Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

Jimmer,

Well did you read the note I placed at the beginning of my presentation? The presentation was only a discussion of whether or not a large jet plane can fly close to the ground at high speed without losing control. I was not inferring that it did happen this way, I was only showing that it COULD be done.

Uncle Zook, Glad to meet ya!

Quote:

---

Back to the question, could a Boeing 757 be used to strike the Pentagon? You stated "ABSOLUTELY!". I have less optimism.

---

Alright, you caught me there (Guess I was a little over-enthusiastic)! I should have said yes, but only with an experienced pilot. And even then it would be a difficult task at that location because of the terrain lay-out, surrounding structures, etc. An inexperienced person trying for it in a passenger jet? I wanna tell you something . . . That's completely laughable. He'd be lucky to even make his first turn without falling out of the sky! (Unless he had help?)

Quote:

---

IMO, the KC-135 bears little resemblance to the flight speeds, flight heights, and general flight dynamics of the alleged Boeing 757 that was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

---

I didn't say they were the same, I said they are comparable. And they are. The KC-135 is basically a 707. It has a narrower fuselage and is shorter than the Boeing 707 jetliner. Boeing's commercial designation for the KC-135 is the Model 717. The reason I used a KC-135 to compare with is because it's really hard to find videos of commercial airliners doing these stunts. It seems that that the pilot's bosses don't like that too much! On the other hand, you see it all the time in the military.

KC-135
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-3252P-617.jpg

Length: 136 ft 3 in (41.53 m)
Wingspan: 130 ft 10 in (39.88 m)
Height: 41 ft 8 in (12.70 m)
Max takeoff weight: 322,500 lb (146,000 kg)
Maximum Fuel Load: 31,275 US gal (118 kL)
Maximum speed: 580 mph (933 km/h)
Cruise speed: 530 mph
Powerplant: 4× (R/T) CFM International CFM56 (F108-CF-100) turbofan, 21,634 lbf () each

707
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...April_1976.jpg

Length: 145 ft 1 in (44.07 m)
Wingspan: 130 ft 10 in (39.90 m)
Height: 42 ft 5 in (12.93 m)
Max takeoff weight: 257,000 lb (116,570 kg)
Maximum Fuel Load: 17,330 US gal (65,590 l)
Maximum speed: - -
Cruise speed: 540 kn (1000 km/h)
Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney JT3D-1: 17,000 lbf (75.6 kN)

757
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...akeoff_arp.jpg

Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m)
Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.56 m)
Max takeoff weight: 255,000 lb (115,680 kg)
Maximum Fuel Load: 31,275 US gal (118 kL)
Maximum speed: 580 mph (933 km/h)
Cruise speed: 530 mph
Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce RB211, Pratt & Whitney PW2037, PW2040, or PW2043 turbofan engines rated at 36,600 lbf (163 kN) to 43,500 lbf (193 kN) thrust each

By the way, this is a France AF KC-135. Pause it at about 0:04 and you can see better how low it is.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kruy-Ici-J8

Proof that the pentagon didn't get hit by a boeing 757 is far more convincing. The review of facts in the article that goes with this topic are not proven. Eyewittnesses are not creadable (200 ppl 200 different storys)
Seats were not found, there were no bodys identified or returned to their families... just think the plane vanishes and keeps bodys intact? The wheel found has 8 holes a 757 has 10. The flightrecorder data does not match.
Now just look at the perfect round hole on inside of the pentagon. That suggest the 'plane' was more or less intact at that moment... After bumping through all those colums it comes out leaving a perfect round hole in the wall and then vanishes completly leaving nothing but a bucket full of debris...

86 cameras filmed the impact... the first years only 5 frames of one camera were released to the public... the 2 tapes that are available now prove nothing.

"Do the orders still stand?" ...was asked, proven fact. WHAT ORDERS?
What is the point in this plane no plane nonsense if the broader picture proves this was for Sure an inside job?

