http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Read it and weep, fellas. Its not a conspiracy, it wasn't a missle, you can go home now
You call that proof? I call it a website with pictures and stories. The conspiracy websites have the same.
------
We come into the world naked, screaming and covered in blood. Why should the fun end there?
thanks for the evidence.
All conspiracy theories are basicly full of lies, because they are of a political nature, and not historical or scientific (which it should be).
Keep in mind that not all conspiracy believers follow the idea that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. This argument about the plane is something conspiracy non-believers try to use to claim the whole conspiracy as false, when not everyone believes in it in the first place. It still doesn't explain how a man who could barely even fly a small plane could execute the maneuvers that were made before the collision, and also how no Arabs were mentioned from the autopsy of the passengers (also no Arab names listed). The Pentagon is only part of the whole conspiracy idea, too.
shareOh yeah, right. You say there's a plane there, I believe it.
Take a look at that plane that crashed in Kentucky just this past month. There was scorched earth and gouges in the ground. Where's that at the Pentagon? Where's the broken wings and the tail and rudder that should have been outside the building? In any plane crash in which the wings run into something, they bend back and fall off. Where's the wings? The piece of 'wreckage' on the lawn...that really nice shiny piece of twisted debris...laughable. Had there been an actual crash of a plane, the investigators should have been in Hasmat suits and there should have been vans there from the coroner's office to collect the dead. Where were they? Point them out to me on the photos....
NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON...IT WAS A REMOTE CONTROLLED DRONE.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Where's that at the Pentagon? Where's the broken wings and the tail and rudder that should have been outside the building? In any plane crash in which the wings run into something, they bend back and fall off. Where's the wings? The piece of 'wreckage' on the lawn...that really nice shiny piece of twisted debris...laughable.
and there should have been vans there from the coroner's office to collect the dead.
NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON...IT WAS A REMOTE CONTROLLED DRONE.
Wow...someone has some anger issues!!
That's ok, you believe that they tell you if that makes you sleep better at night. You probably believe in god too!
What do you mean "believe what they tell you?" I believe what makes sense, and what every witness to the attack saw, before I believe some delusional traitor like you!
www.lolloosechange.co.nr is a good site for the corrections to Loose change.
The issues with the comments raised and the corrections are quite illuminating. The Osama Bin Laden 'gold jewelry' issue highlights or at least questions the film makers intent since they seem to be innacurate and sloppy at best.
Though I dont have any camera evidence, I was at a hotel near the pentagon on that day and saw the plane come out of the sky and strike the pentagon, so dont tell me it wasnt a real plane.
Also, you notice most conspiracy theorists are average folk with no real knowledge of aircraft, building structures, or anything like that? Its basically like say one of the conspiracy people is a banker and spouts something like "That couldnt happen becaue the aircraft wing at a certain angle and blah blah blah and I know about this cause i read about it on a website." yet most who debunk the conspiracies are actual people in the field of say aircrafts, building design, etc. who have been doing what they do for, in some cases, decades. I mean its like if you were to believe a fry cook at McDonalds for saying that no plane hit the pentagon because of this reason or that and NOT believe someone who designed the pentagon or an aircraft desinger who knows about planes.
"NCC-1701, no bloody A, B, C, OR, D!"
What you likely saw was the drone, or a control plane controlling the drone. I may not have 'knowledge' of aircraft, but I do have tons of knowledge over my many, many, many years of what an actual crash site looks like. Namely: Lockerbie, Scotland. None of what was present at Lockerbie was there in Washington. Nada. At Lockerbie, there were bodies strewn all over the place. There was a crater in the ground where the plane plummeted. There was debis covering a wide range of the area surrounding the town.
Given the stresses that would have been on that plane during the dive, there would have had to have been bits of the plane coming off and strewn around Washington DC. 911PilotsforTruth have questioned the validity of the 'record'. Hani Hanjour, the supposed Hijacker pilot of Flight 77 was not a good flier. The instructors at the flight school where he 'trained' said he was bad at take off, landing and guiding. He was not an intrument flier. So how is it he was expert enough to conduct all the intricate twists and and turns that 'plane' would have had to have taken on its approach? And again, the stresses on the fuselage would have made it impossible for that plane to not begin breakup before it hit the Pentagon.
