If flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to it?

[smoogatz]

Just curious.

[MercutioATC]

1. Sssshhhhh! You're beginning to make sense...

Shame on you.

[smoogatz]

2. Maybe it's in the Bermuda Triangle? Or parked in a hangar

in Area 51? Yeah, that's it...

[MercutioATC]

3. I believe the CW here is that it was flown over the Atlantic and ditched.

...never mind the fact that nobody saw this happen or that large commercial planes suddenly became invisible to radar...


:eyes:

[smoogatz]

6. There's also the small matter of floating debris

When an airliner hits the water at 300-500 mph, it doesn't just sink without a trace. The force of the impact is about the same as if it had crashed in a parking lot. The plane would break up, and luggage, seats, clothing, chunks of wing and fuselage, and bodies would all float on the surface over an area of a square mile or two. Hard to imagine no one would see and report such a thing, and that no rescue effort would be mounted. I think it's safe to dispense with that particular piece of CW.

[janedoe]

9. How to disappear a 757

Note how enough explosives turned WTC1 and WTC2 into dust of approximately 100 microns in size. What do you think those explosives would do to a Boeing 757?

Referring to Mark Dayton's comments, at the time the pentagon was hit, the fighter jets were 150 miles out over the atlantic ocean. Who would notice a dust clout out there?

[smoogatz]

12. Makes no sense, Ms. Doe

Why go to the trouble of loading a 757 with high explosives, hijacking it, flying it over the ocean and vaporizing it with a ton or so of high explosives, then shooting a missile into the Pentagon, then claiming it was a 757, when you could just fly the damn 757 into the Pentagon? Who would plan all the extra steps--and for what reason?

[janedoe]

14. Who could fly a 757 into the pentagon?

I understand that many commercial pilots who've been interviewed say they could not have maneuvered a Boeing 757 to hit the pentagon where it was hit.

Note, they didn't use the easy approach, over the river.

[smoogatz]

19. Well, according to the Pentagon website--

Length of each outer wall (ft.) 921

Height of building (ft.) 77' 3.5"

Area covered by Pentagon bldg (acres) 29

It's kind of a big target. Maybe the question ought to be, who couldn't fly a 757 into the Pentagon?

[MercutioATC]

25. I think the misconception is that it was "supposed" to hit EXACTLY where

it did. Hitting the wall exactly as AAL77 hit it would be difficult. Just hitting the Pentagon would be much easier.

Think of it this way:

I give you a baseball and tell you to hit a large wall 50 feet away. Could you do it?

Now, I ask you to hit a specific spot on the wall. Even a professional ball player might have difficulty doing that (and say that it was impossible).

AAL77 had to hit the Pentagon SOMEWHERE. To argue that it was difficult to hit the Pentagon exactly the way it did seems silly.

[philb]

46. FAA radar documented Fl 77 couldn't have hit Pentagon; and

A flight record using FAA radar records shows that Flight 77 out of Newark that is officially considered to have hit the Pentagon could not have hit the Pentagon. (V) Flight 77 was tracked on radar from Newark, N.J. to the Kansas border. From Kansas City to Washington, DC is about 1040 miles. At 500 mph the trip would take 2 hours. But to get to Washington D.,C. in time to hit the Pentagon it would have had to get there in from 30 to 40 minutes.

http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight77.htm

[smoogatz]

71. The Pentagon's in Arlington, VA,

which is 940 miles from Kansas City. The nominal cruising speed of a 757 is mach .8, according to Boeing (609 mph at sea level). So, at nominal cruising speed we're talking an hour and a half from KC to Arlington. But--the only support your website gives for KC as the farthest-western point of 77's flight path is the map from the Detroit News--which says in the legend that the plane turned "somewhere west of West Virginia." There's a LOT of territory between "somewhere west of West Virginia" and Kansas City. From Champaign, IL to Arlington, VA is 601 miles--or about an hour. From Lexington, KY (well west of WVA) to Arlington is only 404 miles. Without knowing exactly how far west flight 77 went, and what speed it was traveling, your argument is meaningless.

[philb]

157. Actually the Detroit News story was not my main reference.

The main reference was a Flight Tracker flight radar plot showing Fl 77 traveled as far as Kansas, which I gave the URL for. Flight Tracker radar plots are the most commonly used source of information on such flight paths, used a lot by Airlines, Insurence Cos.,Media,etc. The Detroit News story was likely based on such a radar plot.

But 2 or 3 other Media sources showed the flight going at least as far as Kentucky.

But the whole idea that arab hijackers would hijack a plane in D.C to hit a target in D.C. and let it wander all over Ohio, Kentucky, W. Virginia, and Virginia before turning around and attacking the target is pretty ridiculous. Thats not the way they would have done it.

[MercutioATC]

13. Concrete pulverizes - aluminum shreds.

I don't care HOW much explosives are involved, there'd be plenty of recognizable debris. Seat cushions, bulkheads and aluminum fuselages don't turn into dust.

[janedoe]

17. Burn it first?

You make a good point about the aluminum.

Hmm... how about shooting it with a missle that produces a lot of heat? It the plane is high enough (greater than 40,000 feet), the aluminum could be vaporized before it reached the water. At a minimum, all contents would be incinerated and chips of aluminum would sink.

[smoogatz]

21. Ridiculous.

Why bother?

[MercutioATC]

23. I don't know enough about the properties of missile warheads, but

I'd think that it'd be hard to get an intense enough heat to vaporize the entire plane in a non-enclosed area.

[smoogatz]

31. Impossible. AA missiles are designed to punch a hole and then frag

the hell out of the interior of the plane. There's no weapon known to man that can "vaporize" a 200,000 pound airplane, aside from a direct hit with a nuclear bomb.

[MercutioATC]

33. That's what I was thinking...

[Sweet Pea]

55. Correct-a-mundo

Typical air-to-air or even surface-to-air missiles have either a blast-frag warhead or a continuous-rod warhead, both detonated by either a target detection device (TDD) that senses the target proximity and detonates the warhead nanoseconds before closest point of approach (CPA) or an impact sensor that senses g-force deceleration at impact. Both types of warheads send out fragments of titanium or steel (randomly for the blast-frag, tied together in titanium rods for the continuous rod) designed to impact or slice into the aircraft. Planes are fairly complex creatures with hydraulic lines, fuel tanks and lines, electrical systems, all very susceptible to any impact from external sources. All you really need is to hit an aircraft with a bit of metal at hyper- or super-sonic speed and it will generally take out an essential flight system, if not start a fire/explosion via fuel or hydraulic line rupture.

4th generation surface-to-air missiles, such as the PAC-3 (Patriot 3), however, takes into account the increased speed of theater ballistic missiles (TBM) and are designed as a kinetic-kill, or a skin-to-skin hit since target-detection devices would detonate the warhead too late to impact the high speed of a TBM.

"Vaporizing" an aircraft by a surface- or air-to-air missile is the stuff of Hollywood - I don't care how fast aluminum may burn at altitude.

[janedoe]

35. Aluminum vaporizes more easily with lower air pressure

Aluminum vaporizes more easily with lower air pressure. That is why I suggested running it up to high altitude.

I think aluminum melts at around 660 deg. C, in atmospheric pressure. It will be lower at lower pressures.

[MercutioATC]

63. Yes, it might melt at a lower temp...that's not the issue.

The issue is producing that temperature sufficiently over a large (hundreds of feet) area in an unenclosed environment.

As I said, I'm not a military hardware expert, but I don't believe it's possible.

[janedoe]

69. Actually, it evaporates *before* it melts.

Hey, have you ever heard that something "burned up on re-entry?"

[MercutioATC]

94. I don't believe that's physically possible.

Anything will melt before it vaporizes...it's simple physics.

[Klimmer]

116. No one should be talking about vaporizing an aircraft eventhough. . .

the official 9-11 Commission Report essentially explains away the Boeing 757 this way. That is utterly ridiculous. The temperatures required would be unearthly.

You are slightly correct. For Aluminum or steal to go from solid to liquid to gas it would have to go through the melting phase and then the evaporation phase, again unbelievably high temperatures. However, solids can go from solid to gas phase through the process of sublimation, but then again we are talking unearthly temperatures. There is no way, not even in hades, that a crash of a 757 into a building with jet fuel would ever get anywhere close to these temperatures. There would be a very large amount of wreckage left remaining, no matter what. OK, confetti it if you like or must, but then it would be EVERYWHERE.

A few parts (supposedly) found at the crash site surprisingly are not confetti, but are easily seen and easy to carry, and surprisingly just sitting nicely on the ground here and there as though they were placed by hand. Nice clean scraps with no burn marks. Remember this is a blast that could supposedly vaporize the wreckage. The parts shown don't demonstrate this at all. Why not show these parts to the public with the identifying numbers on them? As Col. Nelson so correctly states, from the smallest fragments of a crash site you can identify the aircraft, this is the reason they put identifying numbers all over the aircraft for this very purpose. Even small pieces will have these marks and will without a doubt identify the aircraft. Many of the larger pieces shown would have multiple similar identifying numbers all over the same piece of wreckage.

Let our government put-up or shut-up. We are now calling for our government to come clean with the investigation. Re-open the investigation. Have you signed the petitions? I have. Show these parts, show the multiple tapes to the public that were confiscated. The government can easily get out of this dilemma and prove to the world the official story is correct. We know they are lying. We now have so much visual and eyewitness evidence contrary to the official lies, I doubt very much that they will ever do this. They have nothing to gain, and so much to hide. And they will continue to make every excuse and lie to not re-investigate 9-11.