It wouldnt surprise me if 10% or more of the 'awake' members of this beautiful forum still believe the oficicial story around 911
Im not able to make it But i would like to see a topic with a poll that asks Was 911 an inside job? To know for sure.
2 trillion dollars were stolen that day, 3000 killed... More then a million were killed in the illegal war that was started after this event.
9 years after, none of the real terrorists is prosecuted behind bars or hanged... theyre still robbing us with the banksters with trillions at once.
Destroying our planet and lives in every possible way they can think of.
First you have to get mad real mad...Im not gonne take this anymore

greetings

Good one Samson!

Quote:

---

Posted by Bomack

Jimmer,

Well did you read the note I placed at the beginning of my presentation? The presentation was only a discussion of whether or not a large jet plane can fly close to the ground at high speed without losing control. I was not inferring that it did happen this way, I was only showing that it COULD be done.

Uncle Zook, Glad to meet ya!

Alright, you caught me there (Guess I was a little over-enthusiastic)! I should have said yes, but only with an experienced pilot. And even then it would be a difficult task at that location because of the terrain lay-out, surrounding structures, etc. An inexperienced person trying for it in a passenger jet? I wanna tell you something . . . That's completely laughable. He'd be lucky to even make his first turn without falling out of the sky! (Unless he had help?)

I didn't say they were the same, I said they are comparable. And they are. The KC-135 is basically a 707. It has a narrower fuselage and is shorter than the Boeing 707 jetliner. Boeing's commercial designation for the KC-135 is the Model 717. The reason I used a KC-135 to compare with is because it's really hard to find videos of commercial airliners doing these stunts. It seems that that the pilot's bosses don't like that too much! On the other hand, you see it all the time in the military.

---

Hi Bob (likewise!),

I should have stated it more clearly. Mea culpa. I did not mean that the two types of jets weren't similar ... only that the flight dynamics of the KC-135 in the video do not match the flight dynamics of the putative Boeing jet that is alleged to have hit the Pentagon. I agree that the KC-135 jet in itself is very comparable to the Boeing jetliners depicted below, especially the 707.

Quote:

---

[...]
By the way, this is a France AF KC-135. Pause it at about 0:04 and you can see better how low it is.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kruy-Ici-J8

---

I paused it at 0:04. The lowest height of the KC-135 is still about three times higher than the putative "attacking" Boeing jetliner that allegedly flew over the Pentagon lawn and slammed into the building. Definitely, the speed appears to be minimal, akin to takeoff speed. Here's a comparison chart for jetliner takeoff speeds:

"http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0088.shtml"

Now, I'm no pilot (though I like to play one on the internet), but even if we add another 100mph
to the takeoff speed of a Boeing 737 (150mph), that still only puts the speed of the KC-135 in the video at approx. 250mph, well below the screaming speed of 500mph+ that the attacking jetliner is said to have possessed. Hence my comment that the flight dynamics are not comparable. FWIW, I do believe that a passenger jetliner (or something resembling that) did approach the Pentagon that day, but that it did so from the Northside of the Citgo gas station in striking contradiction to the official story's Southside approach (as required by the downed light poles). I also believe that this approaching jetliner flew over the Pentagon.

Why not just crash the jetliner into the building you may legitimately ask? We can only speculate, but I can come up with a very good reason. If you have time, watch "The PentaCon"
investigative video:

"http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5296595694237574426#"

Here's my speculative reasoning: I think we can agree that a hijacked jetliner was required to maintain the posture of the modern Arabian tale (of a renegade Saudi sheikh and his nineteen minions attacking America). Given this, they made sure that a jetliner would be seen by anyone and everyone who looked up into the sky that day and in those moments. However, many things stood in the way of a direct hit on the Pentagon, particularly, on that side which housed the accounting offices (the desired target wall of the five walls for various reasons). For instance, a Northside Cito gas station approach and crash was impossible because of the overpass stop sign structure that obstructed access. Two, a Southside approach was equally problematic because of the light poles and the generator that were in the way. Who knows how an attempted crash would have turned out if they used a jetliner to ram through these light poles and the generator? The planners simply could not take the chance of an aborted attack if the jetliner crashed prematurely or away from their intended target area (e.g. side with the accounting offices). Three, as has already been stated, even the best of pilots would have had a hard time controlling a jetliner supposedly travelling at 500mph+ just a few feet above the Pentagon lawn (e.g. the ground effect). Eighth-megaton silver canaries have little in common with 5-lb seagulls flying low over the ocean waves. Even hovercraft have to be specifically designed for the task, and they only operate at modest speeds.

