9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Zaphod58 A 757 that has bounced the engine off of everything in sight (cars, lightpoles, signs) WILL leave a trail of white smoke. And I seriously doubt Global Hawk leaves a trail of any kind. That would be like saying "Look, here's my drone! Shoot it down!"

So where's the engine? Where is it? Has the NTSB, the gov't, anyone shown it to you? No? Oops.

A few hours? Do you know how much training goes into a PRIVATE pilots license? To get a Commercial License, you have to pass a Private License program first, which can take months of flight training and ground school, and THEN start on the Commecial program. All told it can take a couple of YEARS to get a commercial rating, depending on how often you can go flying.

Originally posted by defcon5 1) They did release video, just not all the video that you would like. On the other hand the other video may not be as good as even that poor video is. 2) They ran around collecting video because its evidence in a crash, hijacking, terrorism case that they now had on their hands. Same as they confiscate all the video from a bank after a robbery.

I love it when people sound out their assumptions when in fact all they are doing is displaying their denial. defcon5, there are dozens of other Pentagon security cameras that certainly captured the attack. As numerous websites have commented, "the number and positions of security cameras monitoring the Pentagon is not public knowledge, but it is reasonable to assume that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of security cameras ringing the huge building that is the heart of the United States military establishment." - 9-11 Research They have never been released. The FBI seized a CCTV recording from the Sheraton National Hotel. It has never been released. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon. They have never been released. The FBI visited a gas station across from the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. The NEXCOMM/CITGO gas station is just under the flightpath of the aircraft involved in the Pentagon attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack. It has never been released. There is likely other video footage that was either destroyed or is being withheld, given that the trajectory of the attack plane took it low over a large part of Arlington, Virginia. None of it has ever been released. So, there must be a minimum of several videos from businesses and several more videos from the Pentagon. Being the Pentagon and all, restricted airspace, tons of business on the flight path etc etc, it would be a safe bet that there's all kinds of footage, dozens of videos, not just "several", with thousands and thousands of frames. Yet, the gov't releases 5 frames. Why? Why not release it all? Which brings us to your second point, that of it all not being released because of confiscation, terrorism etc, just like bank robberies. Well, I don't know about you, but I've seen them release all kinds of bank robbery videos. Never heard of such footage not being released because it's criminal evidence, as you and others try to claim. defcon5, defenders of the gov't line such as yourself say that footage is not being released because it's evidence and a matter of national security. So what? What possible state secrets could the release of the videos harm? What possible criminal case could the release of the videos harm? Publicizing videos that show a 757 crashing into the Pentagon would undermine the investigation and national security? Are you for real? Please explain to me how this is so because such a claim is totally illogical. And at any rate, stop giving false impressions because it was NOT a matter of "they did release video, just not all the video that you would like, whose quality may be worse than poor anyway". There are certainly dozens of videos (gas stations, hotels, other businesses, Pentagon cameras), of which none have ever been released. And if you still believe that the Pentagon, the Pentagon for chrissake, doesn't have dozens and dozens of high quality cameras all over the place, it is you, my friend, who are peddling truly whacky ideas.

And did you bother to read everything here? The unreleased tapes are being held for the Zarqawi(sp?) trial. I have no idea why, neither does anyone else since they won't say obviously, but they've being used as evidence in some way.

Afterall we do have mineta's testimony damned near as saying Dick cheney let the plane fly into the pentagon. Otherwise why would somebody keep comming into the room and asking the VP, "do the orders still stand." That would be the stand down orders. If the orders were to stand that the plane be shot down and this is probably the "default" for situations like this just as it is here in the UK. Why wasn't it done? So why would this young man keep notifying the VP at how far the plane was? ~Peace ~ [edit on 15/11/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 A few hours? Do you know how much training goes into a PRIVATE pilots license? To get a Commercial License, you have to pass a Private License program first, which can take months of flight training and ground school, and THEN start on the Commecial program. All told it can take a couple of YEARS to get a commercial rating, depending on how often you can go flying.

