+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 1 5 15 16 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 317

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

  1. Link to Post #81
    Avalon Member jimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th April 2010
    Location
    foothills of the rockies
    Posts
    419
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 329 times in 166 posts

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

    "Just as they did with the JFK assasination video."

    I'd start a new thread for that one. doctored video?

    all in all, I'm satisfied that we have ended one myth about 911.
    most here agree that it was a plane and not a missile that hit the pentagon.
    from there, the conversation continues.
    and in the end, we honor those who's lives were taken away that day.

  2. Link to Post #82
    Canada Deactivated
    Join Date
    13th March 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,752
    Thanks
    825
    Thanked 4,237 times in 956 posts

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

    "we"?

    Ok perhaps you should start a poll..

  3. Link to Post #83
    Avalon Member jimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th April 2010
    Location
    foothills of the rockies
    Posts
    419
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 329 times in 166 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Celine (here)
    "we"?

    Ok perhaps you should start a poll..
    gee, are you talking about..."we honor those who's lives were taken away that day.'

  4. Link to Post #84
    Avalon Member jaybee's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Midlands England
    Posts
    1,179
    Thanks
    1,229
    Thanked 2,337 times in 750 posts

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

    Quote Posted by jimmer (here)
    all in all, I'm satisfied that we have ended one myth about 911.
    most here agree that it was a plane and not a missile that hit the pentagon.
    .

    No we haven't.

    The more you look into it the more confusing it becomes.

    This news report.....with information coming in as it happens is actually very telling.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV2X...eature=related


    But...this is going to be my last post on this thread (probably)

    And I still have a strong feeling that the promotion of the conspiracy...is in itself a conspiracy.

    Driven by conspirators....catching genuine truth-seekers in the net....

    But the waters are so muddy now....we'll probably never get to the bottom of it.

  5. Link to Post #85
    Avalon Member jimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th April 2010
    Location
    foothills of the rockies
    Posts
    419
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 329 times in 166 posts

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

    thank you, jaybee.
    at least your thinking cap on.
    see you around the forums.

    god bless the souls of 77.

  6. Link to Post #86
    Avalon Member jaybee's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Midlands England
    Posts
    1,179
    Thanks
    1,229
    Thanked 2,337 times in 750 posts

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

    Quote Posted by jimmer (here)
    thank you, jaybee.
    at least your thinking cap on.
    see you around the forums.

    god bless the souls of 77.

    Bless everyone who died that day......and their families.


  7. Link to Post #87
    Avalon Member Operator's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th March 2010
    Location
    Caribbean
    Posts
    2,605
    Thanks
    5,858
    Thanked 8,584 times in 1,855 posts

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

    Quote Posted by jimmer (here)
    all in all, I'm satisfied that we have ended one myth about 911.
    most here agree that it was a plane and not a missile that hit the pentagon.
    I go with Celine ... if you started a poll I wonder what the results would be ...

    I am still puzzled by the fact that in another thread you find someone crazy who sees UFO's while there are mountains in the way
    and yet you maintain the 757 story while it is physically impossible too ...

    You still try to sell the case ... or from your words I understand you even thought you already sold the case ....

    Of course you are free to believe what you want and you are free to discuss anything you want ... but please don't force it unto others.

  8. Link to Post #88
    United States Avalon Member Beth's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th June 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,924
    Thanks
    368
    Thanked 923 times in 207 posts

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

    I'm definitely down for a poll.

  9. Link to Post #89
    Canada Deactivated
    Join Date
    13th March 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Age
    51
    Posts
    2,752
    Thanks
    825
    Thanked 4,237 times in 956 posts

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

    Quote Posted by jimmer (here)
    gee, are you talking about..."we honor those who's lives were taken away that day.'
    Bien..non...

    i was talking about what you said in a previous quote..

    "all in all, I'm satisfied that we have ended one myth about 911."

  10. Link to Post #90
    England Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    UK
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 3,070 times in 656 posts

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

    I think that we have concluded most definately that a Boeing 757 DID NOT hit the pentagon that day

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SPIRIT WOLF For This Post:

    Curious77 (7th October 2014), sheme (19th October 2014)

  12. Link to Post #91
    Avalon Member jimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th April 2010
    Location
    foothills of the rockies
    Posts
    419
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 329 times in 166 posts

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

    congratulations, spirit wolf.