So, basically, you would have uncertainty in outcome if you used a Boeing jetliner to carry out the attack, yet you require a Boeing jetliner to maintain the tall Arabian tale. We can be confident that - after extensive risk-benefit analysis - the planners decided to go ahead with a scenario that had great chance of success, and not a 50-50 proposition. One such scenario: a Boeing jetliner would fly over the Pentagon roof via a Northside approach (and this is more or less verified by the Citgo witnesses, especially the gas station employee who stated that the jetliner pulled up just as it reached the Pentagon to avoid hitting the stop sign structure) and also a missile would be launched via a Southside approach and this would actually do much of the damage (here, the missile was likely camouflaged with American Airlines markings to further confuse the issue in the minds of the eyewitnesses; also, the use of preplanted explosives in conjunction with the missile attack is very likely, e.g. to create a fireball commensurate with a Boeing jetliner impact).

This two-pronged attack scenario (possibly three-pronged with the use of preplanted explosives) fits the observable evidence better than the official story of a Boeing jetliner impact. I'm sure they would have simply crashed the Boeing jetliner into the Pentagon if it were possible, e.g. highly probable. IMO, the extra props were required only because of the extremely low probability of success in using a simple Boeing jetliner crash.

In any event, I would still focus primarily on the collapse of WTC7 (e.g. to prove the Inside Job). There, the evidence forces all speculation out of the equation.


Cheers
Uncle Zook

Sigh....

I hate to be the stick in the mud, but.
when someone who is convinced a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon...

When you figure out where they took the 185 passengers and crew, shot 'em in the head and buried them.
Please, send me a Pm, because then you'd have something useful to proceed upon.
Fred

Quote:

---

Posted by Fredkc

When you figure out where they took the 185 passengers and crew, shot 'em in the head and buried them.
Please, send me a Pm, because then you'd have something useful to proceed upon.

---

Well I won't pm you since I don't have details but only an idea about what has happened. It's an horrible story anyway.
Even the Nazi's during WWII stopped shooting bullets in peoples head, too bloody, too personal, too time consuming ... they found other ways.
The only hint I have here is ... where are all the bodies from the twin towers ? We've all seen them being present before the collapse.

In case of the planes ... I think there could be a lead of a trail starting at radar operators and traffic controllers. Somehow there must be witnesses among them that all together should give us a complete trace in time where the planes were etc.

Now I don't know if you are familiar with the "Illuminati card game" (You'll find it on youtube) but there's one card about 18 1/2 minutes missing time (if I remember correctly).
If this is possible at all and credible ... could it be they messed with time so we can't get the puzzle together ?

There are lots of UFO cases where time is messed up (minutes in earth time were days somewhere else and vice versa). Could it be they indeed have this technology and used it ... ?

I fully understand that you are 'touched' by the questionable loss of lives but maybe the above is yet something useful for someone to proceed upon.