Watch the Discovery Show "Maday" and you'll see what I mean. There have been lots of information on that show about what happens to a plane under these kinds of stresses, and that plane would have begun to break up before it even began its approach. And again, how was a half-arsed 'pilot' supposed to make all those intricate turns without that plane beginning to break apart?
There should have been bodies strewn all over that lawn. Men wearing shirt sleeves were searching for bodies. Impossible since all crash sites are considered toxic and Hazzardous Material Suits would be worn. Yet I saw none there. Why? No bodies to clean up...ergo, no need for Hasmat suits. There was only ONE piece of debris that was kind of shiny and only barely twisted. Where was the tangled pieces of debris that SHOULD have been there after the strike? No plane can just vapourize just like that. All we see is a hole in the building, but not big enough for a 767 to have flown into. Only a hole that IS big enough for a military drone to have hit.
There are other things I could mention, but no one has to be a rocket scientist to know that no passenger airliner hit that building. And where the heck was NORAD and the other defense programs set up during the Cold War to protect the US borders? Where were the attack aircraft that SHOULD have protected the airspaces above the United States that day?
Here's a Wiki article on Golfer Payne Stewart:
On October 25, 1999, a month after the American team rallied to win the 1999 Ryder Cup in Brookline, Massachusetts, and four months after his U.S. Open victory at Pinehurst No. 2 Stewart was killed in the sudden depressurization of a Learjet flying from Orlando to Dallas, Texas for the year-ending tournament, The Tour Championship, held at Champions Golf Club in Houston that year. National Transportation Safety Board investigators later concluded that the plane suffered a gradual loss of cabin pressure early in the flight and that all on board died of hypoxia, lack of oxygen. The plane, apparently still on autopilot and angled off-course, was observed by Air National Guard F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft as it continued its flight over the southern and midwestern United States. Other than frost on the plane's windows, the military pilots saw nothing amiss but were unable to directly observe the Learjet's pilot or copilot, who did not respond to repeated radio calls. It is likely that the pilots and occupants already had lost consciousness.
There was some speculation that military jets were prepared to shoot down the Lear if it threatened to crash in a heavily populated area. Officials at the Pentagon strongly denied that possibility. "Shooting down the plane was never an option," Air Force spokesman Capt. Joe Della Vedova said. "I don't know where that came from."[citation needed]
Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with an F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, about an hour and twenty minutes (9:33 EDT to 9:52 CDT - see NTSB report on the crash) after ground controllers lost contact. The plane continued flying until it ran out of fuel and crashed into a field around Mina, a town ten miles west of Aberdeen, South Dakota after an uncontrolled descent. The five other people aboard the plane included his agents Robert Fraley and Van Ardan, and pilots Michael Kling and Stephanie Bellegarrigue, along with Bruce Borland, a highly-regarded golf architect with the Jack Nicklaus golf course design company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payne_Stewart#Death
What you likely saw was the drone, or a control plane controlling the drone.
Hani Hanjour, the supposed Hijacker pilot of Flight 77 was not a good flier. The instructors at the flight school where he 'trained' said he was bad at take off, landing and guiding. He was not an intrument flier. So how is it he was expert enough to conduct all the intricate twists and and turns that 'plane' would have had to have taken on its approach?
There are other things I could mention, but no one has to be a rocket scientist to know that no passenger airliner hit that building.
And where the heck was NORAD and the other defense programs set up during the Cold War to protect the US borders? Where were the attack aircraft that SHOULD have protected the airspaces above the United States that day?
Here's a Wiki article on Golfer Payne Stewart:
Why is it a simple Lear Jet was giving a military escort when it was flying irradically, yet FOUR passenger jets were left to fly un escorted until they found their targets?
