9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

If you really want to compare what is and what is not in the first frame, look at the horizons in each one. (Of course the smoke cloud rises and casts a shadow across the right of the ground - and the smoke trail from the incoming aircraft also rises and lightens/blurs the horizon slightly.) But it's easy to see, what is and is not there in each frame... Only in frame 1 (the bottom set) do you see the tail of an aircraft. It has to be an aircraft tail - it's the only thing different on the primary horizon. The portion claimed to be a GlobalHawk, on so many sites and even in in this thread, just does not move or change in all 5 frames...

What ever the plane was, I dont believe it was being operated by a human. If it was going 200-500 MPH, I dont believe a human could get as low as the plane was fast enough to hit it straight, and not hit the ground. [edit on 15-9-2004 by SpittinCobra]

The mind could rest once the confiscated video tapes recording the morning of 9/11 from the roof of the Sheraton National Hotel, Jose Velasquez's Gas Station and the Virginia Department of Transportation are placed into the public domain. However, the length of time the tapes have been withheld renders their authenticity invalid, assuming they still exist. Withholding them only reinforces the conspiracy theories surrounding this event and they need to be released. [edit on 15-9-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by SpittinCobra What ever the plane was, I dont believe it was being operated by a human. If it was going 200-500 MPH, I dont believe a human could get as low as the plane was fast enough to hit it straight, and not hit the ground. [edit on 15-9-2004 by SpittinCobra]

757's are prone to strong influence from ground effect. At the low angle of attack, the plane would have floated above the ground as it came in.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra What ever the plane was, I dont believe it was being operated by a human. If it was going 200-500 MPH, I dont believe a human could get as low as the plane was fast enough to hit it straight, and not hit the ground. [edit on 15-9-2004 by SpittinCobra]

I already covered this in the other thread, but here it is repeated. There's no magic involved, and it's nothing new (it's been in flight text books since 1940). There is a large build up of airpressure under the wings of an aircraft as it gets close to the ground, this force is called ground effect. The faster you are going, the stronger this force is. Model aircraft pilots have been taking advantage of ground effect for years when taking off (you just start to clear the runway, level off not very far above (inside 1 height of 1 wing-length of your craft) the ground and take advantage of the extra lift provided as you acellerate your plane). "When an aircraft enters ground effect during the landing flare, the aircraft may tend to float because the lift-induced drag is reduced quite dramatically as the aircraft descends below one wingspan distance from the ground. Any excess speed at all -- you know, the 10 knots for Ma and the kids -- will cause this float to become excessive. This can cause an inexperienced pilot to grope for the ground and possibly induce pitch oscillations." The pilot of the 757 wasn't trying to land, he was trying to ram the building... The 757 was going over 500mph, 757's normally do 150 KIAS (knotts indicated air speed, or about 172mph) when they land. Aircraft land at slow speeds for a few reasons: the most important one is they have to stop before the end of the runway, another is they have to be going slow enough so the wings are not producing too much lift (causing them to go higher), another is they bounce back into the air from ground effect if they are going too fast - this can result in an accident because the plane bounces back up into the air (from the air pressure under the wings, not from the plane making contact with the ground) -- if the pilot doesn't react instantly and jam full throttle and abort his landing it usually results in overshooting the runway and a crash, in some cases it causes planes to bounce on this cushion of air and slide sideways off the runway. These are example of a plane TRYING to land but going too fast. The 757, on the other hand, was going so fast that the pilot would have had to literally fight to make it touch the ground - this is why it didnt come in sliding across the lawn. (Pretty sloppy layman's description, but it's fairly accurate. Feel free to read the links provided.) [edit on 15-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord What makes you say that? There's plenty of other information that makes these tapes a non-issue.

I say that because the tapes exist and have been withheld from th epublic domain with National Security cited as the reason, or so I've been led to believe from the material available on the internet. Would the Zapruder film ever be considered a non-issue? I want to believe this thread, but to my mind, the video tapes create a schrodinger aspect to an otherwise logical reason.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord Ah-ha! There it is. The vast majority of the "material available on the internet" is conspiracy disinformationist tripe. Are we even certain these tapes do exist? After all, your only source is one that has already proven to have lied.

With respect to the site, even this thread is available on the internet. It has become hard to discern what is the real explanation for any given event.

