lot of debris, more than one would expect from a commercial airliner impacting a near-solid object at 514mph. There are plenty of private citizens (firemen) who not only recovered bodies from the Pentagon, but also recovered parts from the aircraft itself, including the "black boxes"...(see msnbc and read down to the statements by Carlton Burkhammer) howcome you choose to ignore these people? Are they part of this grand conspiracy theory that you refuse you let go of? Problem #1: I have seen pictures of numerous airline crashes that impacted solid objects at highly excessive speeds and they had much, much more debris. In comparison, the Pentagon crash site has next to nothing and not the “a lot of debris” you claim to see. For example, this crash is an Airbus A310-324 that plunged into a field at an 80 degree nose-down steep dive. Now, imagine an aircraft screaming to the ground at an 80 degree nose-down angle. One would think that it is doing well in excess of 400mph at impact, wouldn’t one? I mean it’s doing 200 KIAS going on 250 while climbing to 10,000 ft. One would also think that upon hitting the field which must be much more solid than the Pentagon, it would be pulverized in a similar “Pentagon crash” fashion eh? No identifiable parts except perhaps the nose gear, odd titanium engine parts and the rest is shredded confetti, a la Pentagon, right? Now, Look at that picture of that A310 that did an 80 degree nose-down impact in a field and tell me if you see anything more, much more than you can see at the Pentagon. What’s my point? That to say “there was more debris than one would expect in this situation” is a baseless, unsubstantiated personal opinion. Problem #2: I read your link and nowhere does Carlton Burkhammer or anyone else claim that they recovered passenger bodies. If they did, I must have not read it properly and I apologize, else, you are extrapolating erroneous claims from personal belief instead of available evidence yet again. 3. You also mentioned, “I mean, who ever heard of a commercial airliner being used as a weapon? It never happened before, and it hasn't happened since.” Problem: While no one may have heard of a commercial airliner being used as a weapon (something I doubt since I recall, for starters, some disgruntled former Fedex employee trying to hijack a commercial plane into his former employer’s building, if I’m not mistaken), the US gov’t has surely imagined it, regardless of whether they had ever seen it, thus, you are once again creating false impressions. “WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say. But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." – source: USA Today, 04-18-04 As for that “unimaginable at that time scenario of hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties”? “In October 2000, a military exercise was conducted which consisted in establishing the scenario of a simulated passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon. The exercise was coordinated by the Defense Protective Services Police and the Pentagon's Command Emergency Response Team. According to a detailed report by Dennis Ryan of Fort Myer Military Community's Pentagram, "the Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to on Oct. 24-26" – source: Global Outlook, No 8, Spring 2004 It would thus seem, CatHerder, that your claim is not based on research or facts but rather on uninformed personal opinion alone. 4. You also mentioned, “Once again... something that has been pointed out, explained, etc., many times in the this thread: ground effect. He was not performing any turns at low altitude - see above. I think you've confused his flight path with his approach.” Problem: To claim that an unskilled pilot could keep 160 odd tons of aircraft, travelling in excess of 500mph, a few feet above the ground, honed into a precise ground target simply due to ground effect is akin to saying that if you throw someone who can hardly swim into seawater, he will float and swim in an easy and straight line. I say that regardless of salt water’s buoyancy and the ease of the swim, he will still most likely drown. Of course this “ground effect” explanation is your opinion against mine but that’s the entire point, it is conjecture and opinion. Yes, ground effect occurs and does cause inexperienced pilots to “grope for the runway” during landing. Can this be scientifically extrapolated and proven to keep 100+ tons going 500+mph floating in a more or less straight line? Are you saying that you and I can keep a 100+ ton airliner 20 odd feet above the ground while going 500+mph without altitude changes? What did this hijacker do on his final approach, take his hands off the stick, fold them behind his head and let the aircraft float on its ground-effected merry way on its own while he smiled and thought of his awaiting 72 virgins? That’s the only thing I haven’t read yet in here. 5. You also mentioned, “I just thought I'd mention this so everyone is aware that this is not a government publication but a publication by the ASCE.” Problem: I wouldn’t put much faith in an ASCE report as it was ASCE personnel that FEMA chose for its whitewash “Trade Center Building Performance Study. Why do I say “whitewash”? Well, among other glaring omissions, it seems that, “Chapter 2 of FEMA's report, "WTC 1 and WTC 2", appears to be carefully crafted to support the "truss theory" or "pancake theory. The comments added to the chapter exposes many deceptive techniques employed in the article. Those techniques are nicely summarized by a comparison of the following two structural framing plans of a typical floor of the Twin Towers. The first is taken from the book Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel. The second is from FEMA's report. It is clear that the FEMA plan is misleading because of the far too small dimensions of the core column cross-sections. If the first drawing can be believed -- and unfortunately it cannot be verified because accurate building drawings have not been made public (comment: now where else have we seen suppression of evidence by the US gov’t before, I wonder)-- then one can surmise that the FEMA plan has the following misleading characteristics. · The core columns (red boxes in the turquoise region) are neither shown to scale nor in their correct positions. They are drawn far smaller than their actual dimensions. · It fails to show the structures connecting the core columns to each other, implying the core is entirely dependent on the floor diaphragms for bracing. · All trusses are shown with a spacing of one truss for every other perimeter wall column, instead of a truss for every column, with alternate spacing used only for the cross-trusses. - source: 911research.wtc7.net..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Tower Blueprints, 911research At any rate, CatHerder, it would seem that the ASCE and FEMA are suspected of being, shall we say, less than forthcoming in their investigations, so to believe and infer that an ASCE assisted 9/11 publication is impartial and committed to full disclosure is a bit of a stretch as they are already severely suspected of toeing the gov’t line by many. 6. You also mentioned, “Furthermore, to carry out such a huge government conspiracy would require tens of thousands of complicit partners. Not fifty or a hundred, but tens of thousands. How would you keep that a secret? How would not one of those tens of thousands of conspirators not slip up and let something out of the bag? The odds are stacked against it.” Problem #1: Why tens of thousands and not fifty or a hundred? Does everyone involved in a conspiracy need to know what’s truly going on in its entire scope? Do you have a scientific model that shows organizational charts and areas of responsibility that run in the tens of thousands for such a conspiracy? Problem #2 : I imagine you have heard of Operation Northwoods, correct? How many would the conspirators have been? The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Prez, certain close advisors and key players and who else? It was a similar conspiracy yet they did want to do it until JFK nixed the idea. What if JFK had given the OK? How many would the conspirators have been? Your “tens of thousands”? How many “tens of thousands” conspired in the Iran-Contra affair? Which brings us to… Problem #3: Slip ups and leaks, if you haven’t noticed, have been happening ever since 9/11 in significant quantities. See whistleblowers, political slip-ups a la Plame, Downing Street Minutes etc etc. This conspiracy has been springing leaks for years, which brings us to… Problem #4: Even though “the odds are stacked against it”, as you said, that hardly means the aspiring conspirators would not go ahead and execute their plans anyway. Many false-flag operations and conspiracies have occurred in the 20th century. Again, what about the Iran-Contra affair? You’re talking about circumventing the Congress, yet they still did it. Right-wing death squads illegally supported by funds gained from illegal sales of arms to the enemy that had just killed 241 US servicemen plus money laundering and drug running thrown in to boot. Now if [I]that’s[/I] not a conspiracy, I don’t know what is. If that didn’t affair didn’t have many players, which did? Yet, Reagan and Co. still went ahead with it, even though the odds were stacked against them, as you said, and do you know why? Simply because they could count on a few pardons and obfuscations to be good enough. And it was, wasn’t it. Throw into that an apathetic and/or fearful American public, the extremely powerful politicians and business elite and their corporations that own everything including the media and you have an instant recipe for success. No offence but whoever makes claims such as yours is ignorant of many historical facts that have been declassified and are in the public domain.