Remember, Bush didn't want it the first time. What??? You don't want to investigate one of the biggest crimes and murders to be perpetrated against the people of America and the world? And when you do allow it, you put your own people in there to guide the process and you don't turn over every stone and look at every possibility and dismiss obvious contradictions with the wave of your hand? Now we are talking about crimes stacked on top of crimes here.

Col. George Nelson talks about aviation crashes and how, no matter what, leave wreckage and never vaporize, near the end of his interview with Dave. Check it out:

http://911verses.com/911/underground/2005-04-27_Joyce_Riley_and_Dave_vonKleist_Interview_Col_George_Nelson.MP3

[MercutioATC]

177. You're right.

I know about sublimation (it's what happened to the Wicked Witch of the West), but it didn't seem to apply in this case.

"I'm melting, I'm melting" isn't accurate, but it sounds better than "I'm sublimating, I'm sublimating"...

[spooked911]

4. Oh my god! I never thought of that!

I'm sure it is impossible to make a Boeing 757 disappear.

Well, I guess the official 9/11 story is true after all!

[smoogatz]

5. Okay--but how?

And where'd the passengers go?

[spooked911]

28. Several possibilities-- pick one you like

1) the plane crashed in a remote area on the Ohio-Kentucky borger-- a plane crash like this was mentioned in Richard Clarke's book (passengers died)

2) the plane landed at a secret military base and the passengers were either a) killed or b) given new identities

3) the plane was shot down over the ocean (passengers died)

4) the flight was a fictional creation from the beginning-- the whole thing was a ruse (there were no real passengers, the one famous person, Barbara Olson, was given a new identity)


For some reason, I just can't see Barabra Olson dying in the plane crash at the Pentagon though. It just seems too weird.

If it WAS flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, the pilot was NOT Hani Hanjour, that is for sure. And quite possibly the plane was guided by remote control.

[MercutioATC]

29. Silly me. I've been using RADAR all of these years, believing it worked.

Apparently one can fly a commercial jet over the ocean, to the Ohio-Kentucky border or a secret military base and RADAR won't pick it up.

I feel so silly...

[spooked911]

36. Were you personally tracking the plane that day on radar?

If not, you really have no idea what happened to it.

Cover-ups can be amazing things, you know.

[MercutioATC]

58. No, I wasn't.

That doesn't change the fact that radio waves bounce off things.

757s-67s are not stealthy aircraft. They give BIG primary returns.

[philb]

179. Apparently you haven't paid attention to the official reports about radar

findings on 9/11

Based on FAA radar information:

Flight 93 landed in Cleveland

What was Flight X in Cleveland and why the secrecy about it?
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=685
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story.html


flight 77 crashed or landed in Kentucky
http://www.flcv.com/offcom77

Flight 77 went as far as Kansas and couldn't have hit the Pentagon


Are you aware of radar information showing that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?? I'd be interested in the URL.

While something apparently hit the Pentagon, I'm not aware of any evidence that it was Fl 77; and there is some evidence it couldn't have been.
http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight77.htm

But even if it did, the major of pilots agree that it was flown by remote control.

Colonel Donn de Grand Pre (ret), was the top US arms negotiator and dealer to the Middle East under the Ford and Carter administrations. www.flcv.com/911contr.html

His book, which includes the conclusions of a symposium of commercial and military pilots, concludes that the 911 terror attacks were done by government insiders and used remote control technology. Nila Sagadevan has a degree in aeronautical engineering and has been a commercial airline pilot for 30 years. He agrees with the other pilots.
Power Hour 2005-06-06_Dave_vonKleist_Interviews_Nila_Sagadevan.MP3

[philb]

180. And which version of Flight 11 did the FAA radar show hit WTC1?

Which Flight 11 plane hit WTC1? The one from Boston Logan Gate 26 with the passengers or the one from Gate 32 without passengers that appears to be the one that hit WTC1?
And where did the Flight 11 plane with the passengers go after it was delayed? Was the plane from Gate 32 a wargames version of Flight 11?
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=629
http://911wideopen.com/mirror/twin11-1/twin-11-mod.htm
http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html

Or was it the version of Flight 11 that the FAA reported bypassed New York and was headed to D.C., the one that NORAD scrambled jets to intercept? As confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report, page 32.

[smoogatz]

30. Um, okay--

1)The area along the Ohio-Kentucky border ain't that remote. No way a 757 could crash there on a clear day without being observed by eyewitnesses and reported in the news, just like Flight 93 over Pennsylvania.

2)So you're saying US troops machine-gunned 250 innocent American airline passengers, men, women and children, and nobody's the wiser? Yet these same troops--all equipped with digital cameras and camcorders--couldn't keep secret the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib? OR, you're suggesting that those 250 men, women and children were all given fake ID's, new homes, and new jobs in Idaho or someplace, and NONE of them tried to contact their families or the news media?

3)This goes back to my earlier question: why hijack a plane, shoot it down, then shoot a missile at the Pentagon and claim it was the plane? Makes absolutely no sense at all.

4)Here's the URL to the passenger and crew list from Flight 77: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

You're saying that all of these people are fictional? Or that their deaths were somehow faked, and no one blew the whistle?

I don't know, man--you're really stretching credulity here. Compared to this, Saudi terrorists with a little flight-simulator training seems like a pretty logical explanation.

[spooked911]

37. Better control over the plane if you swap flight 77 with a drone

try looking up Operation Northwoods and get back to me.

[smoogatz]

40. I know about Northwoods

and there are elements of LIHOP/MIHOP that seem plausible. Frankly, there's nothing I'd put past Cheney and Rove. But I think we need a unified theory that actually makes sense. Flight 77 is one element of MIHOP lore that seems particularly goofy. If any part of the theory doesn't hold up, it's easy to discredit the whole thing. Frankly, it seems pretty clear to me that a 757 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon. Nothing anyone has said here makes a convincing case to the contrary.

[spooked911]

49. Fair enough. There are a few things that make me doubt the 757 story,

Here is what we need to either believe if the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757/flight 77:

1) the squads of soldiers and FBI agents who picked up pieces of debris very rapidly after the crash were merely collecting evidence and were not trying to hide anything

2) the Pentagon security camera video of the crash is really the best set of pictures they had and it was not altered and key frames were not cut out

3) the FBI really has a good reason for not releasing the videos they confiscated from the gas station and nearby hotel

4) a Boeing 757 can travel over 500 mph only inches off the ground on essentially a level path without being affected by the ground effect and without crashing on the ground.

5) that even though the fuselage of the plane clearly blew up spewing debris on the Pentagon lawn, and the passengers of the plane were in the back section (according to Barbara Olson's call), not one human remain was blown out onto the Pentagon lawn by the huge explosion the plane made as it hit the building

6) a Boeing 757, with its engines only inches off the ground (since one engine apparently knocked a ground level hole in the chain link fence), and thus with the plane's belly only four feet off the ground, can pass over six foot tall cable spools without knocking them down. This picture illustrates my point very well, actually:


(From Jean-Pierre Desmoulins's Pentagon site. The left cross is supposedly where the port engine traveled and hit a cement curb, knocking a hole in it. The middle cross is where the fuselage is supposed to have gone and the right cross is supposedly where the starboard engine went. However, one can clearly see the absurdity of this flight path. First, the hole in the curb is simply not the right dimensions for a 757 engine. Second, even if it was a 757 engine that knocked the hole in the curb, this means the plane's body would have to be only four feet off the ground. But you can see the six foot high cable spools were in the direct path of the fuselage and were not knocked down.) So if you believe it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon, you have to believe the plane magically passed over these cable spools. But in fact, for the damage pattern seen at the Pentagon, the only way a Boeing 757 could have come in is with its engines just inches off the ground. So this is a serious problem.

7) a Boeing 757, which is not built to penetrate walls, can go through the two foot thick reinforced concrete wall of the Pentagon and pass completely through without leaving significant debris outside. Not only this, but the plane is so tough it can penetrate the wall by hitting at an oblique (52 degree) angle-- thus wasting a significant amount of its forward momentum

8) the engine of a Boeing 757 can strike a 10,000 pound generator some one hundred feet from the pentagon wall, and either not break off the wing or break off and keep traveling in the direction of the plane and disappear into the Pentagon.

9) the 40 foot high tail of the jet completely disappeared into the 20 foot high hole or disintegrated into unrecognizeable pieces-- even though the tail is usually the least damaged in an airplane crash.

[MercutioATC]

60. NOT "two foot thick reinforced concrete walls":

"The outside wall consisted of 10 inches of concrete behind 8 inches of brick. Those layers were clad in limestone panels nearly 6 inches thick."

That's a total of two feet, but limestone and brick make up over half of that.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTA/is_9_15/ai_99697434

[pointless]

91. There was more than that

There were also concrete and steel columns tied together with kevlar fabric. This was part of the renovation that had been done.

read this
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-1.html
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-2.html

[MercutioATC]

95. You're right. There was a kevlar net in place also...

...add another 1/2 inch...

It's still not "two feet of reinforced concrete"

[pointless]

101. you all keep missing

that there were also concrete columns throughout and the renovation added steel columns. The pentagon was a very reinforced building. That cannot be disputed. There is just way to much information that tells of the reinforcements and construction.

[smoogatz]

70. All of these points are based on dubious suppositions, seems to me

1)Collecting evidence is what you do at a crime scene.

2)Depends on the speed at which the camera was recording. Lots of security cameras only shoot a frame every second or two--hence the herky-jerky appearance.

3)The FBI often has NO good reason for doing much of what it does, IMO, other than paranoia and an instinct for covering its own ass. That doesn't mean they're hiding videotape of a missile, or whatever.