Let's keep things in perspective here, shall we? Someone who can make a steep downward 7000 ft spiral in 2.5 minutes, level off a few feet above the ground and hone in on a specific target at 460 mph, someone who can pull that off needs all kinds of military flight training hours. In comparison, a commercial rating certainly is only "a few hours". Unless you would have us believe that someone who has a brand new commercial license can pull off such a manoeuvre. The air traffic controllers at Dulles are on the record saying that the maneuver that this pilot pulled off made them believe it could only have been a military plane they were seeing on their radar. Now why would they say that? Maybe because the hours of experience for a commercial license are hardly enough so as to learn to execute such feats. Military pilots can do them, commercial newbies cannot. Military pilots have many more hours of experience than commercial newbies. And let's be precise, shall we? Hours of training mean diddly squat (so as to pull off such a maneuver) if they're not flight time. I couldn't care less if a commercial license needs 20 years to acquire. How much flight time is involved? Furthermore, what kind of flight time is involved? You seem to know more about commercial licenses than I so tell me, how many flight hours does a commercial license entail? 20? 50? 100? And don't be referencing years and months, I want flight time. Now, tell me how many flight hours of combat manoeuvres do you think are needed so as to learn to execute a 7,000 steep downward spiral in just over 2 minutes, levelling off and hitting a ground target while doing 460? Do you really believe that the few flight hours of commercial training will have graduates performing such manoeuvres? Please.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 And did you bother to read everything here? The unreleased tapes are being held for the Zarqawi(sp?) trial. I have no idea why, neither does anyone else since they won't say obviously, but they've being used as evidence in some way.

I have read all 108 pages, very carefully. I have made notes while reading said pages. I responded, 2 pages ago, with a very lengthy rebuttal to CatHerder's laughable "thesis". Did you even bother to read my posts 2 pages ago? Obviously not, for you to be asking me if I've read anything in here. Of course the gov't is claiming some sort of trial and that this prohibits them from releasing the videos. "We cannot show you the video of a plane hitting the Pentagon because it's evidence for a trial" Uh huh. Yeah. Sure. OK. Whatever you say Tell you what, you just keep on nodding your head in agreement to the BS excuses they tell you; I, though, will continue to think critically.

Originally posted by Aris The air traffic controllers at Dulles are on the record saying that the maneuver that this pilot pulled off made them believe it could only have been a military plane they were seeing on their radar. Now why would they say that?

The answer is in the full quote.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

www.papillonsartpalace.com... Nothing to do with the complexity or difficulty of the turn, just that normal 757 pilots wouldn't do it that way because it's dangerous. Of course if you're going to fly it into a building then you really don't care.

Originally posted by Aris Thousands of eyewitnesses? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? What about the thousands of eyewitnesses that saw something else? That doesn't fit too well with what you maintain, eh.

What are you talking about? Thousands of people from all around the world were watching live as the second plane crashed.

Evidence?!?!?! What evidence? The only "evidence" I've seen in these 108 pages is nothing but wild speculation that I've already easily refuted. Shall we try again? So, what evidence?

What part is easily refuted? That missiles were used? Yes, I agree then, that is easily refuted. I'm talking about the over abundance of evidence that planes were used in the 9/11 attacks. I feel sorry for you if you just blatently ignore all the evidence presented to you because of your need for this to be some sort of conspiricy...

For some reason, people have a psychological need for the gov't to tell them what to think.

I'm sure there are people like that, but this thread isn't abou them.

In fact, the Social Identity Theory and Terror Management Theory nicely explains the phenomenon that grips people who make statements like yours:

Are you serious? What statements? That in all likely hood terrorists had a major involvement in the 9/11 attacks? Or that planes and not missiles crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and crashed in Penn.? Oh yeah, those are real wild statements Get real man....

Here we go again, "the wealth of evidence". ThatsJustWeird, how about presenting one single shred of evidence; never mind the "wealth", just a single shred.

Are you blind? Thousands (being conservative) watched live (whether in person or on TV) as planes not missiles crashed...

You do know what evidence is, right? Lemme help you out: wild speculation does not count.

So despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support the missile claim, you don't count that as wild speculation, but you count planes as wild speculation? Am I reading that right?

ThatsJustWeird, stick to the topic on hand, will ya? We're talking about the Pentagon crash I couldn't give a damn about the twin towers. Just because commercial planes crashed there does not automatically prove that a plane must've crashed into the Pentagon. And just to remind you what this thread is all about, because you seem to be merging various scenarios as you see fit, this is about whether a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. So, show me one piece of hard "evidence" that proves it was a 757.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

You do know what evidence is, right? Lemme help you out: wild speculation does not count.

So despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support the missile claim, you don't count that as wild speculation, but you count planes as wild speculation? Am I reading that right?

No, you're not. I have been most specific in all of my posts: I haven't seen one single shred of hard evidence of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. This does not mean I deny it was a 757. It does not mean I find a missile claim more plausible. It does not mean anything other than exactly what I have been typing all along: I--h-a-v-e--n-o-t--s-e-e-n--o-n-e--s-i-n-g-l-e--s-h-r-e-d--o-f--e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e--t-h-a-t--a--7-5-7--c-r-a-s-h-e-d --i-n-t-o--t-h-e--P-e-n-t-a-g-o-n. Have you? If you have, please share because CatHerder's thesis and his supporter's claims are laughably ridiculous. [edit on 15/11/05 by JAK]

Originally posted by Aris ThatsJustWeird, stick to the topic on hand, will ya? We're talking about the Pentagon crash I couldn't give a damn about the twin towers. Just because commercial planes crashed there does not automatically prove that a plane must've crashed into the Pentagon. And just to remind you what this thread is all about, because you seem to be merging various scenarios as you see fit, this is about whether a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. So, show me one piece of hard "evidence" that proves it was a 757.

So...4 planes are hijacked. Two crash into the towers, one crashes into Penn. (likely shot down), the other one...they just take it to the moon or someplace similar and out of thin air create a missile or something similar the size and shape of that plane and then fire the missile unnoticed into the Pentagon? Is that what happened? Anyway, for evidence read with an open mind the first post in this thread for a start... If you don't see any evidence, it's simply because you don't want too. Or what is your definition of evidence? And if it wasn't a plane or a missile what do you think it was? And what happened to the plane?

Originally posted by ashmok The answer is in the full quote.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

www.papillonsartpalace.com... Nothing to do with the complexity or difficulty of the turn, just that normal 757 pilots wouldn't do it that way because it's dangerous. Of course if you're going to fly it into a building then you really don't care.

Not to be rude, but so far all the answers I'm getting in here have deeply flawed logic: 1) I never said that since Dulles air traffic control considered such maneuvers to be of a military plane, that this proves it was a military plane. 2) I never said that since Dulles air traffic control considered such maneuvers to be of a military plane, that this disproves a 757. Summary: what I did say was that the air traffic controllers considered such maneuvers to be of a military plane, period. What is it with everybody in here with this nasty habit of making ridiculous leaps of logic? So, to make this even clearer, here is how it goes: 1) Dulles ATC sees a blip on their radar spiralling down 7,000 ft in less than 3 minutes, making an almost complete turn while going close to 500 mph. What should you infer from this and nothing more? That this maneuver is quite a feat to pull off. Hold onto that, OK? 2) Some people in here keep on claiming that a commercially licensed graduate can pull off such a maneuver. 3) Others claim that such a maneuver is not much of a feat to begin with. My point, if you have been following me now, unlike before, is that A) such a maneuver is quite a feat to pull off, as my quoted source (Dulles ATC) confirms and B) an inexperienced, fresh commercial graduate pulling off such a maneuver with a 160+ ton airplane sounds totally implausible and ridiculous.

Sorry, Aris, but your logic is flawed. No where is it stated that such a maneuver is hard to pull off, what is stated is that the maneuver is one that commercial pilots don’t normally do, not that it is to complicated or difficult to do. Why don’t normal commercial plots fly like this? Maybe because it tends to cause lawsuits from injured passengers.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird So...4 planes are hijacked. Two crash into the towers, one crashes into Penn. (likely shot down), the other one...they just take it to the moon or someplace similar and out of thin air create a missile or something similar the size and shape of that plane and then fire the missile unnoticed into the Pentagon? Is that what happened? Anyway, for evidence read with an open mind the first post in this thread for a start... If you don't see any evidence, it's simply because you don't want too. Or what is your definition of evidence? And if it wasn't a plane or a missile what do you think it was? And what happened to the plane?