Now, with regards to a few other comments I have read: Billybob had written: “oh yeah, and that very morning we were running drills to prepare for an attack on the twin towers using hijacked airplanes” Blackadder_no responded: “I'd really like to see the original source of that allegation” Clarification: There were drills on 9/11 simulating numerous hijacked airplanes but that did not did include the outcome of them being flown into buildings. However, there was also a drill on 9/11 that was run by the CIA and its scenario indeed was of an airplane crashing into a building Source: AP, Yahoo News Valhall and certain others claim that the wings folded into the fuselage. Perhaps commercial airliners’ wings are hinged on to the fuselage a la F-15 with some out-of-this-world superbrace that can withstand a 500+mph impact and I don’t know about it. Looking at that video CatHerder linked us to of the F-4 ramming into concrete, I fail to see the wings folding back. Perhaps one of you can point out to me their “folding back”. HowardRoark, at some point, said, “At full throttle all jet engines sound the same” Problem: I have been on domestic, intercontinental and transatlantic flights all my life, from a months old baby to this past year, almost each and every year (I’m 35). While not being a pilot or airport ground personnel, I can easily discern the difference between the high-pitched, tinny whining of a DC-10 and the roar of a 747 or for that matter a smaller punch and scream of an MD-80 or 737. Can I tell apart each and every engine and aircraft at full throttle with my eyes closed? Probably not but my point is that your statement is ludicrous. AgentSmith mentioned: “It's also worth noting with regards to the 'lack of debris' that in the recent Greek crash the largest part of the plane that was left was that bit of tailfin we all saw on the news. They smash up pretty good you know. And that one had run out of fuel: news.bbc.co.uk... I don't know what the terminal velocity of an airliner is that is falling from the sky, but I would not be suprised if it is considerably less than the speed at which the aircraft impacted the Pentagon. When you bear that in mind and see how little there was left intact, it says a lot.” AgentSmith also added, “While your on the mission, you can also find all the parts of the Helios crash too, becasue most of that seems to have suffered the same fate” My good man, I live about 30 km from the mountainside of that crash and we had news reports, analyses etc etc 24/7 for days on end. Let me assure you, there was substantial wreckage found. The tail section picture that you posted is a picture that was prominently used in reports here as well, as it is the most tearjerking picture that could be allowed to be used so as to convey the whole accident. A clearly marked and fairly intact tail, perched abnormally on a mountainside does convey the tragedy and wrongness of it all quite well, eh. That does not mean there was not substantial wreckage. Furthermore, the Helios plane, after the pilots became incapacitated, was circling the Aegean Sea on autopilot. When the plane’s fuel ran out, it came down. Now, tell me, at what speed do you believe a plane that’s on autopilot and out of fuel will crash into a mountainside? “Considerably less” than the speed of what hit the Pentagon? Propesterous. As I previously mentioned to CatHerder, pictures of 90 degree nose down crashes show quite a bit of wreckage, despite having reached near or actual terminal velocity speed. And BTW, terminal velocity is fast, very fast, not "considerably less" than 500mph. For example, skydivers reach a typical terminal velocity of 120+ mph. That's about 180 lbs in free fall, reaching a terminal velocity of 120+ mph. Now, I don't think we need to get into the algebra of what the terminal velocity of 100+ tons precisely is so we can admit that it's not "considerably less" than the speed of whatever hit the Pentagon, right?