Why was Flight 77 even allowed into Washington airspace without detection?
Given that a Cessna had hit the White House during the Clinton years, airspace around many of Washinton's noted landmarks was heightened and fighter jets regularly made sweeps of the area to take down any suspect aircraft...yet a plane managed to hit the Pentagon?
Not another whackjob who believes the 'official' story both the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission want you to believe.
Fact one: NORAD was on war games maneuvers. The scenario which they were operating on was just such an event. All NORAD planes were engaged in these war games NOT looking for the four planes that were 'hijacked'. They were on war games maneuvers. The Payne Stewart incident HAS relevance because it was proof that NORAD reacts when suspect aircraft are detected. Stewart's plane was a private jet that came under the rubrick of NORAD's sensors. It was proven through the 9/11 Commission that NORAD and NEADS were busy with war games and NO fighter planes were available to be scrambled until AFTER Flights 11 and 175 had already hit their targets, but still THEN they couldn't find Flights 93 or 77 who even though their transponders were turned off, would still register on radar.
Fact two: Airspace over ALL of the major sites in Washington DC are off limits to ALL but recognized aircraft. ALL sites including The White House (as a result of the Clinton era craft hitting the WH), Capital Hill, The Pentagon, Washington Monument, and all other recognized places where the Nation's business is going on, yet one plane managed to make it through when airspace over DC is watched like a hawk.
Fact three: Hani Hanjour MAY have taken over the cockpit on Flight 77, however again, he had no good flight training. His instructors have stated time and time again, he didn't even pass flying on smaller aircraft, yet he managed to execute precision flying to not only hit the Pentagon, but not muck up the grass nor create a significant crater in the landscape nor a hole in the side of the building. His instructors stated that Hanjour couldn't fly by instruments, yet again, he managed to somehow miraculously execute precisioned flying. This is documented through the 9/11 Commission's report...not supposition.
Fact four: There was a drone because a passenger jet couldn't possibly have made no marks on the ground when it crashed into the side of the building.
Fact five: Why was that side of the Pentagon chosen when it was well known that all working elements of the Pentagon were located on the opposite side. Rumsfeld's office and the press office was on the other side. The side that was hit was yet to be filled back up after its extensive reconstruction. Workers who were doing the reconstruction on that side were phoned that morning and told not to report to work.
Fact six: George W. Bush on that morning stated that when he saw the first plane hit the first tower, he comically stated that, "I thought when I saw that on the tv, 'What kind of bad flying is that. It's obviously an accident.'" There was no footage of the first plane hitting tower one until the NEXT day. That footage became available only AFTER filmmaker Jules Naudet provided it to the networks through his and his brother's documentary they were making on firefighters when they became involved in the drama of that day. Again, the first plane hitting the tower was not available that day, yet Bush said he saw it on television.
Fact seven: Why hasn't an infirm man who is on dialysis been caught yet? I'm talking Bin Laden who it was well established, was a CIA created operative during the time of the war against the Soviets to get them out of Afghanistan. Bin Laden has not been caught yet. One would have thought with how the airforce and army have bombed the heck out of Tora Bora, someone matching Bin Laden's description would have turned up. Yet, he's still on the run, and they caught Sadam where? In a hole!
Fact eight: The 9/11 Truth movement is NOT a cult. It has within its members, scholars, pilots who do not believe the story as told and some are close friends of each of the pilots who they have all stated would have fought to the death to keep their planes from being overtaken. The movement also includes former members of the armed forces who do not believe the 'official' story, physicists who have gone over all aspects of that day with a fine tooth comb and discovered it's next to impossible to fell a 110 storey steel frame constructed building solely by fire. NO building that caught fire, ever was totally destroyed by fired. NO BUILDING...EVER! Except three buildings did fall.... World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2, and World Trade Center 7 that was not severely hit nor did it take on any kind of damage save for a little chunk out of its lower left side due to falling debris from one of the towers. It was also housing all federal records on many cases involving the cases against Enron and other major cases being ajudicated by hold over Democratic judges.