I have read through this thread.. and it took some time, I just don't get it.. are there actually people out there who will believe that the U.S.A. flew one of its own drones into the pentagon?... for what reason?.. Why? This seems silly to me.. But entertaining! Everyone has a right to believe anything and even the most nutty ideas can be exploited via the internet.. But here at least with REAL evidence we can at least say we denied ignorance. Thinking with logic and seeing the absolute truth for some is too painful to accept. Welcome to the cyber world, the next best thing to actually having a life!

look carefully at the video. What you outline in the video is consitent in color with background hills and trees. THE PLANE SHOULD BE IN THE FOREGROUND. Color variation should be much more distinguishable. Your so-called siloette is identical to the background color. As far as i can see there is nothing there except a little dark spot up where the 'tail' is supposed to be in addition to the background. The so-called puff of smoke is very clear and very highlighted from background. It IS a foreground object/item. How can the 'puff of smoke' be brilliantly white and the plane at the supposed same depth be absolutely indistinguisable from the background? My eyes don't work that way. Had yours checked lately? Please use your eyes. Thx. .

From 1908 to 2001, examine planes that crashes resulted from impacts: www.planecrashinfo.com...

quote: Originally posted by piboy "LL1, I see that you are presenting information, but you keep alluding to what happened to the wings and the windows. Just spit it out. What do you think happened?" I did post this link before you questioned (for the second) time about the windows structure: www.azom.com... Also posted this, and another link on the structure of wings, prior to your second question on wings: [edit on 16-9-2004 by LL1]

Originally posted by project_pisces Hate to tell you but a 757 fusealage, you know that tube where you sit that keeps ya safe at 38k feet? No way it could punch a perfect hole that deep into the Pentagon. I dont care if it was traveling at Mach3 Look at that cookie cutter perfect hole The 757 in all of its glory If you notice on the aircraft, even if the gear was retracted, the engines are so big and drop so low it would not allow the plane to attain that low of a fly in to strike where the hole ends at around the d-e ring(inner court)

Maybe, and I state maybe the wing engine was hurled through... [edit on 15-9-2004 by LL1]

In April 2002 a much smaller plane than a 757 hit a 32-story building, take a look at the damage that was created. www.cnn.com...

On impact planes break up upon hitting structures such as buildings, their footprints are left on the structures. Like a face smashed into a cake/punched fist into sheet rock. Planes are hollow, the nose (holds sensors, it's hollow) the fuselage (hollow) for cargo/passengers and wings (hollow) that carry the jet fuel in lines to the engines, as I had stated/attempted to show in my prior posts. A plane is a SHELL. A shell with seats, cargo bay area. Engines are external, jet fuel is carried in the wings, pounds of jet fuel! Those that are fimiliar with weights/balances know piolets balance their fuel/pax/cargo to allow for the power needed for take off. The wings are the most delicate part of the plane, and are generally the first part to be sheared off on impact into a structure, then the tail, as the fuslage is then propelled a distance, until it begins to break apart. Like a sling-shot. Good example is a high board diver, with arms out while diving , arms would be forced back against the wind. The expolsions (Pentagon/WTC) are caused by the highly flammable jet fuel, so highly flammable that the dense heavy fumes so dense, will always fall to the ground. What happened to Flight 77? It was brought in as if landing at high speed, (flights come into airports at 400 mph prior to landing), it more than likely did not have landing grear down. It was sliding into the Pentagon. It hit the weakest point of the Pentagon, the West side, which was under construction. There's the missile... Wings sheared off. I believe they (terrorists) knew exactly the effect they wanted to create, a 767 brought down to near ground level, a high speed slide into the Pentagon, at high speed, with enough fuel from DC to LAX (3-4 hrs fuel)... BTW, What made the small round round? More than likely an engine.(detachable). You know how in a car accident at 70mph, car stops, you don't, smack into the windshield.

LL1,,,,,Now we are getting somewhere how could I have been so stupid. It does match the shape and size of the engine Wild physics i guess. Look at how 2 110 story buildings were pulverized to dust by pancaking trussels. [edit on 15-9-2004 by project_pisces]

...that a person they were working with stood in front of an engine, need I state what happened, the were sucked in (truth). Engine=size of a man. The engine of passenger jets are made to within stand a rock thrown into the blades, and still keep kicking. There are multi-blades in an engine. Just like the rows in a sharks jaw. If one rowof blades goes the other rows will keep the engine going to stay in flight. I've seen the video of rocks/frozen birds thrown in an engine on a test engine, they kick of the blades, and bonce around the outer engine inside it. Now if the plane, 757 came in at an angle, one side will jerk to the opposite side throwing the detachable engine off. Perhaps this was their aim, to get the engines/wings off so as to penetrate the Pentagon. Penetrate=Pentagon... Again that hole is the size of a man. The blades are going to continue to rotate, there's the force/power/thrust through the construct wall, West side of the Pentagon (weak). Terrorist studied not only the construction/design of the WTC but you can see from the West side hit they ere very well aware of weak spots. Sliding a plane a even 200mph is going to do heavy damage on a construction site. Now, sherred wings 3-4 hours fuel... you have a bomb.... They wanted to penatrate the Pentagon.

Someone needs to look into/compare the power of engines, perhaps they (terrorists) wanted the engines to be utilized as well, by using the engines and fuselage as weapons... There is a pic in this thread that shows the lenght that hole travels/ed... I say it was the engine that made that hole.

Wow ! Whoever doesn't get convinced with that tyre and that piece of metal is a kook. Check here the for the footage showed in CNN, Sept. 11 : - bodies being carried away; - the left wind is almost intact - the right wing is broken into 5 big chunks - the tail also almost intact, is laying on the floor, just left from that piece of metal depicted above. cia.gov fbi.gov nsa.gov

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by SpittinCobra What ever the plane was, I dont believe it was being operated by a human. If it was going 200-500 MPH, I dont believe a human could get as low as the plane was fast enough to hit it straight, and not hit the ground. [edit on 15-9-2004 by SpittinCobra]

I already covered this in the other thread, but here it is repeated.

You can cover it till your blue in the face, There is to much out there that could swing the evidence. I dont believe a human with little training, could pull this off. You have done alot of research, if you did it. Great job, I dont think I have ever claimed it wasnt a plane tha hit the pentagon. I am just giving my opioion, Thats all we all are doing. Yes you have a lot of time spent putting this together. Is this the first place you have posted it? You wated to get it all together, the get a membership here to post it? With the evedience you have passed, You would think you could go public.

The most serious error in the ASCE report can be found in section 3, "Review of Crash Information". Figure 3.3, a still frame from the unofficial, yet released Pentagon security camera footage, incorrectly labels the white smoke trail in the still "Approaching Aircraft". If the many building performance experts on the panel who assembled the report cannot tell the difference between a white, bumpy smoke trail and a 757, their credibility is questionable, at best. If the Pros cant tell, How can you? Smoke trail mislabled as 757. Figure 3.4 clearly shows an extension of the same smoke trail reaching all the way to the Pentagon, which would make this "757" hundreds of feet longer than a real 757. That is, of course, ignoring the fact that this supposed 757 lacks any wings, a tail, or any marking that would indicate it is an airliner. In fact, the ASCE report is the only place I have seen this bumpy, irregular smoke trail referred to as a 757. I believe this piece of disinformation is deliberate. If it is unintentional, then the ASCE should correct this report in order to save their credibility. There is nothing in the still frames that remotely resembles a 757, so it is difficult to believe a team of engineers could make a mistake of this magnitude. bedoper.com... Riddle me this, If a 757 brought down the towers, why wasnt there more damage to the Pentagon? The false-opposition 911 investigation sites are now bigger and louder than the real ones -- not created to get to the truth, but to manage people away from the most critical conclusions which existing evidence already establishes. However, in your case they have failed, because you have found this site. Begin with the following quick overview of just two lines of conclusive evidence. Then follow the links for systematic presentations of all of the independent proofs. Proof One: In the photo below, you see that when you match the image size of the killer jet's tail fin and that of the tail fin of a Boeing 757 and then overlay the Boeing so that tail fins are aligned you find, as Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell demonstrate below, that the overlaid image of the Boeing fuselage sticks out past the obstruction which completely conceals the image of the actual killer jet in the original picture. The killer jet, therefore, has to be shorter and differently proportioned than the Boeing 757. This alone tells us Flight 77 was not the killer jet. Proof Two: Civil engineers have plotted to scale a Boeing 757 and the wall and supporting pillars of the Pentagon. The pillars are labeled by number. All are agreed that the nose of the killer jet hit the Pentagon at pillar #14. But the question now becomes had the killer jet been a Boeing 757, as depicted in this diagram, at which location in terms of pillars would the starboard engine have hit the building? Overlay of Boeing 757 on the American Society of Civil Engineers Diagram by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins Clearly, the starboard engine would have hit on the first floor at pillar #16. Except that it didn't. Look below. Pillar #15 has been blasted near ground level (although if a Boeing had hit, the fuselage would have had to have entered at the level of the ceiling of the first floor to allow for the engines which hang lower than the fuselage, BUT WHAT ABOUT PILLARS 16 AND 17? bedoper.com...