4)Essentially level? How many degrees off level is that? How far did the plane travel while "essentially level"? How subject is a 200,000 pound 757 to "ground effect"? Don't pilots do this routinely, thousands of times a day, every time they land a 757?

5)That would require momentum to work backwards. Assuming the laws of physics were functional on 9/11, everything in the plane would have been thrown forward, into the building, at impact.

6)How far were those cable spools from the wall? Your picture didn't work on my browser, but in the pictures I've seen, the cable spools appear to be in the mid-ground, maybe 50-100 yards from the Pentagon itself. If that's the case, clearing them wouldn't have been a problem. It's also unclear that the cable spools are directly in the line of flight. You assume that the angle of the photograph is identical to the angle of impact. You also say: "a Boeing 757, with its engines only inches off the ground (since one engine apparently knocked a ground level hole in the chain link fence)." Here you're indulging in a logical fallacy: you're trying to use the fact that the 757's engine knocked a hole in a fence to prove that the 757 didn't exist. Which is it?

7)I don't find it unlikely that a 200,000 pound object traveling over 500 mph could crash through a two-foot thick wall--nor that the impact and instantaneous fuel explosion would reduce the wing and tail tips to confetti, which is apparently what happened. And, if it was a remote-controlled missile, why would the person driving it waste its forward momentum by hitting the wall obliquely? The fact that the 757 hit at less than 90 degrees seems to belie the "unbelievably perfect execution" theory this whole argument is based on.

8)Where'd the engine wind up? That's kind of an important piece of information.

9)You're saying only 20 feet of the tail sheered off and disintegrated. Doesn't seem so unlikely to me. Whatever usually happens in a plane crash is kind of irrelevant--they don't usually crash into large buildings.

[hack89]

41. Why is Northwoods so important?

Beside showing that the joint chiefs of staff came up with a wacko plan in 1962, what does a 40 year old plan have to do with 9/11?

You conveniently overlook the fact that it was never adopted - both the President and the Secretary of Defense both rejected it and the Chairman of the Joint Staff was relieved of command shortly thereafter(after only two years in the position). Why isn't the lesson from Northwoods that when someone in the military comes up with an immoral, wacko plot, our elected civilian leadership can sometimes be counted on to make the right choice?


Don't get me wrong - the military and the executive branch have done many evil things. Northwoods is not one of them.

[nolabels]

163. The few hundred on the planes are only fractional to the other victims

Any person with a fair imagination (and sick mind) could dream up ways of disposal for this COLLATERAL DAMAGE part of the equation. You are dealing with people who send hundreds of thousands of people to the other side of the globe for a war just on lie. All in the name of keeping a defense budget up to par for the P&L statement. Should not be so naive on what them people do and have been put in place for.

[janedoe]

32. Barabra Olson

So, why was she listed as a passenger?

I was thinking Barabra Olson may have had breast cancer, and it was terminal. It doesn't matter if she died before or after 9-11, just the knowledge of her condition. That way, her husband could play the part, looking sad.

I saw an article, showing a picture of her on his desk. (Maybe that's what triggered this hunch.) So, perhaps she was still alive, then, but in her last days.

Also, she could have recorded the "phone calls" prior to their use.

Just a hunch.

[hack89]

42. Are my hunches just as valid as yours?

Just curious.

[Klimmer]

7. Use "The Scientific Method" and it works this way . . .

The official explanation "hypothesis" says flight 77, a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon with passengers.

Well, a "thought" experiment only has to disprove the hypothesis. If an experiment disproves a hypothesis then it is invalid and must be discarded. An experiment alone can never prove a hypothesis only disprove it. So if a thought experiment can be performed that disproves the original hypothesis then you must abandon the hypothesis and come up with a new one. That is how the scientific method works. And on and on and on. Finally you arrive at a place where the hypothesis is supported by all the experiments (evidence) with no invalidations. (If you don't know what a thought experiment is look up info on Albert Einstein.)

Hypothesis: A 757 crashed into the Pentagon (original "official" hypothesis/explanation).

Thought Experiment: So let's crash a 757 into the Pentagon, what will we find? Massive amounts of damage --- far more than exists in the first images after the crash. How do you fit a massive 757 through an approx. 16 foot wide/tall hole with no damage to the surrounding building, windows, and the lawn in front with massive spools of wire in the way of the impact hole left undisturbed and no wreckage that fits the scale of the event? You can't.

See:

Boeing 757 Exterior Dimensions and view:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_exterior_passenger.html

"Pentagon Strike" --- a Video describing the Pentagon attack (very good):
http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm#Main
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

Hunt and Spot the Boeing! Test your perception (French Site):
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm


The thought experiment completely invalidates the original "official" hypothesis or "official" 9-11 Commission Report's explanation. You now must abandon this hypothesis and come up with a new one.

That is what this community, the 9-11 truth movement does, and many are finding remarkably accurate hypotheses.

We don't have to prove what happened to flight 77, only disprove the official hypothesis/explanation, and that is easily done. So they are lying. Next.

Now what happened to flight 77 is a valid question, and warrants good hypotheses. But that is a different problem. What are your hypotheses/explanations? Remember they must be testable.

One thing we can be sure of is that it did not crash into the Pentagon.

See, "Science can be fun and easy" . . . as I tell all my science students.

[hack89]

8. And just how wide is the fuselage of a 757?

A hint: less than 16 feet.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Do you feel any obligation to provide physical evidence and eyewitness accounts or are your "thoughts" good enough?

http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/pentagon_eyewitness_accounts.htm

[Klimmer]

22. Stick to the facts . . .

We both agree on the original size of the hole yes?

So let's say the fuselage punches through the Pentagon (apparently through many rings) yet there is no apparent damage around the immediate 16 foot hole. So where is the damage from the 124 ft. 10in. wing span, or the 44 ft. 6 in. tail (ok subtract 10 feet or so from the height for the landing gear being up and you still have 34 ft. 6 in. to deal with)? Did they shear-off, and if so why no damage to the building walls and windows, and why no massive amounts of wreckage on the ground below? Or they vaporized right? Well again where is the impact damage? Or did they fold-up like an umbrella and squeeze through with the fuselage? Come on. Even the jetliners crashing through the WTC towers clearly pierced the buildings wing tip to wing tip. Sorry, the visual evidence screams --- NO 757 CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON.

But the visual evidence does suggest something else: a much smaller aircraft, or jet, or missile or both. And parts visually have now been confirmed to be from another aircraft (an A3 perhaps). And the strong smell of cordite in the air.

Please, there are many websites now offering visual evidence as well as eye-witness evidence that completely contradicts the official "hypothesis" explanation. Have a good look at them. Again, all I have to do is prove the original hypothesis is invalid and the visual proof does that very nicely. Even my HS physics students can see this.

It is easy enough to falsify evidence and plant a few parts to try to sway the argument and we know eye-witnesses can also be less than truthful to attempt to "fix" the official hypothesis, but they didn't get the impact hole right now did they? See you can't break the laws of physics. They should have been a little more careful. They were not. Sorry. Next.

[MercutioATC]

26. No apparent damage around the immediate 16 foot hole?????

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft."

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[Klimmer]

43. Look --- large images of the original crash hole into the Pentagon . . .

prior to the roof collapsing at a later time (approx. 20 - 30 min. after the original impact). That then did result in a larger damage area, but then still inconsistent with the size of a 757. The immediate damage around the original 16 ft crash/impact hole is inconsistent with a 757 hitting the Pentagon. It is virtually damage free. And where is the debri from the 757? As some suggest, you can play golf on the lawn it is so clean of debri and damage free. And a MASSIVE 757 just hit and exploded right there?

Please, I suspect you think the Holocaust never happened, and that we never went to the moon either right?

Image 1: Image of initial impact on Pentagon just after attack and
before the roof collapsed (The jet and/or missile came in at ground level):


Image 2: Image of initial impact on Pentagon just after attack and
before the roof collapsed (the jet and/or missile came in at ground level):


Image 3: Pentagon --- The Evidence: One hole, 2.5 yards in diameter:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/trou_en.htm

[MercutioATC]

59. You can tell more from smoke-obscured photos than experts who were THERE?

This is the biggest problem with the CTs in my opinion. They all work off second-hand evidence...layperson opinion and smoke-obscured photos.

Might somebody who visited the site and made direct observations have a better grasp of the real damage done?

[vincent_vega_lives]

75. "lawn it is so clean of debri and damage free"

Oh you didn't just say that did you?

[Klimmer]

83. Like I said in post #83 this is long after the initial event . . .

The images I posted and the websites that I have linked show plenty of images of the crash/impact site very shortly after the incident, when only a few fire/rescue vehicles were on the scene. It is obviously very clean, the lawn looks as though you can play golf on it. Very little disturbance to the area.

The image you show is long after the initial event and fire/rescue vehicles have trashed the place which unfortunately does and will happen.

[MercutioATC]

99. No debris?

Look at the first pic...

http://www.pentagonlawn.net/planedebris.htm


How about the first pic on the right here?

[vincent_vega_lives]

104. That top Right Pic also shows the wing hole

BEFORE the collapse. The same hole requires stacks of 4"-by-4"s to prop up the facade, clear in pics after the collapse.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

123. I see absolutely NO unobscured images...

That aside, why would anybody choose to base a theory on a half-dozen smoky pictures when there is available a report written by professional civilian engineers that actually visited the site?

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

Which do you feel would offer the best evidence, some smoky photos or firsthand observations? The firsthand evaluation (by civilian professionals) is available. You've read it?