During my investigations into 9/11, beginning literally the minute the Naudet brothers film was shown on UK TV, I had niggling doubts before then but seeing that clip of the 'plane' striking the first tower, I replayed and magnified that clip hundreds of times. Then Something in my brain said "this is a bit weird". What niggled my senses was the flash a microsecond before the 'plane' hit. I spent hundreds of hours trying to work that out. Then my investigator mode got the better of me and I began, from that point in 2002 to research and investigate the whole series of events. Sometimes spending 12 hours a day or more. It became something I simply had to do. Over the years, especially when my website was up and running, before it got hacked to death then finally removed I was called a heartless British bastard simply by stating I could not accept official explanations of what happened that day. In the early stages there were very few whom stood up and said "there is something wrong here guys". Those that did were immediately attacked for being anti government unpatriotic communist bastards. Thankfully that has changed with a massive amount of evidence presented by professionals stating the official story is bogus. Yes I am sorry about the loss of lives that day and am not belittling that one bit. BUT I do stand up and say the US government were the ones responsible for those deaths, not the alleged terrorists and certainly not the 9/11 truthseekers. Its still a debate as to whether two airliners crashed into the twin towers. Despite all the so called videos showing the second aircraft, certain evidence states that itself was a clever piece of hoaxing. We are covering the Pentagon hoax right here. If planes did not hit these buildings we are faced with several questions. What did bring the towers down? If there were planes on the other hand were they the actual flights in question? or were they clever mockups using other aircraft? Then that begs the question what happened to the real flights and all the passengers? The onion has so many layers and its taking time peeling those layers one at a time. This debate could get heated by those accepting blindly the official line as otherwise it upsets their cosy world of their reality, on a day to day basis. Unfortunately I among many others are here to pull you out of that cosy box and shake you out of that blinded reality and show you the actual reality. But I am not a heartless bastard. I strive for TRUTH,JUSTICE & FREEDOM..........you will get no BS from me.

s w,
about that 'flash.' could it be the massive impact of the airline nose into the concrete and steel?
both planes show the same kind of flash with both planes striking the same construction materials.
I've seen all the videos pointing out that the plane shadow doesn't reach the building before the 'flash,' so it has to be an explosion,
but the videos are of such poor quality that unless you want it to be so, the proof is not in the viewing.

Agreed, the quality of available video material is poor, but one needs to look at all possible scenarios, checking all evidence, including the 'no plane' one which makes sense in one way but difficult to accept in another. You really need to spend an awful lot of time digging into researching this, I mean an awful amount of time. Glossing over a few vids and a few testimonies will not cut it. You need take in data from every available source. Many heard explosions in the towers but clever media played this down making those that reported hearing the explosions to be mistaken. This is very deep and very complex, it was designed that way so future investigations would be difficult and time consuming.

so sw, could the flash be from the massive, brutal impact?

Quote:

---

Posted by Fredkc

Sigh....
I hate to be the stick in the mud, but.
when someone who is convinced a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon...

---

I hate to be the mud. Still, when someone who is convinced a 757 did hit the Pentagon ...
In any event, I'll bet the farm and the country charm of the farmer's daughter that this guy here
( :frusty: ) thinks that it didn't?

Quote:

---

When you figure out where they took the 185 passengers and crew, shot 'em in the head and buried them.
Please, send me a Pm, because then you'd have something useful to proceed upon.
Fred

---

Conjecture is helpful, Fred ... in microscopic amounts. Observation remains our best tool. The physical evidence gathered at the Pentagon site is not consistent with a 757 impact (specifically, the Northside approach path of the observed putative offending jetliner). Solve the physical evidence first; and that will also lead you to the whereabouts of the 185 passengers and crew. A proper investigative process extends from the observable evidence.


Cheers
Uncle Zook

Quote:

---

Posted by jimmer

so sw, could the flash be from the massive, brutal impact?

---

Nope ... it takes time for an explosion to develop, material will be thrown away from the explosion. In the videos presented you see a plane vanish in a building
and explosion follows later. It is not at all surprising that pods were found under the so called planes ...
You can't have an aluminum plane crumbling massive steel beams like butter ... You need to prep them ...

In the case of the pentagon an entry was created by white phosphor explosives ... it declares why the hole is neatly round, again no material was blown outward,
a fire develops later and the few frames of footage available even corroborate it. There is a flash, white smoke and something seem to follow the explosion.

In less than a decade before 2001, during the first gulf war the US military was proud to present footage where you see missiles with precision flying through a window.
A little later that seems no achievement what so ever because a rooky terrorist with zilch experience can fly a complete airliner with extreme speed exactly to a spot where
it benefited the pentagon the most.

everyone should take as much effort to 'debunk' rumors as theorizing to 'prove' them.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/1227842

from popular mechanics investigations of the 911 inside job theory:

Where's The Pod?
Claim: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing.
The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker.
LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."


FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page).
PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of
geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod."
In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look.
"Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images—
the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."


BIG PLANE, SMALL HOLE

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...tagon#bigplane


once you've had time to review PM's expert analysis, please respond.
thanks.

Quote:

---

Then Something in my brain said "this is a bit weird". What niggled my senses was the flash a microsecond before the 'plane' hit.

---

I recall seeing a vid once that focused on this as a bit of mischief. Seems all the networks had that little flash at impact.

I'd be interested in what you found on this, Barry.

I remember the speculation from it was that therefore all the networks were involved in the conspiracy.
________________________________________
This brings me to another 'human nature' problem.
Now we have:

• Hundreds of MSM Network employees,
• thousands of air traffic controllers on the eastern seaboard,
• Hundreds of government employees, when you add up all the little chores needed,
• Perhaps 10 or 20 high level movers and shakers,

and all of these people (and perhaps one family member each) who are all keeping the greatest secret of the 20th century...

Centered in a town (Washington DC) where two people can't keep a secret until lunchtime.

Obviously, I don't get it. ;)
Fred

Quote:

---

Posted by Fredkc

[*]thousands of air traffic controllers on the eastern seaboard,

---

You are right Fred ... question is can we come up with a single person especially from the group above ?
On itself it would be fishy if we wouldn't be able to locate some of these people ...

So ... anyone in the USA with interesting contacts ?

Quote:

---

So ... anyone in the USA with interesting contacts ?

---

Yes, but she swears she doesn't sell that stuff anymore. ;)

Quote:

---

Posted by jimmer

everyone should take as much effort to 'debunk' rumors as theorizing to 'prove' them.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/1227842

from popular mechanics investigations of the 911 inside job theory:

Where's The Pod?
Claim: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing.
The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker.
LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."


FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page).
PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of
geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod."
In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look.
"Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images—
the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."


BIG PLANE, SMALL HOLE

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...tagon#bigplane


once you've had time to review PM's expert analysis, please respond.
thanks.

---

Take the blinkers off, its a beautiful world here in reality. PM is party line media, thought you might know that. YOU please go around the internet doing some research on real experts, pilots, structural engineers, all are out there with their proven evidence. Why beat yourself up accepting the ridiculous party line?

Quote:

---

Posted by Fredkc

I recall seeing a vid once that focused on this as a bit of mischief. Seems all the networks had that little flash at impact.

I'd be interested in what you found on this, Barry.

I remember the speculation from it was that therefore all the networks were involved in the conspiracy.
________________________________________
This brings me to another 'human nature' problem.
Now we have:

• Hundreds of MSM Network employees,
• thousands of air traffic controllers on the eastern seaboard,
• Hundreds of government employees, when you add up all the little chores needed,
• Perhaps 10 or 20 high level movers and shakers,

and all of these people (and perhaps one family member each) who are all keeping the greatest secret of the 20th century...

Centered in a town (Washington DC) where two people can't keep a secret until lunchtime.

Obviously, I don't get it. ;)
Fred

---

It was designed to be absolute chaos that day, and it was, conveniently planned exercises running that morning, that takes care of all of your questioning areas Fred, all those on the ground doing their various jobs were in midst of what they were told were exercises, then when things started to go pear shaped they were in the middle of total chaos. No one would have known what was going on around them

my take on the flash seen just before the 'plane' hit the first tower seems to me to be the initial explosion being set off.

Quote:

---

Posted by SPIRIT WOLF

It was designed to be absolute chaos that day, and it was, conveniently planned exercises running that morning, that takes care of all of your questioning areas Fred, all those on the ground doing their various jobs were in midst of what they were told were exercises, then when things started to go pear shaped they were in the middle of total chaos. No one would have known what was going on around them

---

our country was traumatized that day -- everyone in shock -- probably a lot of massive techno mind control going on -- & MANY subliminals on TV, w/those images of the planes going into the Towers over & over & over again

inside job, for sure