Fact nine: A friend of mine who was near Ground Zero when those buildings went, stated she saw those buildings come down like they were being detonated from INSIDE them. She said they looked like they were brought down by a controlled demolition.
Fact ten: Daniel Pearl went to Karachi, Pakistan to investigate the reported wire transfers made between Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta. He was kidnapped and found dismembered after two months. Why was Daniel Pearl murdered and why won't the State Department help his widow and son, Marianne and Adam, seek justice on Pearl's behalf?
Fact eleven: What explains that when Flights 11 and 175 hit the towers, they were reported evapourated due to the fuel in their tanks and all other materials around them were reduced to nothing, was a paper passport found two blocks away from the site in perfect condition? A passport made of paper? Why did steel NOT survive the crashes, yet a paper passport was found intact?
Fact twelve: Why has the Bush administration been allowed to trash Habeus Corpus, the Constitution, and the Geneva Convention and out a covert CIA operative without facing treason charges and impeachment?
Fact thirteen: Why did people who worked in the towers report power downs during the two months prior to the attacks? Why were drug and bomb sniffing dogs removed and kept away during this power down?
Fact fourteen: Larry Silverstone took out a 99 year lease on the WTC site complex to pay out at double the price should anything happen by accident. The security for that complex was taken over two months before the attacks by SECURECOM. Who owns SECURECOM? Marvin Bush, big brother to the current president.
Fact fifteen: After the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, a man named John O'Neill was sent over by the FBI to track down the culprits. He was still in Yemen when the Bush administration took power. O'Neill was thiiiiiiis close to finding the trail of the culprits who bombed the Cole, yet when he asked for more manpower and resources, the Yemenese ambassador to the US had him recalled back to the United States. After he returned, O'Neill requested to go back to Yemen and he was told time and time again, he would not be allowed to go back. In frustration, O'Neill quit the FBI accepting a security job at the site of the World Trade Center in New York City. He had reported to work the month before 9/11 and his body was found under the one remaining staircase of tower two.... unharmed, yet all the searchers found of bodies in the wreckage were that of parts consisting of feet, hands, heads, arms and other bits of flesh. There has still been over 1200 individual parts that still have not been identified. Yet O'Neill's body was found intact?
Fact sixteen: Steel from the WTC site was technically considered a crime scene, yet all steel was removed quickly and sold off to China and other nations to be melted down. Why was there NO crime scene cordoned off so investigators could probe further?
Fact seventeen: Steel cannot melt unless subjected to temperatures over 2000 degrees F. Yet the girders and the insulation in the subfloors were melted causing the lower floors to fall. Temperatures in those buildings was low enough for firemen to reach the 81st floor in tower two. When the firemen were asked what they saw, radio reports from inside the building said: "There are two or three pockets of fire." NOT sufficent enough to cause catastrophic collapse.
If you can answer all the questions I posited, particularly the last with clear and concise answers, then and only then, will I take you seriously.
Finally, Pearl Harbour was an inside job as was the sinking of the Lusitania. War IS profitable and it's been proven Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan...nor was yellow cake nor plutonium rods discovered by Hans Blix and his inspections teams....Yet Bush said WMD existed in Iraq. How, when all other aspects of this march to war has been proven to be a lie?
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Not another whackjob who believes the 'official' story both the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission want you to believe.
Fact one: NORAD was on war games maneuvers. The scenario which they were operating on was just such an event. All NORAD planes were engaged in these war games NOT looking for the four planes that were 'hijacked'.
Fact four: There was a drone because a passenger jet couldn't possibly have made no marks on the ground when it crashed into the side of the building.
Fact seven: Why hasn't an infirm man who is on dialysis been caught yet? I'm talking Bin Laden who it was well established, was a CIA created operative during the time of the war against the Soviets to get them out of Afghanistan.
Fact eight: The 9/11 Truth movement is NOT a cult.