[Klimmer]

127. Ouch, I got deleted at #117 . . . Another attempt . . .

Watch the flash presentation of "Pentagon Strike" and use the right click to stop it at any moment. Look at the images immediately after the impact, with the raging fire inside, and the spraying down with foam, and then after the fire is extinguished in the immediate impact area. The sequence of images screams small aircraft/jet/missile or something like that penetrating with damage blowing out from the inside:

"Pentagon Strike"
http://www.neiu.edu/~ayjamess/hmmm.htm#Main
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

Here is the image I was referring to. The windows, limestone facia, immediately outside the small 16 ft. hole or so is very much still intact, without the damage that would be consistent for having just had a 757 slam into it going 780 ft/sec or 531 mph. Where is the massive amounts of wreckage? No wing wreckage at the base of the walls or on the lawn in front of the impact site. Where are the two massive engines and the holes they would have generated? Vaporizing is not an option (aluminum and heavy metal alloys). The jet was mere feet off the ground. The spools of wire are in the way undisturbed (didn't get hit, not affected by massive amounts of down wash, turbulence). Think about it, we saw 2 large aircraft plow into the WTCs and they easily went through the buildings, steel girders and all, wing tip to wing tip as though the buildings were butter. Now I know that the Pentagon and WTC towers are not constructed the same, limestone facia and windows shatter very easily even if the windows are made blast resistant. Blast resistant and shatter resistant to an aircraft slamming into them at 531 mph? Come on. The small aircraft/jet/missile that struck the Pentagon went through the small hole primarily. It could not have had a large wingspan no matter what it was.

The image:



Re-open the investigation, let the government prove it. There are many, many types of visual evidence, and eye-witnesses that completely contradict and don't even come close to the official hypothesis/explanation. And since they have the hard evidence (wreckage) supposedly, and all the tapes that have been confiscated, they have the burden of proof. All we can do is void/nullify their original hypothesis and that is easily done. NO 757 CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON. The Bush Admin. our government are lying. 9-11 was the new Pearl Harbor and amazingly it worked. But now we are waking-up from this nightmare --- and I get the feeling they're getting nervous.

Like Col. Nelson suggests, produce the wreckage. Let an independent and politically balanced team of NSTB accident investigators identify what the aircraft parts are from, and also RELEASE THE TAPES FOR PUBLIC VIEWING. If you are telling the truth, then there is nothing to hide.

[MercutioATC]

136. I did get to read it before it got deleted. My answer is unchanged.

[vincent_vega_lives]

176. Intact? a

Shows the right wing damage real clear, just above the spools. The I beams survived the impact, but not the facade.

[hack89]

27. Did you even look at the link I sent?

Plenty of 757 parts at the scene - show me a single A3 part.

[Klimmer]

44. Yes I did, and I've seen those sites before. Here is the A3 evidence . . .

Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble ---
Part 5: Exploding the myth of the Bushes as an all-American family
By Karl W. B. Schwarz

Read the article and see the images ---
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/020205Schwarz/020205schwarz.html

[vincent_vega_lives]

76. Tired old spew

It's not the front compressor. It's the compressor disk.

[Klimmer]

82. You have shown nothing and proved nothing.

However, the article I posted has shown very clearly the part(s) in question and has identified them. They are not from a 757, but most likely they are from an A-3.

[vincent_vega_lives]

103. Of course not to you

You already know. But a thinking person would realize that the "article" you posted is just plain wrong.

I say again, the part in the picture is the compressor disk from a 757 RR engine labled A in the schematics I posted.

[MercutioATC]

100. Where did the 757 parts come from, then?

You know, the front gear, the wheel, the piece of fuselage on the lawn, etc.?

[Klimmer]

118. Is it possible to plant evidence?

If they are willing to lie about a 757 hitting the Pentagon ---It didn't. Then perhaps they are willing to attempt to make the lie stick by planting evidence. Plane parts, jet wreckage are abundant and mostly and very available to government agencies. There are massive boneyards out here in the west in California, I drive by one all the time in the Mojave desert. I know for sure where they have aircraft moth-balled and wreckage, and I think there is an area that exists in Arizona too.

If these parts did show-up in situ from the crash, then prove it. Let the government show beyond the shadow of a doubt that these parts did indeed come from flight 77. Listen to Col. Nelson's interview with Dave.

The burden of proof is on the government and they have not proved their case. Instead they are doing everything they can to not disclose the truth and that is called a cover-up.

[MercutioATC]

121. They planted evidence in the presence of hundreds of onlookers?

I think the burden of proof lies with those who claim the parts were planted...

...I don't believe it's possible, even if they had wanted to.

[vincent_vega_lives]

74. Wing Damage

very easy to see...



look at ground level. Notice the huge gap cut by the left wing.

[Klimmer]

81. Sorry nice try. The image you show is after the initial small hole . . .

was made and fire ragged and the roof collapsed.

In other words, a lot of time had gone by after the initial impact/crash. The images that I posted above are from right after the initial fire crew arrived on scene and started hosing the place down with foam. The initial impact hole is clearly visible, and small, as well as the foam sticking to unbroken windows surrounding the impact hole. Yes the lawn was very green, clear, and pretty much debri free before all kinds of rescue/fire vehicles trashed the place. Many images show this.

Even when the collapse and hole are at their maximum size, long after the initial crash and after the roof collapsing, it still is not big enough to fit from wing tip to wing tip the size of a 757.

See:

http://www.physics911.net

[MercutioATC]

96. The pics you posted are obscured by smoke...

Do you seriously doubt the direct observations of the ASCE engineers?

[vincent_vega_lives]

102. Sorry but you are deluding yourself

Are you saying the hole in the picture above did not exist in the pics you posted? It did, just not visible. So what do you think swept away those I-beams to a width of 80'?

You are also very wrong about the area in front of the crash. Other pictures clearly show debris and a large scorhed area to the left of the impact.

The collapsed portion is big enough to fit a 757 from L engine to R engine.

[vincent_vega_lives]

105. another good picture of the wing hole

[smoogatz]

34. Great links.

But maybe the government came and littered the site with 757 debris after it shot down the REAL (or fictional) 757 with their vaporizing ray and then crashed a small plane and a missile into the Pentagon. Didn't think about that one, didja?

[undeterred]

38. The fuselage is less than 16 ft -

but the tail height and wingspan are larger than the impact damage.

757 dimensions
overall length 155 ft 3 in
wing span 124 ft 10 in
tail height 44 ft 6 in
fuselage width 12 ft 4 in

Actual maximal impact damage:
Width of broken-away walls at ground level 90'
Maximum height of broken-away walls 26'

[MercutioATC]

61. Actually, your numbers are in error.

"The width of the severe damage to the west facade of the Pentagon was approximately 120 ft."

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

[philb]

109. the main problems were standing posts at 15 and 16, where the

right engine should have destroyed them.
and windows not broken where the wing tips should have hit.

Some give evidence that the plane had bombs with shaped charges that caused the penetration of the building but destroyed some of the plane before impact. There is a lot of evidence that the big explosion was high explosives(white color, then red, not orange like kerosine) and a huge shock wave consistent with high explosives. Also Pentagon employees in the explosion area said it was caused by explosives/bombs.

While there is considerable evidence a big plane and bombs impacted the Pentagon, it does not appear to have been Flight 77 and the attack on the Pentagon does not appear to have been an attack planned and carried out by arab terrorist. It hit the wrong part of the Pentagon and had to go to a lot of trouble to do that, and the people murdered were at odds with the Bush Admin. establishment, not someone the hijackers would try to hit. Those murdered were the Office of Naval Intelligence and the auditors who had found $2 trillion dollars missing or stolen from the Pentagon budget.
Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2 Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

[MercutioATC]

112. Wouldn't explosives have blown more debris onto the lawn?

...and caused less straight-line damage to the interior of the Pentagon?

[MercutioATC]

15. You HAVE seen the ASCE report, haven't you?

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

According to civilian civil engineers specializing in such things as blast effects and structural design, concrete structural and fire engineering, and the behavior of concrete-reinforced structures the damage is consistent with a 757 crash.

Oh, and they examined the site firsthand - something none of the Monday-morning quarterbacks on the "no plane hit the Pentagon" websites did.

I'm not saying that the ASCE report is proof that AAL77 hit the Pentagon, but it certainly invalidates the argument that the damage wasn't consistent with a 757 crash.

[smoogatz]

20. You haven't disproved anything, seems to me.

And you haven't answered my question, which is: what happened to flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon? And equally to the point, why hit the Pentagon with a missile or some other object when you've already hijacked a perfectly good plane to hit it with? Makes no sense.

[Sweet Pea]

56. Really? You teach? n/t

[seatnineb]

111. SweetPea........... explain this:

In the words of SweetPea:
Sat Feb-05-05 12:05 AM

"I took about 3 steps to the window and saw the black mushroom cloud appearing from about a mile away."


In the words of SweetPea:
Fri Jul-08-05 09:07 AM

"including me, who saw the initial fireball from the impact from my 10th floor office window in Crystal City "

[Sweet Pea]

130. What's to explain?

The black mushroom cloud was the initial fireball from the impact. Did I see an aircraft? No. Did I see the impact? No. Did I see any other aircraft fly over? No. Did I see the flame and debris in a black mushroom cloud from a mile away as I stood in the west windows of the 10th floor of 3 Crystal Park? Yep. Did I see billions of pieces of reflective sparkles in the sky/air as I drove over the 14th street bridge to pick up my wife, who had just been evacuated from the Customs building? Yep. Others saw that as well. Greta Van Susteren, who watched the crash from National Airport, said that after the explosion she saw "the sky sparkling with silver, which I assume was maybe part of the skin of the plane."

To mangle a couple of metaphors here you are splitting hairs after grasping at straws.