Concluding my posts for the day (as I have to leave soon), I will say that I did find a post that convinced me: I'm sorry for making light of this, CatHerder, but you do have to admit that Shroomery's post was pretty funny I am 100% serious, though, in saying that your superimposed pictures are 0% more scientifically credible than the above. Oh, and BTW, I noticed that you spoke most rudely at times to others that disagreed with you during the summer and I came across even more rudeness of yours while catching up today. A small tip (if you care for one): it weakens your already weak position and it is most loathsome to read such manners from others. And I do wish you would stop repeating stuff like "I guess you just can't live with the reality of the fact that a 757 was flown into the Pentagon, just like airliners were flown into the WTC towers?" a million times. Number one, it shows bad debating skills. Number two, it shows your intentional and flawed attempt to validate your speculation by linking it to an irrelevant truth. What reality? What fact? Do you have any concrete evidence? No. So what reality is this? Yours?

I'm going to say this, whether you want me to or not. But there is absolutely no way that Mr. Hanjour could have pulled off a manuever like that. If a 757-200 did fly above that gas station because the wing would have hit an overhead sign on the D.C. Bypass next to the gas station. This is just one reason that it could not have been a 757 as given in the "official" report.

I to have done hours of research. And "There was NO plane". Just part of the orchatrated events that took place on 9/11. Plus, I don't even think there were any people on the planes that hit the WTC or the crash in Pa. Call me crazy!

Originally posted by SkyChild_5 Call me crazy!

OK, You are nuts. Got proof?

Originally posted by HowardRoark Got proof?

How about you, Howie? You'd think the official story would at least have something going for it that wasn't merely circumstantial. People might start thinking things, and what a surprise it would be for people to think here in America.

Originally posted by bsbray11 How about you, Howie? You'd think the official story would at least have something going for it that wasn't merely circumstantial. People might start thinking things, and what a surprise it would be for people to think here in America.

It's not even about the "official story". It's about common sense. Fact is planes were hijacked. If you have any proof that all the people on the planes who called their loved ones were in on the conspiricy, I'd like to see it. Now, why in the world would anyone hijack a plane with the intent to kill, make it disappear somehow (or as SkyChild_5 is suggesting....drop the plane off somewhere (unnoticed), unload the people, then take off again (unnoticed)), then fire off missles (unnocticed) - or plane shaped missles - to hit the targets you could have used the plane to hit?? That doesn't make any sense. [edit on 31-10-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird Now, why in the world would anyone hijack a plane with the intent to kill, make it disappear somehow (or as SkyChild_5 is suggesting....drop the plane off somewhere (unnoticed), unload the people, then take off again (unnoticed)), then fire off missles (unnocticed) - or plane shaped missles - to hit the targets you could have used the plane to hit?? That doesn't make any sense. [edit on 31-10-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

I don't know; why would they? I would love to see some solid evidence, and not just circumstantial, going for either idea, or any other.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by bsbray11 How about you, Howie? You'd think the official story would at least have something going for it that wasn't merely circumstantial. People might start thinking things, and what a surprise it would be for people to think here in America.