NO building that caught fire, ever was totally destroyed by fired. NO BUILDING...EVER! Except three buildings did fall.... World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2, and World Trade Center 7 that was not severely hit nor did it take on any kind of damage save for a little chunk out of its lower left side due to falling debris from one of the towers.
Fact nine: A friend of mine who was near Ground Zero when those buildings went, stated she saw those buildings come down like they were being detonated from INSIDE them. She said they looked like they were brought down by a controlled demolition.
Fact eleven: What explains that when Flights 11 and 175 hit the towers, they were reported evapourated due to the fuel in their tanks and all other materials around them were reduced to nothing, was a paper passport found two blocks away from the site in perfect condition? A passport made of paper? Why did steel NOT survive the crashes, yet a paper passport was found intact?
Fact twelve: Why has the Bush administration been allowed to trash Habeus Corpus, the Constitution, and the Geneva Convention and out a covert CIA operative without facing treason charges and impeachment?
Fact thirteen: Why did people who worked in the towers report power downs during the two months prior to the attacks? Why were drug and bomb sniffing dogs removed and kept away during this power down?
Fact fourteen: Larry Silverstone took out a 99 year lease on the WTC site complex to pay out at double the price should anything happen by accident. The security for that complex was taken over two months before the attacks by SECURECOM. Who owns SECURECOM? Marvin Bush, big brother to the current president.
There has still been over 1200 individual parts that still have not been identified. Yet O'Neill's body was found intact?
Fact sixteen: Steel from the WTC site was technically considered a crime scene, yet all steel was removed quickly and sold off to China and other nations to be melted down. Why was there NO crime scene cordoned off so investigators could probe further?
Fact seventeen: Steel cannot melt unless subjected to temperatures over 2000 degrees F.
Finally, Pearl Harbour was an inside job as was the sinking of the Lusitania.
Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan...nor was yellow cake nor plutonium rods discovered by Hans Blix and his inspections teams....Yet Bush said WMD existed in Iraq. How, when all other aspects of this march to war has been proven to be a lie?
[deleted]
No, A--Hole, YOU shut the f up!! Anyone who denies that Flight 77 crashed inot the Pentagon is a blithering idiot, and that includes you and prometheus1816!!
Fact two: Airspace over ALL of the major sites in Washington DC are off limits to ALL but recognized aircraft. ALL sites including The White House (as a result of the Clinton era craft hitting the WH), Capital Hill, The Pentagon, Washington Monument, and all other recognized places where the Nation's business is going on, yet one plane managed to make it through when airspace over DC is watched like a hawk.The Pentagon is not a no-fly zone. It is directly under final approcach for Runway 15 at National, which is mainly used for commuter planes.
Fact five: Why was that side of the Pentagon chosen when it was well known that all working elements of the Pentagon were located on the opposite side.Because it's the only side relatively free of obstacles--all others have hills, buildings, and highways in the way--and has a huge arrow in the form of a 5-lane road pointing at it.
Plainly put, why was it the supposed hijacker pilot didn't have the ability to fly a small personal plane, and this was accounted for by the flight school instructors who stated he couldn't possibly have done what they said he did. Executed a perfect maneuver that just so happened to hit the recently renovated section of the Pentagon. And why not just dive bomb the building? Why not put the nose down and bring the plane down right in the bulls-eye centre? Why not want to cause the maximum amount of damage that way? Why not bring the plane down in the middle of DC? Why pick the side of the Pentagon that was the least occupied that morning?
Wny are you so willing to accept the story you've been fed these past seven years?
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Plainly put, why was it the supposed hijacker pilot didn't have the ability to fly a small personal plane, and this was accounted for by the flight school instructors who stated he couldn't possibly have done what they said he did.Flying wasn't really a problem for him, takeoffs and landings were. One instructor, forgot who, said it would have been easy for him to point a plane at the building and hit it. Other pilots have said that the the maneuver was possible if the pilot didn't care about the safety of his passengers.