[seatnineb]

131. O.K

Just asking.

[Sweet Pea]

133. You're up early.... :)

or is your day alredy starting?

[spooked911]

147. Conundrum

If the plane exploded outside the wall and showered confetti in the air, it is really remarkable how little large debris was on the ground in front of the Pentagon.

This is the conundrum: either the plane went through the wall, and some debris shot out the entry hole as it exploded inside OR the plane exploded outside and showered debris everywhere. If the former, how did so much confetti get outside? If the latter, what happened to the wings and tail (and what created the exit holes?)?

I still don't get it-- either the plane mostly blew up outside or inside. But either way doesn't make sense with all the evidence we have.


btw, you're a guy? I always thought you were a woman with that nickname! Funny how that works...

[MercutioATC]

155. Have you read the explanation in the ASCE report? It explains things.

[stickdog]

10. It hit some buses on 7.7 (nt)

[WoodrowFan]

11. it was a hologram

no, seriously, I've been told that here. In fact, the 2d plane to hit the WTC was a hologram too!

[MercutioATC]

16. A hologram with PODS!

Pods, I tell ya!

[WoodrowFan]

18. I forgot about the pods

did they fire missiles or spray flamable material at the building, I forget.

[MercutioATC]

24. BAD Woody!

The pods launched missiles, the "fuel sprayers" sprayed the fuel...

tsk, tsk, tsk

[WoodrowFan]

39. sorry

(hangs head in shame) I lost my CT decoder ring.

[philb]

110. You are playing games; not being constructive;

while I don't support the pod theory, I haven't seen that its been disproved and there was some basis for it. A credible organization with expertise was given a contract to research it and concluded that based on the evidence that they had, there appeared to be something unusual with the plane.

At this point its clear that not all of the official story is true, but its not clear exactly what did really happen. There is available technology to do most of what the various theories suggest.
The question is what really happened, and all we can do for now is try to get the suppressed evidence released and in the meantime try to assess which "theories" are most consistent witht he evidence. Its clear that the Official theory is not entirely consistent with the facts.
And that there was complicity by officials at a minimum
http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html
http://www.flcv.com/warnings.html

[MercutioATC]

113. Sometimes, we just have fun here...

If anybody can tell me how the landing gear was deployed with the "pod" where it appears to be, I'll listen. Otherwise, it's simply impossible that there was anything there.

[seatnineb]

115. The "pod"

2nd Plane - Columbia, South Carolina W, Apr 13, 05

I saw the 2nd plane, it was coming strait from the river, over the smoke and it was going very fast. It looked like it was about to hit the tower again. Except when it got closer it made contact with the South tower. Then it exploded into a humongues fireball! It kind of looked like there was a missle attached to the belly of the plane, or some thing that wasn't ment to be there. And the plane went right into like it was nothing. Right into it before it exploded. I'm still trying to wonder what that thing was that was on the bottom of the aircraft.
W, Apr 13, 05

http://www.laurasmidiheaven.com/world-trade-center

Now I find it a little hard to believe this testimony......just like some of the Penta-eye-witnesses.

[spooked911]

144. You rock, seatnineb!

:yourock: :headbang: :headbang: :yourock:

[pox americana]

45. You know I just realized

that flying a passenger jet horizontally into a five-story building without hitting the ground first would be very, very difficult.

Very difficult.

[philb]

47. FAA radar: Fl 77 didn't hit Pentagon; cordite explosives at

A flight record using FAA radar records shows that Flight 77 out of Newark that is officially considered to have hit the Pentagon could not have hit the Pentagon. (V) Flight 77 was tracked on radar from Newark, N.J. to the Kansas border. From Kansas City to Washington, DC is about 1040 miles. At 500 mph the trip would take 2 hours. But to get to Washington D.,C. in time to hit the Pentagon it would have had to get there in from 30 to 40 minutes.

http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight77.htm

[smoogatz]

66. Makes a lot of dubious assumptions

Re airspeed, flight path, etc. Fact is, amid the chaos the ground controllers had no idea what was going on. Once the transponder's been turned off, short of visual ID, it's very difficult to tell which plane is which. It's also pretty easy to confuse our current civil radar system's 30-40 year-old technology by changing altitude and flight path abruptly. And still doesn't answer the obvious question: why? Why go through all the contortions of hijacking a 757, hiding or destroying it (and killing all the people aboard), flying some other object into the Pentagon (but not the WTC), then claiming that what hit the Pentagon was the 757? It makes no sense at all.

[philb]

107. Only a few planes had transponders turned off; and the radar still tracks

them;
But as my article documents, the planes all made diversions to meet up with others in areas where FAA ATC regions changed causing confusion so with transponders off there is no way to know which of those is which. But there is also some evidence that new(likely remote controlled) planes also may have entered the mix, such as the plane from Pookeepsie, N Y etc.

But there is also evidence that one of the planes landed in Cleveland, and there seems to be a cover-up regarding it:

What was Flight X in Cleveland and why the secrecy about it?
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=685
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story.html

[janedoe]

48. Turbulence?

And what about the turbulent air flow?

Flying a glider (airplane, no engine), you get a nice lift off of mountain ridges and warming corn fields. Hitting a building could be pretty tricky!

Fasten your seatbelts...

[Sweet Pea]

132. Glider vs Airliner

A standard glider (for example a Centrair 101 Pegasus) weighs 800 lbs and flies in the area of 80-90 knots.

Comparing that flight regime/equipment to a 110,000 ton 757 flying at nearly 500 knots is not apples and oranges, its pineapples and cheeseburgers.

[spooked911]

50. This was always my thinking--- it is a very difficult flight path

[pox americana]

51. Basically they'd need an unobstructed airstrip

wouldn't they? Because hitting a target that low at that angle would essentially be the same as landing the plane.

Weren't these the guys who never learned how to land?

[janedoe]

53. Why learn how to land if the plane will do it for you?

whatever plane hit the pentagon (assuming it was some kind of pland) could have been programmed to do a landing routine, given the exact x, y, z, coordinates.

[pox americana]

54. Faith-based flying?

Why not, since the rest of the story is beginning to sound like a miracle.

[janedoe]

57. FANS and GPS navigation of Boeing 757 and 767

I'm shocked that it's still on Boeing's web site!

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/200back/back4.html

This may provide a good explanation why these 4 flights were chosen. (757 and 767)

*A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing.
* The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.

Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft also can fly the other with only minimal additional familiarization.

[philb]

108. But the flight controls are diverse and require specialized knowledge

to use the automatic and remote control functions. Its not clear the alleged hijackers would have this expertise. But many do.

[janedoe]

126. Hijackers?

The Bushco hijackers would surely hire the electronic hijacking work.

[spooked911]

145. Yes, indeed.

[spooked911]

146. Don't forget the only experience the alleged hijackers had with flying

757/767's is from flight simulators. Then they went and and did these incredible stunts?

It's bullcrap.

Either the pilots were different people than we've been led to believe or the planes were guided by remote control. It's that simple. Either way the government is lying.

[Fescue4u]

184. A friend of mine flies for American Airlines

Even in the early 90's, simulators are so accurate that he is fully trained on a new aircraft type using simulators only.

The first he flew the 727, he was fully qualified except for the official checkoff.

11 years later, there no reason to believe that the simulators are less realistic.

[petgoat]

165. Faith Based Flying

The whole thing is a miracle. FAA failing to notify NORAD,
NOORAD failing to respond, the distractions of the exercises,
NORAD failing to be on alert despite the 52 warnings received
by FAA....

One must conclude that Allah is truly Great.

[philb]

52. Did anyone ever decide if the official plane version could have avoided

these lamp poles? I seen similar pictures on other sites. but has someone worked out the supposed flight path compared to all of the still standing lamp poles.

Indestructible Pentagon lamp poles survived Boeing crash?
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate45.htm

[spooked911]

65. I think the official flight path is deduced primarily BECAUSE of the

knocked down lamp poles. If something else knocked down the poles, the plane could have come from a very different angle.

I don't know what you mean by "but has someone worked out the supposed flight path compared to all of the still standing lamp poles."

That page you link to is very misleading. Those lamp poles are very far from the Pentagon and it's just hard to tell from the foreshortening. The "plane" is thought to have come from the right in that picture, and would have avoided those poles easily.

[MercutioATC]

62. You're assuming it was meant to hit exactly where it did.

It hit the Pentagon, which (allegedly) was the goal. Would it be difficult to recreate the crash in EXACTLY the same way? Probably.

Throw a baseball at a wall. Can you hit it?

Now, try to hit an EXACT spot on the same wall. Nearly impossible.

AAL77 hit the wall, which was all it was meant to do. Precisely WHERE it hit was at least partly chance, especially with a relatively inexperienced pilot.

[pox americana]

64. Exactly -- it hit a wall.

Imagine throwing that baseball from a height of 5,000 feet. Wouldn't it be much, much easier to hit a big horizontal target like the Pentagon roof than a narrow vertical one close to the ground like that wall?

I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it would have been exceedingly difficult.

[MercutioATC]

67. My point exactly!

If you're aiming for the Pentagon in general and you aren't a crack pilot, who knows where you'll hit it? Just because you happen to hit a wall doesn't mean you've accomplished some nearly impossible feat.

[smoogatz]

68. 921 feet ain't so narrow

Length of each outer wall (ft.) 921

Height of building (ft.) 77' 3.5"

And the Pentagon doesn't have one, big, all-enclosing roof. It's built in a series of concentric rings, separated by courtyards. You'd get max structural damage by hitting low on the outer ring, and figuring the fuselage of the plane would penetrate and the fuel tanks would explode inside the building. They were half right in the case of the Pentagon: the fuselage penetrated, but the wings sheered off and the fuel exploded outside.