  13. Link to Post #92
    England Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    UK
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 3,070 times in 656 posts

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

    congrats on what may I ask? No one buys the official line, we have our senses wide open, not fools the Gov takes us for

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to SPIRIT WOLF For This Post:

    sheme (19th October 2014)

  15. Link to Post #93
    Aaland Avalon Member Agape's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th March 2010
    Posts
    4,392
    Thanks
    10,101
    Thanked 17,779 times in 3,446 posts

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

    Was there a bomb on the plane ?


  16. Link to Post #94
    England Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    UK
    Age
    67
    Posts
    1,333
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 3,070 times in 656 posts

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

    There simply was no passenger jet

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SPIRIT WOLF For This Post:

    Curious77 (7th October 2014), sheme (19th October 2014)

  18. Link to Post #95
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    29th August 2010
    Location
    Chatting with Horatio, on a bridge between Hope and Hemlock
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,259
    Thanks
    1,358
    Thanked 1,392 times in 445 posts

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

    Quote Posted by SPIRIT WOLF (here)
    There simply was no passenger jet
    A good morning to you, Spirit Wolf.

    This is my first nontrivial post on Project Avalon and second post overall, so big greets for all ProAvalonians and their quadruped keepers. Now that that's out of the way; in my Telugu subculture, I was introduced to three basic principles of enlightenment, at least, as I understand them: Satyam (Truth); Nyanam (Fairness); Dharmam (Justice). So for me, 9/11/2001 truth is really the satyam of those attacks. Nyanam and dharmam are post-satyam considerations.

    If we apply satyam to the Pentagon attack, there is no plausible case for a Boeing passenger jet impact. A hole may be bigger than the object passing through it; but the object may not be bigger than the hole. The photos of the Pentagon impact zone *unequivocally* and *irrefutably* fix a maximum size for the hole and any object alleged to have entered the hole. This maximum size excludes the *entry* of a Boeing airliner. This means that if the allegation of a Boeing airliner impacting the wall was true, then the airliner's wings and jet engines would have to be found outside. This is not the case. End of story.

    Of course, the preponderance of the evidence confirms the absence of an airliner impact (Citgo station northside Boeing approach analysis which conflicts with the official flight path of the southside attacking object (e.g. missile/drone/etc.; downed lampposts); the scarcity of surveillance video from arguably the most defense-sensitive place on Earth; alleged terrorist Hani Hanjour's magic airliner manouevres; etc.


    Cheers
    Uncle Zook

  19. Link to Post #96
    Avalon Member Operator's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th March 2010
    Location
    Caribbean
    Posts
    2,605
    Thanks
    5,858
    Thanked 8,584 times in 1,855 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Agape (here)
    Was there a bomb on the plane ?
    What plane ... ?

    Would you consider white phosphor a bomb ? ... then yes ...

  20. Link to Post #97
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    29th August 2010
    Location
    Chatting with Horatio, on a bridge between Hope and Hemlock
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,259
    Thanks
    1,358
    Thanked 1,392 times in 445 posts

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

    Quote Posted by jimmer (here)
    this 2004 article is just the kind of independent reporting that we here applaud and support.

    this thorough analysis of the 911 pentagon destruction shows images
    and evidence that are new to me.

    eyewitness testimony attests that is was a plane.

    'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over.
    Everybody was running away in different directions.
    It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance.
    It hit some lampposts on the way in.'


    let you computer read this to you as you review the photo illustrations.

    what say you, after reviewing this material?
    airliner or missile?

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

    Definitely not an airliner due to relatively small size of entry hole; but if we consider non-entry impact, then no significant Boeing airliner debris was found outside the Pentagon. So the damage was created by something other than a Boeing airliner.

    Out of curiosity, Jimmer, why are you so adamant that it was a Boeing airliner? Do you not think it was an inside job? I'm sure we can agree that the four attack events on that fateful day were interconnected. So if I can demonstrate inside planning at any one node of the "attacks", then I effectively demonstrate inside planning at all the nodes.