And why not just dive bomb the building? Why not put the nose down and bring the plane down right in the bulls-eye centre? Why not want to cause the maximum amount of damage that way?Because the Pengaton has a large courtyard in the center and each of the five sides is roughly the size of an aircraft carrier. Hitting the roof would have taken much more skill than hitting a side.
Why not bring the plane down in the middle of DC?Probably because they wanted to hit the largest military target in the area.
Why pick the side of the Pentagon that was the least occupied that morning?Already answered that.
Wny are you so willing to accept the story you've been fed these past seven years?Because I need solid evidence that indicates it's wrong, not a bunch of theories, hearsay, opinions, and conjecture. Truthers like to collect all these innocuous grains of sand and try to build an entire mountain out of them then go "but what about this big pile of stuff?" They don't notice that it's still just a big pile of sand. share
Plainly put, why was it the supposed hijacker pilot didn't have the ability to fly a small personal plane, and this was accounted for by the flight school instructors who stated he couldn't possibly have done what they said he did.
TOTALLY WRONG! THAT WAS SAID AT THE START OF THE TRAINING!
Alleged flight 77 (Pentagon) pilot Hani Hanjour had a history of great difficulties in his efforts to learn to fly. As late as Aug. 2001, he was unable to demonstrate enough piloting skills to rent a Cessna 172...
Certainly there is no evidence that Hanjour ever had any sort of practice flying commercial jetliners or any jet-propelled aircraft.
http://www.911-strike.com/remote_skills.htm
The site quotes this NewsDay article:
...when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html
And as Marcel Bernard pointed out, the hijackers wouldn't have required all the skills of a regular pilot:
"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm
THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman
[deleted]
no scratch what so ever on the lawn of the pentagon.
[deleted]
I say he'll laugh in your face. Then again, if I know my theology, God's not that cruel.
Ddey:
YOu posted a photo of the Pentagon that shows 'wing scars'. Where? Where are there 'wing scars'?
When you look at towers one and two of the WTC, you can SEE damage from the wing span. There is no damage on the Pentagon from the wing span of any plane.
THIS is what happens when a plane crashes in terms of the ground:
Korean Air Crash: http://ns.gov.gu/guam/korea/crash3.jpg
Concorde Crash: http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080312/ 080312-concorde-crash-hmed-615a.hmedium.jpg
Lockerbie: http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/europe/08/14/lockerbie.town/story.long .lockerbie.crater.jpg
With all of the above, there is one common principle, ground damage. Lockerbie there was that huge crater, in other instances, there was ground scarring.
Pentagon: http://www.apfn.org/images/dl-77-pent2.jpg
In the above photo, where is the ground scarring? There is also NO wing scars on the face of the Pentagon, only one area where the roof collapsed on a section that looks as if a missile hit it. And that missile went straight through like threading a needle. No damage other than a hole for a fuselage from a drone (pictured below).
http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/06/15/watchkeeper_plane.jpg This IS small enough to have made the damage seen in the Pentagon...not a 757 or a 767.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
YOu posted a photo of the Pentagon that shows 'wing scars'. Where? Where are there 'wing scars'?
When you look at towers one and two of the WTC, you can SEE damage from the wing span. There is no damage on the Pentagon from the wing span of any plane.
Bottom photo and are you actually comparing a collision with aluminum sides of the twin towers to a concrete building reinforced to withstand a indirect nuclear strike?
This IS small enough to have made the damage seen in the Pentagon...not a 757 or a 767.
Yawn, How big should the hole be for a 757?
THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman
And more proof of wing impact.