[pox americana]

73. 77 feet is narrow.

Especially for a supposedly unskilled pilot.

p.s. I'm talking about the height, not the width. The point is that a 110-story highrise is a relatively easy target; the altitude doesn't have to be exactly right.

A 5-story lowrise is a whole different story. It would be like throwing a dart at a dartboard and getting it to puncture the metal rim. Difficult.

[smoogatz]

77. Bad analogy.

You're inside the dart, steering. The dart is 16 feet wide: the object you're aiming at is 72 feet high and 921 feet wide. Assuming you know the basics--how to go left, right, up and down, I think most people of normal physical/mental capacity could do it. Assuming they weren't averse to committing multiple acts of murder, and dying in the process.

[pox americana]

80. Haven't flown any planes, but I've flown in plenty

and I get the distinct impression they're a little harder to park than a car.

[smoogatz]

85. I've flown a few times

A friend of mine owns a couple of single prop planes, and he's let me take the controls on a few occasions. Once you get the hang of the rudder/stick/wheel combo, basic flying is pretty simple. Pretty much any dumbass can do it. Crashing is even easier.

[pox americana]

92. It's not a slam dunk

like the WTC, that's for sure, but I'm beginning to see the logic. I think it goes like this:

1) Would they LIHOP the WTC? Absolutely, for a number of reasons, including payback to a bunch of Gore voters. LIHOP plus demolition.

2) Would they LIHOP their beloved Pentagon? Doubtful. Never know what might get damaged. But they couldn't prevent or evacuate it without showing their cards, so...

3) LIHOP it to a point, to get the PR benefit of Islamic terrorists attacking DC, but ditch the plane somewhere and simulate the damage. That way, it miraculously strikes a section that had been recently reinforced and surprise, had no military brass in it.

4) The vertical-horizontal thing: much easier for a hijacker to hit the roof (or inner courtyard), but much easier for a surface missile to hit the wall.

[Silverhair]

137. Crashing a plane is very easy.

Lots of unskilled pilots were trained to do exactly that in WWII. They were called "kamikazes".

They were given miminum training and sent off to try to hit a ship. Lots of them did, and the Pentagon covers 29 acres - many times larger than any WWII ship. Also the Pentagon doesn't move, while the ships were twisting and dodging to make it harder for the suidice pilots.

[pox americana]

138. Sure. But this plane

came in through the bathroom window.

[Silverhair]

140. But was it aiming at the bathroom window?

Maybe it was aiming at the living room.

You have not proven that the point he hit was the point he was aiming at. I think he was aiming at the center and missed.

[pox americana]

149. Let's just say Mr. Rumsfeld wasn't in it.

And what a strange coincidence that an unskilled pilot accidentally got his 757 to behave exactly like a surface missile instead of like a diving plane. Odd.

[MercutioATC]

154. THANK YOU!

That's what I've been trying to impress upon people. 1) it's not difficult to crash an airplane and 2) we have no idea that AAL77 was aiming at...it doesn't take great skill to hit a big building.

[Silverhair]

156. Your argument reminds me of an old Bug Bunny cartoon.

Bugs shoots an arrow, hits a wall, then runs up and draws a bullseye dead center around the arrow.

[petgoat]

164. Flying just feet off the ground is difficult

And Hani Hanjour was such a lousy pilot his flight instructors warned
the FAA about him five times. And a month before 9/11 he failed on
three tries to qualify to rent a Cessna.

[MercutioATC]

174. Yes, but crashing is much easier.

You don't have to be very skilled to crash an airplane.

[Klimmer]

72. Ok, let's get the experts in here because there are a lot . . .

of "freeper like" comments and dis-information going on.

THERE IS NO WAY FLIGHT 77 A BOEING 757 HIT/CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON.
Can't get through the hole can you?

Listen and learn ---

The Power Hour: Dave vonKleist interviews Nila Sagadevan, an Aeronautical Engineer and Commercial Airline Pilot:
http://911verses.com/underground/2005-06-06_Dave_vonKleist_Interviews_Nila_Sagadevan.MP3

The Power Hour: Dave vonKleist interviews Col. George Nelson concerning 9-11 and the Pentagon Crash Site. Col. George Nelson was a military flight accident investigator for many years:
http://911verses.com/911/underground/2005-04-27_Joyce_Riley_and_Dave_vonKleist_Interview_Col_George_Nelson.MP3

[smoogatz]

84. Sagadevan

Starts by claiming that it's impossible to crash a 757 into the ground because of ground effect. I think we know from experience that that's not exactly true. A Google search reveals that Sagadevan also seems to be trying to start his own religion. He appears to be a bit of a self-promoter. No indication of where he got his degree or who he flew for.

George Nelson: does not say it's a coverup. All he says is that the Pentagon crash inspection team did things somewhat differently than he would have, thirty years ago. He implies that the FBI should prove the plane was a 757 by presenting serial numbered parts--he doesn't say it wasn't a 757. "I suppose anything is possible," he says. He's equivocating on almost every point.

If that's the best you can do, maybe you ought to be a little more careful before you start calling people Freepers.

[MrSammo1]

87. Last time I checked

Steel was stronger than limestone.
No 757 hit the Pentagon........the laws of physics puts an end to that lie.

[smoogatz]

88. Not sure what you're saying.

Please explain.

[Klimmer]

119. First of all I did not call any one person here a freeper . . .

I said that "Freeper Like" comments and disinformation are occurring. Go through the entire thread and it is very evident. I've made no "silly" statements or assumptions that are distractive to the original question, I have made hypothesis's some testable at this time and some that are not. Although if the government was just a little cooperative then all the our hypothesis's could be tested. I'm just sticking to what we do know at this time and what we do know is that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

Your attack on Nila is a typical Bush like Neo-con Republican thing to do. So if you don't like their message, you try to discredit them personally. Nila Sagadevan seems like a very knowledgeable and very well spoken critic. The fact that he has interest in faith and religion, and has authored a book about this, has nothing to do with his criticism of the official 9-11 lie. I've seen nothing that suggests he is trying to start a new religion. See his website: http://www.warpaintofthegods.com/wp/about.cfm

It seems many people misunderstand the difference between Religion and Science/Engineering. I have to deal with this with my students every year. Many believe you can not do science or be a scientist and have faith or practice religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aristotle believed in Gods, Galileo was devote Catholic, Newton had a strong Christian faith and practiced, and there are indications of Einstein later in life re-connecting to his Jewish faith.

The difference is that Religion looks at "Cosmic Purpose" and attempts to answer and study those things outside of the realm and the ability of science to study.

Remember, science is a tool, a very powerful tool, but it can only be used to study those things that are physical and measurable. Science is about "Cosmic Order." "Cosmic Purpose" and "Cosmic Order" are two studies that are separate yet mutually compatible.

He answers the 9-11 questions begging for explanations with a critical eye as a pilot and aeronautical engineer.

Col. Nelson does indeed indicate that there is a cover-up. Did you listen to the whole interview? And as well as in some of his articles at ( http://www.physics911.net ) he indicates this straight in black and white, written word.

[carlvs]

90. So, you're a "freeper" if you don't buy into CT junk?!? (nt)

[MercutioATC]

97. Jesus! A VonKleist cite!

I thought we'd thoroughly debunked that moron.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

122. VonKleist makes intentional misrepresentations to sell videos.

Either he's a charlatan or he's not very bright.

[Klimmer]

129. Why are my posts getting deleted when you have called Dave . . .

vonKleist a moron, a charlatan, and say he's not very bright?

Moderator why?

Why do you attack the person, when he obviously cares about righting the situation we are all now faced with and suffering under (the BCF/BFEE) and is asking and pursuing very valid questions?

He is generating very good hypothesis's and supporting it with products that show the visual evidence and bringing in people to talk who really have an expertise in this area. He makes you think. I don't agree with everything he says, that is what hypothesizing is all about "your best guess," putting it to the test is another matter. However, even then he is doing that quite well at times.

Perhaps you don't like what he has been able to find or uncover, and you can not dispute it, so you personally attack the individual for no cause or justification.

[MercutioATC]

135. Think VonKleist is honest? Look here (a start):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=31776

Check 7:34 minutes into the video "In Plane Site"...THAT'S an intentional misrepresentation that completely changes the meaning of the quote he uses. It's actions like this that have led me to my opinion of VonKleist.

[staticstopper]

78. who really cares?

point ur spotlight/laserbeam toward the wtc demolitions

[pox americana]

79. look at it this way:

If/when somebody proves that Cheney or Rummy gave the orders to pull WTC 1 and 2, they can always say they did it to "protect" New Yorkers from being harmed by falling debris or some such nonsense.

What possible excuse can they come up with for firing missiles into the freakin' Pentagon? (If they did, that is.) So it's worth pondering.

[MrSammo1]

86. As with Flight 93

It never existed.

[smoogatz]

89. Oh boy.

Flight 93 never existed? Then what, in your opinion, crashed in that field in Pennsylvania?

[janedoe]

93. Flight 93

I know someone (name withheld to protect the innocent) who lives within a mile or two of the crash site and has neighbors who saw it. (He was not in PA on 911.)

The person I know told me on 911 that their neighbor thought it was deliberately flown into the ground. He also said that the place it went down was the ONLY place it could have gone down without taking out anyone on the ground. He said it was an old rock quarry.

He said his neighbor told him that the plane was flying very low, but parallel to the ground, with one or two fighter jets following it. He assumed that the official story was correct and that the passengers had overtaken the cockpit ...long enough to "dump" the plane.

It's too weird that the ONLY place to dump the plane happened to appear just as the noble passengers momentarily took control. This (along with the three WTC collapses) is what 's kept me skeptical. You can't fly a plane really low and parallel to the ground - - while you're fighting for control of the plane.

Naturally, this led me to look up the capabilities of the Boeing 757, where I discovered the FANS and GPS navigational control. Hmmm... I'm just old enough to remember the many-many hijackings of the 70's. I now realized why they suddenly stopped!

Consequently, I'm fairly convinced of the following (or something similar): The pilots were "locked out" of the navigational system and cockpit controls and the plane was flown externally. The tailing jets could have been in control, but I it's more likely that it was run by a program off of GPS, and was driven into the ground at an accelerating speed. The description I was given described a plane "suddenly" diving into the ground.

This is a strange place to reveal such information. I've been carrying it with me since 911. But, I've not had anywhere to share it until now.

Yes, I believe there was a flight 93. No, I don't think it was shot down.
I think it was "driven" into the old quarry, as planned.

I doubt it was even shot at by the other planes. They were probably following just to make sure everything happened as scheduled. (Perhaps they were there for slight course adjustment -- analogous to the helicopter hovering around the WTC throughout the entire "exercise" until the job was completed.)

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pox americana]

106. That would explain a lot

about the Pentagon -- they would be more likely LIHOP a 757 if they knew exactly where it was going to go. Still risky though.

[MercutioATC]

114. I have no idea why my last reply was deleted, so I'll try it again...

"He also said that the place it went down was the ONLY place it could have gone down without taking out anyone on the ground."

I could lob battleships all day from 30,000 feet in that area and not kill anything but a few squirrels. It's hardly the "only place" it could have crashed without hurting eople.

[spooked911]

124. Fascinating! However, the crash site is very peculiar, seeing as how the

plane disappeared into the ground. Do you have any idea how much soft dirt is used to fill in an old mine? Could the soft earth really be 50 feet deep-- that's what the plane supposedly went into. I find it hard to believe. I think the plane was blown up somehow.

You should look at some of the threads by John Doe II talking about the flight 93 crash site, if you haven't seen them.


But your other suspicions make sense-- that the plane was deliberately crashed there as part of the pre-programmed flight. The odd thing is that one of the calls on flight 93 said they heard the hijackers were going to crash the plane on the ground. But why would the hijackers say that? I think it was definitely some sort of theme they were building for the mythology on that flight. They seem to have put in several different story lines for flight 93, if you look at the phone calls-- crashed into the ground (Tom Burnett), passenger revolt (Jeremy Glick, Tom Burnett, Todd Beamer and others), the plane shot down (Ed Felt).

[janedoe]

125. Peculiar crash site

No, I haven't read much about the different story lines. Thanks for the direction.

The quarry had been much more than 50-feet deep.

I have more information, but don't feel comfortable disclosing it here, especially after the initial hateful response from my post#93.

I think all four planes did what they were supposed to do (as programmed). This, too, is the same pattern as the London event. I don't think the London bus was an accident, just as flight 93 wasn't an accident. Perhaps the odd event gives an extra "unknown" boost to to the resulting terror. If there had been 4 subway bombs, we'd remember it as just one event. If only the WTC buildings went down, that would be just one event. The pentagon event showed it wasn't just the WTC. But, without destroying the Whitehouse and the Capitol, how do you make it look like "America is under attack?"

Thanks, again, for your kind response.

[Zaphod 36]

134. the quarry

Hi JaneDoe,

does the witnesses mentioned the direction which Flight 93 came from?

Here you can see the unrefilled quarry in the year 1994, just zoom in:
http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=13&Z=17&X=424&Y=2771&W=3

I think Flight 93 was damaged from the interceptors shortly before, because of the paper trail(cheques, flight manuals, map of Guadalajara).
You think the plane was dived into the refilled quarry by remote control? What`s the reason for this?
What caused the massive explosion?

[spooked911]

141. Great map! What are the odds that the plane would go down exactly at the

deep spot in the quarry? It's very uncanny.

[Silverhair]

158. It had to go down somewhere. Anywhere it hit you would ask the same thing

You are assuming, without any proof, that it was supposed to go down at exactly that spot. No matter where it went down, you would find something special about that spot and make the same claims.

You are forgetting the people that the passengers talked to, and the cockpit recorder.

Of course, to a dedicated CTer, any evidence to the contrary of the CT becomes woven into the fabric of the theory as evidence of the extent the evil powers will go to to cover things up. That is why CTers get laughed at. Nobody is capable of putting together and executing a conspiracy on the ultra vast scale that you guys need for your theories.

If they had that kind of ability and control, then things like this forum would never have existed.

[janedoe]

151. Flight 93 came from the west

Flight 93 came from the west, from the Pittsburgh area. That's why this was described as the first "boon docks" region where this could take place.

Amazing picture!!

[spooked911]

143. Would you mind sending me an e-mail?

[e-mail]

I would love to hear more about what you know about flight 93. I am extremely interested in that flight.

Thanks very much for your posts here.

[seatnineb]

128. JaneDoe!

That bears are remarkable simalarity to this:

Air cover in Pittsburgh also... (Score:1)
by Xenopax (238094) <[e-mail] minus cat> on Tuesday September 11, @11:03PM (#2284233)
(Last Journal: Wednesday September 04, @03:50AM)
This isn't offical, but I saw what appeared to be a large plane fying around Pittsburgh with two smaller planes behind it. I would guess this is a refueler with two fighter jets behind it.

The plane in Somerset hit way to close to home today. Thank god the pilot was brave enough to crash before he got to any major cities, not to be selfish but I'm glad that my hometown of Pittsburgh wasn't hit.
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/09/12/0251205.shtml

Difficult to know from this if this was before or after the event.

I posted this before and MercutioATC told me that refuelling does occur in Pittsburgh, but at higher altitudes.

[MrSammo1]

171. Since everything that day

was meant to be an illusion. I would have to say that a missile caused the damage. the simple fact that so little was shown us (as with the Pentagon) helps to cover this fact.


http://thewebfairy.com/911/93/emptyhole.htm


http://infowars.com/print/Sept11/flight93.htm

[Silverhair]

139. Wow. 137 responses and nobody has addressed your central question.

The original poster has asked many times: Why go to all the trouble to make a 757 disappear and then fake a crash when it would be much easier to crash the plane?

BTW - On several occasion there have been posters here on DU who have claimed to have personally seen the 757 hit the Pentagon. But a dedicated CTer will alway say that they are Bush operatives trying to aid the cover-up.

[spooked911]

142. I have given explanations/answers to these questions

the main idea is that if 9/11 was modelled on Operation Northwoods, there was a plane swap and something else hit the Pentagon-- plus some of the phyisical evidence diagrees with a 757 hit. The reason you have a plane swap is it is easier to control what happens to the plane and to fake a hijacking. Granted this creates the apparent problem of a commercial flight that must be made to disappear. But there are several ways this could have been handled and clearly there are powerful reasons to keep this covered up. The bottom line is we don't truly know what happened due to the secrecy around 9/11 and the Pentagon hit.

I have given possible explanations for what happened to flight 77 up above.

Yes, we have had people here saying they saw a 757 hit the Pentagon or more frequently they KNOW someone who saw a 757 hit (or they know someone who saw a larget jet hit). The problem is when I have asked these people for details, they don't answer or they have no details.

[Silverhair]

148. I wouldn't give contact information on this internet forum either.

Due to the nature of internet forums and of the nut cases that are attracted to it, I would not give anyone on a forum such as this, any method of verifiable contact. So it does not surprise me that they don't provide you with that information either. I would guess that they probably do not view it as worth their time as you probably would not believe them anyway.

As I have stated many times on DU, a CT serves much the same function as a religion for the believer. It gives him/her a feeling of being one of the select few who have special understanding, and a feeling of superiority over the masses whom the CTer views as willingly blind.

Of course, I view CTers as self deluded.

[spooked911]

150. who said anything about contact information?

I just asked for more details.

And if you don't believe in CTs, fine. But that is very naive, IMO. Certainly one needs to be discriminating, but it is absurd to rule out any idea because it is a "CT".

[Silverhair]

152. It is not absurd to rule out obviously ridiculous CTs.

I have easily ruled out CTs such as:

A-bombs caused the recent undersea earthquake that cause the big tsunami

Bombing in Afganistan caused the earthquake there.

Contrails are really gov't poison dumping.

Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

[philb]

159. I'm not aware of any evidence Fl 77 hit the Pentagon, but there is

definately a lot of evidence it didn't and couldn't. As previously shown radar plots showed Fl 77 could not have hit the Pentagon. And there is a lot of other evidence to the contrary, while the FBI has clearly suppressed 4 sets of videos, faked one set, and suppressed other evidence that would clarify what hit the Pentagon. Why the big cover-up if the evidence supports that Fl 77 hit the Pentagon?

And if Arab hijackers were the ones who hijacked a plane in D.C. to hit a target in D.C. why would they let it travel all over Ohio, Kentucky, W. Virgian, Virgia and insure that NORAD would have plenty of time to prevent the attack. Arab hijackers also would not have had reason to turn off the transponder. That would only call attention to the flight and make it less likely to succeed. That would be a pretty ridiculous plan. Its not likely something they would do. But there were obvious reasons that other parties would use such a plan.

[MercutioATC]

161. I believe DNA is generally accepted as evidence.

The eyewitnesses, debris and crash profile aside, I think passenger DNA would qualify as evidence that AAL77 crashed at the Pentagon.

[petgoat]

166. DNA evidence

But where did they get the DNA?