You are still rambling generalizations. I want to see some sort of proof of what hit the Pentagon; some clear video footage, identifiable wreckage specific to flight 77, something. All CatHerder did was speculate. I could copy/paste his entire thesis and replace "757" with "737", for example, and it would still be the same. Show some proof and let me further add, not just proof it was a 757 but rather AA's flight 77, to be more specific so as to confirm the gov't's story. Or should I just take CatHerder, the gov't and your word for it? As for what truly hit the Pentagon, I dare say I do not know. There is not enough evidence so as to come to a firm conclusion. It could have been flight 77, it could have been some other 757 with no passengers, it could have been a 737, it could have been something else altogether. With the amount of available info, who knows, the gov't is hiding it all. Only those that want to believe it was the genuine flight 77 find these 108 pages "proof". Anyone who is dispassionately critical finds such claims severely lacking.

Originally posted by Aris What is it with everybody in here with this nasty habit of making ridiculous leaps of logic?

The only "ridiculous leap of logic" here is yours, where you take a quote that clearly says 757 pilots don't do that because it's dangerous, then pretend they actually mean something else.

Originally posted by HowardRoark Sorry, Aris, but your logic is flawed. No where is it stated that such a maneuver is hard to pull off, what is stated is that the maneuver is one that commercial pilots don’t normally do, not that it is to complicated or difficult to do. Why don’t normal commercial plots fly like this? Maybe because it tends to cause lawsuits from injured passengers.

Howard, you can claim my logic is flawed all you want. The fact of the matter is that these supposed terrorists were remembered as flying dimbulbs by their instructors. The fact of the matter is that a steep 7,000 ft spiral that levels off a few feet off the ground while going close to 500 is not something a green pilot can pull off in a 160 ton airliner. A friend of my mom's who flies for Olympic told me that the typical rate of descent for an airliner is from 600/700 to 1300 feet per minute. Now, you're telling me that this inexperienced Arab did a steep downward spiral with a rate of descent of 2,800 ft/min! (7,000 divided by 2.5 mins) Not only that, not only did he manage to drop almost 3000 feet per minute while going in 500 mph spiral, he also managed to level off a few feet off the ground and hone in on his target with an accuracy a laser guided bomb would envy! Sorry but it just doesn't wash. What you are claiming is totally absurd. No offence but you've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

Originally posted by ashmok The only "ridiculous leap of logic" here is yours, where you take a quote that clearly says 757 pilots don't do that because it's dangerous, then pretend they actually mean something else.

ashmok, you still cannot put 1 + 1 together and come up with 2, you're still having trouble. I explained this two posts ago and I'll explain it again, for your benefit: 1) The maneuvre on Dulles' ATC radar clearly showed that it was a complex maneuvre, one that made them believe it was a military plane. 2) The fact that a commercial plane can pull it off means nothing so ramble on all you want because you have totally missed the point. 3) The fact that such a maneuvre was pulled off does not imply that it could not have been a 757, it implies that whoever was piloting was pretty freakin' good, so as to even make ATC think it was military. 4) An Arab that had next to zero flight time in a 757, almost no experience whatsoever, pulling off such a maneuvre, is a real stretch. I hope you get the point now, else, I can't help you further.

And BTW, ashmok, your reading skills leave a lot to be desired. Why do I say that? Well, because that quote's point is hardly whether 757 pilots do that because of comfort or safety. Rather, that quote's point is that what they were seeing on their radars at Dulles looked like a military maneuvre. ...which means it was quite a maneuvre, which is the point.

Originally posted by Aris 1) The maneuvre on Dulles' ATC radar clearly showed that it was a complex maneuvre, one that made them believe it was a military plane.

Wrong right there. As I pointed out, the controller justified saying this was a military plane because...

"You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

...no mention of complexity, that's purely your inference. So therefore...

And BTW, ashmok, your reading skills leave a lot to be desired. Why do I say that? Well, because that quote's point is hardly whether 757 pilots do that because of comfort or safety. Rather, that quote's point is that what they were seeing on their radars at Dulles looked like a military maneuvre.

Insult me all you like, repeat your fictions all you like, it won't make either of them true. ATC thought it was a military plane because 757's aren't normally flown that way, that's all they said, no matter how you try and twist it. [edit on 15-11-2005 by ashmok] [edit on 15-11-2005 by ashmok]