"There was a memorial held on October 11 for the people who were killed," Bartram notes. "On October 12, we started taking the stone off the building. We took down approximately 2,400 pieces of stone, a lot of which had melted aluminum from the plane embedded in it. We took it all down in about 13 days.
http://www.masonrymagazine.com/8-02/rising.html
THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman
Here, damage caused by the starboard wing:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/blue6.jpg
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWingHole.jpg/PentWingHole-full.jpg
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/4.jpg
http://www.gamelogos.com/temp/starboard-wing.jpg
http://www.questionsquestions.net/pentagon/pentagonimages/pentagonjpgs /right-wing-gash2.jpg
What starboard wing? Those columns are not cut. They're damaged, but not cut. See difference? No damage to the lawn as is most cases of air crashes. And why was it men in shirt sleeves searched the lawn for debris? In almost all cases of airplane crashes, it's manditory for rescue/recovery workers to wear HasMat suits. With fuel and body parts lying around, it's manditory. Yet Donald Rumsfeld found it perfectly okay to begin to help rescue people wearing his business suit. Have you never, ever watched the show "Mayday" on the Discovery Channel? I have and in all cases of a land crash, certain procedures are followed. They weren't in this case. Why? No plane. And as for wings, they'd have collapsed OUTSIDE the building, not been engulfed by it. They'd have fallen off as well as the upper stablizer wing and the tail would be noticeable outside the building. Yet where are they?
Again, take a look at "Mayday" and see what I mean. Even in the case of a sea crash, there's fuel and anyone again involved in rescue/recovery wear suits to keep them safe. It's ALWAYS done. Even at Ground Zero.
"Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head." -Anon
Those columns are not cut. They're damaged, but not cut.You expect columns designed to withstand an indirect nuclear strike to be cut by a simple 757 wing? What about the straight line in the masonry which lines up with the angle at which the plane hit?
No damage to the lawn as is most cases of air crashes.Some witnesses reported that the port engine hit a ground-level concrete ventillation structure, not grass.
In almost all cases of airplane crashes, it's manditory for rescue/recovery workers to wear HasMat suits.HazMat suits were worn at the site. Just a few months ago, a no-planer called McMike1 tried to use it as evidence that something nefarious was going on.
Yet Donald Rumsfeld found it perfectly okay to begin to help rescue people wearing his business suit.Photo-op?
And as for wings, they'd have collapsed OUTSIDE the building, not been engulfed by it.The wingtips and tail were destroyed in the fireball. The rest of the wings, including the engines, went into the building. Inside the building is where engine parts consistent with those used on 757s were found. share
No damage to the lawn as is most cases of air crashes.
Many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces. The AFDS not only controls the plane when the autopilot is enabled, but Boeing recommends that these computerized systems always be in operation to advise the pilots on how to best fly the aircraft. The primary advantage of computerized control systems is that they can make corrections to an aircraft's flight path and help prevent the pilot from accidentally putting the plane into an uncontrollable condition. The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out.
These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11. Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.
One of the most interesting quotes comes from Afework Hagos who commented on the plane see-sawing back and forth, suggesting that the pilot was struggling to keep the plane level in either pitch or roll or perhaps both. Hagos was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when the 757 passed overhead. He reported, "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance." Another eyewitness named Penny Elgas also referred to the plane rocking back and forth while Albert Hemphill commented that, "He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just 'jinked' to avoid something." These observations were further confirmed by Mary Ann Owens, James Ryan, and David Marra who described the plane's wings as "wobbly" when it "rolled left and then rolled right" and the pilot "tilted his wings, this way and in this way."
This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."
Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.
One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006
THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman
And as for wings, they'd have collapsed OUTSIDE the building, not been engulfed by it. They'd have fallen off as well as the upper stablizer wing and the tail would be noticeable outside the building. Yet where are they?
They are full of fuel, the blew up, hence the fireball.
THIS IS TIGER-http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154422/?tag=Cartman
Got awfully quiet in here.
shareDo missiles also contain aluminium?
shareI'm awfully late to this discussion, but this:
"Why was Flight 77 even allowed into Washington airspace without detection?"
made me actually LOL. I was just at the Pentagon and I can tell you with 100% certainty plane after plane after plane flew overhead while I was there--I even commented to my friend that I wondered how long it took the Pentagon employees took to get over the sound of planes flying overhead.
Dulles is in Virgina, only 26 miles from DC.
Washington airspace without detection, LOL.