Let's see, the fire is so intense the plane vaporizes, but somehow they
get DNA?

One pictures a brave scientist in a white lab coat rushing into a
burning plane to with plastic evidence bags and q-tips....

It's absurd. The "Bone Guys" at the Smithsonian are the same guys who
did the job at the Branch Davidians.

[Silverhair]

162. There is LOTS of evidence, beginning with many eyewitnesses.

But a dedictated CTer will throw out ALL evidence that goes against the theory, just like a fundamentalist will throw out everything that supports evolution. Then having rejected ALL real evidence, they will claim that there is no evidence.

[MrSammo1]

153. Simple

there wasn't a 757 to start with.

[philb]

160. Are you talking about the fact that AA did not report the flight as schedu

scheduled on 9/11 to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation(BTS)?
The same was true for Flight 11, which also wasn't on the BTS scheduled flight list that day.

[MrSammo1]

170. I'm talking

about the fact that there isn't physical evidence of one!
Hence.......this was none!

[petgoat]

167. The missile/757 debate is moot, says Dr. Griffin

I can explain why they won't release the securicam tapes: the Pentagon
doesn't want video of a successful attack on the US military released
publicly for Muslim extremists to gloat over.

Dr. David Ray Griffin says the whole missile/757 debate is moot.
He says (and so do Nicholas Levin and John Judge) that the Pentagon was
defended with SAM batteries. Griffin says the fact that the SAMs were
not deployed shows complicity right there.

I have not found the basis for the claim that there were SAM batteries.
Does anyone know?

[janedoe]

168. Pentagon defense

It is my understanding that the approach had to be extremely low -- in order to avoid the auto-launch defense of the pentagon. Otherwise, an approach straight down into the roof would have been an easier choise.

As for the release of the securicam tapes... I can't imagine the image of "a plane going splat" into the side of the building would constitute the "how to" manual. Available high-resolution satelite images are a lot more useful than low-resolution security camera tapes.

So, why did they release those out-of-sync frames? Perhaps they were trying to feed conspiracy theories? After all, the first time I heard someone say "no plane hit the Pentagon," I thought those were wacho folks and I immediately tuned it/them out (as though it were a fatal illness). It was my skepticism about the three WTC collapses that allowed me to "look" at the Pentagon story, as well as what I knew about flight 93 that didn't make sense.

[hack89]

169. Griffin is wrong.

Griffin's statement

"the Pentagon is ringed by anti-missile batteries, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft entering the Pentagon’s airspace, except for any aircraft with a US military transponder"

is nonsense on many levels. First, the Pentagon is right next to a major civilian airport whose airplanes fly within hundreds of yards of the Pentagon hundreds of times daily. These airliners do not have military transponders - how come the automated defense system hasn't shot down one of these planes? Surely over the years at least one has strayed off course and passed over the Pentagon. Secondly, Griffin has no understanding of surface to air missiles. A missile big enough to destroy an airliner is a big missile - a Patriot would be the best example. A Patriot missile battery takes up a lot of real estate - radars, missile launchers and control facilities. How do you hide them in such a crowded metropolitan area as Arlington? I challenge you to show me any evidence of missile sites around the Pentagon. Patriot missiles are also long range missiles - they have a significant minimum range inside of which it can't intercept a target. In order for Patriots to protect the Pentagon, they would have to be located several miles away in the middle of very dense urban development. If Patriot missiles are remove from the equation, you are left with short range, shoulder launched Stinger missiles that could be fired from the roof of the Pentagon. The problem here is that the Stinger has a 7 pound warhead. This tiny warhead will not stop a 757 heading at you at full speed. There were numerous reports of US tactical jets being hit by Iraqi shoulder fired missiles and still being able to fly back to their bases. Such missiles will protect the Pentagon from a Piper Cub but not from a 757.

[philb]

172. The released Pentagon slides have been shown to be fraudulent

So why would they release slides that had pretty obviously been doctored?

Pentagon Videos Obvious Fakes to Cause Confusion,
but fire color(white & red) not consistent with gasoline fire

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/cctv.html

Dr. Desmoulins is an electrical engineer, pilot, univ. professor

[petgoat]

186. Pentagon slides doctored

**why would they release slides that had pretty obviously been doctored?**

Some have suggested that this whole 757/missile debate is a
disinformational campaign designed to split and discredit the 9/11
truth movement.

I'm not saying I know, but I suspect that when Snopes and Popular
Mechanics say the no-757 story is bunk, then people say "Well the 9/11
Commission must be right."

If the issue is disinformational, then the doctored slides were
released to suggest a missile strike in order to stimulate people to
make fools of themselves and the entire 9/11 truth movement in
asserting the no-757 theory. On the other hand, maybe the no-757
people are right. Who has time to sort it out?

Hence my wish that Dr. Griffin is right and the point is moot. But
I'm disappointed in the lack of convincing answers here on the
Pentagon auto-defense.

[Sweet Pea]

175. What "auto-launch defense of the pentagon"?

I keep hearing about this supposed point-air-defense of the Pentagon. Where is it? Do you post this stuff simply because someone says it is so? If someone said there was a Pentagon Trunk Monkey (http://www.trunkmonkey.com/content/view/29/51/) would you argue in favor of that point, as well?

I've seen almost daily numerous airliners, either in the landing pattern, gear and flaps down, fly directly over the center courtyard at 300 feet or so enroute to a landing at Reagan National or on departure, climbing out from same - all without surface-to-air missiles chasing them.

I wish someone here would put some meat into this "auto launch defense" canard if they believe it so fervently instead of repeating by rote something that has no evidence, basis of fact or operational reality to either the daily flight pattern there now or what things were like on the morning of September 11, 2001.

What is an "auto-launch defense", anyway? Can someone...ANYONE...answer that? What are the engagement parameters that some "auto launch defense" would rely on? Altitude? airspeed? heading? 300 feet above the center courtyard at 135 knots obviously does not generate a firing solution.

[Sweet Pea]

178. Didn't think anyone could....

explain this.

[philb]

181. I've posted references for the surface to air missiles at the Capital

complex before; and its likely they have sholder launched ground to air missiles and other protective measures as well. But they likely would not publicize all of their protective systems for obvious reasons.

It seems rather ridiculous to suggest the Center of the U.S. Defence System is unprotected. Is that what you are suggesting?

[hack89]

183. How does a 7 pound warhead..

from a shoulder launched missile stop a 100 ton 757 traveling at 500 mph?

How do you protect a building from a 9/11 type attack when it sits next to a major airport? The real issue is not the weapons - it is the people. That is, how do you identify a threat and make a decision quickly enough to employ a weapon when hundreds of airliners fly nearly overhead every day. And, oh by the way, you have to be 100 percent accurate because you can't accidentally kill hundreds of innocent passengers taking off from National airport. You can postulate all the unknown super weapons you want, but with present technology it makes perfect sense that the Pentagon was (and still is) undefended from a 9/11 type attack.

[Sweet Pea]

191. Could you re-post these references?

Specifically, references for "surface to air missiles at the Capital complex." I've read your other posts and have not seen any specific references about "surface to air missiles at the Capital complex", especially prior to 9/11.

I know there are surface to air batteries in place now because I have seen them (and they are *not* adjacent to the Pentagon), but these weapons were not in place nor part of whatever defense infrastructure was in place prior to 9/11.

[petgoat]

187. "What "auto-launch defense of the pentagon"?"

That's what I'd like to know.

I could certainly postulate an aircraft tracking system that would
evaluate each plane as it went by and label it benign as long as it was
rising away from the airport or descending toward the runway, but that
would sound alarms for off-track aircraft.

If such a system existed the obvious way to try to outwit it would be
join the incoming traffic and then go off course. Hani Hanjour's
course was completely out of the parameters of any expected legitimate
(even off course) approach.

But I'm just making this up. I don't know. I don't think the
autodefense is impossible or even unlikely, but I'd like to have some
proof it existed, because until I'd like to trust Dr. Griffin.

[petgoat]

185. Pentagon defense

**" I can't imagine the image of "a plane going splat" into the side of
the building would constitute the "how to" manual."**

My feeling was that the concern was less that it was a how-to manual
than something that the impressionable young of the Islamic world might
find stimulating and inspiring. It makes sense to me that a Pentagon
that won't allow pictures of coffins might also withhold the securicam
tapes that could resolve the missile/757 debate in favor of the 757.

I once regarded the withholding of the tapes as the most convincing
evidence that there was no 757, but no longer am confident of that view.

[MrSammo1]

173. Because

They never had a jet to start with!

[petgoat]

188. Bush operatives

You say that people who question the veracity of those claiming to be
eyewitnesses to the 757 are dedicated CTers.

I think they're simply competent internet epistemologists. Unless the
alleged eyewitnesses give their names and phone numbers their anonymous
testimony cannot be trusted.

[philb]

182. Here's what one group of researchers said happened to the passengers

of Flight 77; they died in the Pennsylvania crash of Flight 93.
Others support other similar options.

1. Operation Pearl A.K. Dewdney- (Airliner Flight Takedowns/Exchange and Replacement) http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2

What was Flight X in Cleveland and why the secrecy about it?
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=685
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story.html

[petgoat]

189. What happened to the passengers?

Has anyoneever bothered to independently confirm that these passengers
actually exist? Or do we assume from a list of names on the AA computer
and perhaps a couple of TV interviews with tearful widows that they are
all real?

[MercutioATC]

190. Passengers like Todd Beamer (UAL93)?

His best friend who was, at the time, in charge of the Todd Beamer Foundation came to my facility to thank us for the donation we made.

He seemed pretty sure Todd existed...