    My question to you then is, how do you think it serves the truth if we focus on evidence of Inside Job that is somewhat pliable to distortion/misrepresentation (e.g. the Pentagon attack), when there exists evidence of Inside Job that is rock solid (e.g. the collapse of WTC7). Proven at the one node, the Inside Job extends to all the nodes. The false flag attack on the Pentagon can thus be established (yet again).

    To wit, Pentagon airliner analysis is not required for proof of Inside Job; merely for corroborative purposes. If, however, proof not corroboration is being sought by analyzing this particular node (when a better node exists), then that can only obstruct the truth, e.g. by diverting focus from rock solid to somewhat pliable evidence. OTOH, corroboration at this particular node is a legitimate pursuit of the truth, and precisely because it assumes the evidence for Inside Job already exists at the other node ... which it does.


    Cheers
    Uncle Zook

  21. Link to Post #98
    Bomack
    Guest

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

    Quote Posted by The_Cipher_Replied (here)
    [...] I've talked to several pilots about the 9/11 attacks, and their answers were nearly the same when I brought up the Pentagon dilemma. [...] A plane that large flying that fast at that low of an altitude would be defying physics. The lowest that 757 could get to the ground at that speed, without losing control, would be roughly 60 feet. A strong, physical draft would push the plane upward extremely fast, preventing the plane from maintaining that particular altitude and speed; all of which would be causing a great deal of instability for the inexperienced pilot, as well.
    [...]
    Note: This response is in regards only to the physics of a 757 flying fast at a low level. Pilot experience, local terrain, or any other factors are not a consideration in this particular discussion.

    Hi Cipher,

    The physics you're referring to are called Ground Effect.
    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft
    Quote The most significant of these effects is known as the Wing In Ground (WIG) effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately equal to the aircraft's wingspan above ground or other level surface, such as the sea. The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at an altitude of one half the wingspan. It can present a hazard for inexperienced pilots who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing, but it has also been used to effectively enhance the performance of certain kinds of aircraft. [...] Flying close to a surface increases air pressure on the lower wing surface (the ram or cushion effect) and decreases air acceleration so the ground effect improves the aircraft lift to drag ratios in two ways. Momentum is still balanced because the air pressure beneath the wing is pressing on the underlying surface—the water or flat land.
    The Wing In Ground Effect doesn't create a "pushing up" force, but rather a "cushion" effect. Think of it like this: A surfer has to exert a lot of force and energy to get up enough speed to catch a wave. But once he (she) finds that "sweet spot" it takes little to no energy to go like a bat (not a perfect analogy here but I think it'll do). This condition is what can make it dangerous, even for experienced pilots, because if they're not paying attention and get caught they will find themselves running out of runway very fast. I'm not a pilot but, with close to 3,000 hours flying as a crew member with SAC, I have experienced this on several occasions. When you're coming in for a landing expecting a full-stop, the engines are all but turned off and you can see the runway whisking by just feet below you through the over-wing hatch porthole, and you can actually feel a floating sensation, and then all of a sudden the pilot slams all the engines to full thrust and the plane starts shuddering like you can't believe . . . yah, it can be a little disconcerting, especially when you're in an EC-135 Tanker that's full of gas! But never did I experience a "pushing-up" effect, only a "floating" effect.

    Back to the Ground (WIG) Effect. Here are two websites that offer excellent explanations and uses of WIG Effect: Ground Effect in Aircraft (http://www.aviation-history.com/theo...und_effect.htm) and Ground Effect and WIG Vehicles (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0130.shtml).

    They've actually been designing WIG vehicles for years now to take the most advantage of this effect. Most are designed for over-water use and here is an excellent "commercial":


    The Air Force has been using WIG to their advantage for many years. All of their low-level attack fighters, bombers, and cruise missiles which use Terrain Following Radar so they can hug the ground in order to avoid detection use it, and the TFR all but eliminates the need for flat level ground. Flying practically undetectable at low-level and with the higher speeds obtained from the WIG Effect adds another element to Stealth aircraft. Oh, and this also pertains to large aircraft. Most people don't have the faintest idea what the old, antique, lumbering-looking B-52 can do and it is still in use today!