It's not even about the "official story". It's about common sense.

Problem is your common sense should tell you to ask questions shouldn't it? Like for example, don't you wonder why most of those calls came from one plane, the one that was crashed? 911research.wtc7.net... Does your common sense not tell you that something is not right? I know mines does! And there are more quetions like that with the "official" story than there holes in the Albert Hall. Common sense? Hmmmmmm...

yeah, ....uh, ...hmmmm? common sense tells me that when someone acts like they're trying to hide something, they're trying to hide something.

And the Norman Mineta testimony, Click here to watch Indeed, Billybob they certainly are hiding something.

If there's one thing you'll learn anything from this 100+ page thread, it's that people will believe whatever they want to believe. Hey, if you want to believe the government used some magic potion to make the planes suddenly change into missiles (despite thousands of eye witnesses) or whatever, then by all means go ahead and believe that. I can't stop you. And it's a waste of time presenting evidence showing otherwise as you'll believe whatever you want to believe anyway (as evidence by this whole thread). For some reason, people have a psycological need for the government to be involved with everything bad that happens. That's just the way it is with some people. And despite the wealth of evidence that may suggest otherwise, they'll completely ignore it simply because it doesn't conform to their view.

Hey, if you want to believe the government used some magic potion to make the planes suddenly change into missiles (despite thousands of eye witnesses)

[sarcasm: on] Now TJW you know the MIB were in on this too, that's the only explantion for the eye witnesses being wrong... The MIB used their flashy thingy to wipe their thoughts, and implanted the thought that it wasn't a missel, but a big plane that they saw... G: y'all didn't see a missel, y'all seen a big plane, got that The eye witnesses: we didn't see a missel, we saw a plane... Simple as that... [/sarcasm: off] [edit on 1-11-2005 by Jedi_Master]

About the pentagon. 1 The hole problem with the story is that the hijaker pillot sucked badly at flyng a plane flunked the course but did continue to pay for the course any way, it like sayng"who cares i am well payed for this thing so i'll just continue even if i suck" no way in the first place that plane was controled by hijakers. How can you fail you flight lesons and than fly a big plane in to the pentagon with acrobatic turns. 2 If it was a boing it would not make sence simply cause of it's acrobatic maneuvers it came from the other side had to do a turn that no pilot would be able to pull off a imposible maneuver it had to drop from the sky , turn and fly at grownd level at 400 mph an hour come on lets be serios here even if there was no hijaker on the controls and it was an expiriance pilot or even if it was controled from the ground it would be imposible , the plane would just hit the ground and crash it had to be something smaller. 3 No one can navigate a plane that big and from a far distance location where it came from, planes dont just fly on their own (big planes like the 747)they have a plot fixed course and they just stick to it, the navigation details in case you get lost come from ground control the pilot doesent just fly on his own. [edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

1. The pilot that took over DID know how to fly. He took his commercial exam a second time, and passed it. He had the license revoked after 6 months because he didn't take a required physical for the FAA. 2. It was a 270 degree descending turn. Nothing acrobatic about it, and I'm sure you could find other pilots that can pull it off. 3. Pilots DO NOT NEED ground control to set a course or get to their destination. They use navigation aids, maps, and GPS among other systems. They file a flight plan so that they know where to search if there is an accident, and so that other planes can be routed so that they don't fly into each other.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 1. The pilot that took over DID know how to fly. He took his commercial exam a second time, and passed it. He had the license revoked after 6 months because he didn't take a required physical for the FAA. 2. It was a 270 degree descending turn. Nothing acrobatic about it, and I'm sure you could find other pilots that can pull it off. 3. Pilots DO NOT NEED ground control to set a course or get to their destination. They use navigation aids, maps, and GPS among other systems. They file a flight plan so that they know where to search if there is an accident, and so that other planes can be routed so that they don't fly into each other.

But coming from another direction from far away why not crash the plane and turn it around first, he had time to calculate it was coming from far away, it would make no sence. 270 degree turn down to fly an grownd level . [edit on 11-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Because the best he could get was CLOSE to the Pentagon. The Pentagon doesn't have a big navigation aid saying "You're on THIS side of the building." He got close and then saw the only side he could fly into that didn't have any obstacles to impede the path of the plane.