    I took three clips of Low Passes from u-boob and I made a little "music video" for ya Cipher. I've never done anything like this before but I wanted to make it a little fun. The first two are 747 Jumbo Jets in a gear-up flaps-up condition, which means they have to be running at a fair clip otherwise these monsters would just fall out of the sky. But pay particular attention to the last clip. It is a KC-135 (basically a Boeing 707 airframe), which is quite comparable to a 757, and he's probably doing in the neighborhood of 500 MPH because his engines are screaming when he flies by! Anyway I hope y'all enjoy this.


    I know this is a fairly long post. I am a naturally slow, meticulous, and thorough sort of fella (Hey, I'm a Virgo! LOL!) who doesn't always talk alot but when I do I strive to say it in a way that everyone can understand. So for that I apologize. But hey, this Thursday I'll be yet another year older, so it can only get worse! Maybe you all can grant me that this one time!

    So back to the main topic (sort of):

    Could a Boeing 757 be used to strike the Pentagon? ABSOLUTELY!
    Could a Cruise Missile be used to strike the Pentagon? ABSOLUTELY!
    What do I think hit the Pentagon?
    I don't mean to leave anyone in suspense but I'm really tired right now and I need to think on how I want to say it. I hope you'll understand.

    Thanks and Warmest Wishes To All!

    Bob

  22. Link to Post #99
    Avalon Member jimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th April 2010
    Location
    foothills of the rockies
    Posts
    419
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 329 times in 166 posts

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

    bob, before your next installment,
    and since we're still debating this, I suppose that you reviewed the p. 1 article that kicked this all off.
    if so, how do you reckon the same day onsite airline wreckage and report that bodies were removed
    from the building (+60 noted at the end of the article)?

    thanks for the clarifications.

  23. Link to Post #100
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    29th August 2010
    Location
    Chatting with Horatio, on a bridge between Hope and Hemlock
    Age
    56
    Posts
    1,259
    Thanks
    1,358
    Thanked 1,392 times in 445 posts

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

    Quote Posted by Bomack (here)
    Note: This response is in regards only to the physics of a 757 flying fast at a low level. Pilot experience, local terrain, or any other factors are not a consideration in this particular discussion.
    [...]
    But pay particular attention to the last clip. It is a KC-135 (basically a Boeing 707 airframe), which is quite comparable to a 757, and he's probably doing in the neighborhood of 500 MPH because his engines are screaming when he flies by! Anyway I hope y'all enjoy this.


    I know this is a fairly long post. I am a naturally slow, meticulous, and thorough sort of fella (Hey, I'm a Virgo! LOL!) who doesn't always talk alot but when I do I strive to say it in a way that everyone can understand. So for that I apologize. But hey, this Thursday I'll be yet another year older, so it can only get worse! Maybe you all can grant me that this one time!

    So back to the main topic (sort of):

    Could a Boeing 757 be used to strike the Pentagon? ABSOLUTELY!
    Could a Cruise Missile be used to strike the Pentagon? ABSOLUTELY!
    What do I think hit the Pentagon?
    I don't mean to leave anyone in suspense but I'm really tired right now and I need to think on how I want to say it. I hope you'll understand.

    Thanks and Warmest Wishes To All!
    Bob
    Hi Bob,

    I'm not convinced wrt the KC-135. The background music interfered with sound of the jet as it approached and climbed again over the desert floor. In any event, I didn't detect any significant screaming noise from the engines until it started to climb again. 500mph doesn't seem credible just by watching the approach and flyby (over the parked trucks). About the 3:14 mark. It appears to me that the pilot only stepped on the throttle after he was past the trucks and that his approach speed was relatively modest (akin to that of a landing passenger jet). Note also the height of the plane over the trucks; definitely higher than the level of the entry hole at the Pentagon building.

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


    cheers
    Uncle Zook

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 1 5 15 16 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Boeing Whistleblower and My Information
    By Sickscent in forum Astronomy and Cosmology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 14th June 2016, 20:57
  2. Another 9/11 Pentagon Missile Video? Could This Be It?
    By Enlightenment101 in forum 9/11
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 25th September 2011, 04:14
  3. Pentagon in a panic over leaked State Dept cables.
    By Grizzom in forum News and Updates
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12th June 2010, 09:03
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 14th April 2010, 16:55

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts