The official government and media conspiracy theory says that American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked by 5 fanatical Islamic terrorists on 9/11, and flown into the Pentagon, killing all 64 people on board along with 125 people in the Pentagon. From Wikipedia:
American Airlines Flight 77 was American Airlines' morning, daily scheduled transcontinental flight, from Washington Dulles International Airport, in Dulles, Virginia to Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. On September 11, 2001, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 757-223—was hijacked by five al-Qaeda terrorists and deliberately crashed into the Pentagon, as part of the September 11 attacks.
Less than 35 minutes into the flight, the hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make telephone calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.
The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, were killed, as were 125 people in the building. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed; firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002.
The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park contains a bench for each of the victims, arranged according to their year of birth, ranging from 1930 (aged 71) to 1998 (aged 3).
Upon further investigation, there is no evidence to support any of these claims. For starters, let's have a listen to what CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre had to say about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11:
From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.
After the U.S. Justice Department released the rather pathetic photos supposedly showing Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, Jamie McIntrye had a change of heart:
McIntrye's rather Orwellian about face should not surprise anyone. 9/11 was a hectic day, and not everyone had their script in front of them, including McIntyre. After all, it's been common knowledge for years
Criminal elements of the media clearly were and remain involved in the 9/11 deception and cover up.
In Enver Masud's "Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie 56;The 9/11 Commission Report'," we learn:
I live less than a mile from the Pentagon, and began examining this issue in early 2002. The first question I asked when I looked at the Pentagon shortly after that tragic day in 2001 was, “where’s the plane?”
I began to suspect the official account of 9/11 when I learned that the U.S. war on Afghanistan was apparently planned prior to September 11, and possibly after U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for a pipeline broke down.
According to the BBC (September 18, 2001), Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. [...]
Writing in “9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,” Kwiatowski noted, “a strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile’.”
Pentagon employee April Gallop, whose “desk was roughly 40 feet from the point where the plane allegedly hit the outside wall” stated in a sworn complaint (before the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York):
“As she sat down to work there was an explosion, then another; walls collapsed and the ceiling fell in. Hit in the head, she was able to grab the baby and make her way towards the daylight showing through a blasted opening in the outside wall. There was no airplane wreckage and no burning airplane fuel anywhere; only rubble and dust.”
Barbara Honegger, military affairs journalist, reported in her personal capacity that a pilot sent by Gen Larry Arnold (NORAD) “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.” She added, “Multiple standard-issue, battery-operated wall clocks . . . stopped between 9:31 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.” [...]
Masud emphasizes the importance of the September 12th and September 15th, 2001 Pentagon news briefings, and what they revealed:
At the September 12, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense, Victoria Clarke, Ed Plaugher (fire chief of Arlington County), and others, “American Airlines”, “Flight 7783;, “Boeing 75783; were not even mentioned.
How significant is this?
With the world’s news media assembled at the Pentagon on the day after the alleged attack on the Pentagon by Arab hijackers flying American Airlines Flight 77 — a Boeing 757 — “American Airlines”, “Flight 7783;, “Boeing 75783; were not considered important enough to mention at the Pentagon News Briefing the day after the alleged attack!
Fire chief Ed Plaugher was asked by a reporter, “Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?” Plaugherresponded, “there are some small pieces of aircraft … there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”
When asked, “Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel”, Plaugher responded “You know, I’d rather not comment on that.” [...]
At the September 15, 2001, Dept. of Defense (DoD) News Briefing by Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager, Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, and others, it was apparent that there were lingering doubts about what had struck the Pentagon on September 11.
When Mr. Evey said, “the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C Ring”, a reporter asked, “One thing that’s confusing — if it came in the way you described, at an angle, why then are not the wings outside? I mean, the wings would have shorn off. The tail would have shorn off. And yet there’s apparently no evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring.” Evey replied, “Actually, there’s considerable evidence of the aircraft outside the E Ring. It’s just not very visible.”
Apparently, no one asked how “the nose of the aircraft” (a relatively weak component of the aircraft) remained sufficiently intact to penetrate the C Ring — the E Ring is the outermost ring.
Dr. James Fetzer has explained in detail the fact that a Boeing 757, even piloted by an experienced and well-trained pilot (which was not the case with Hani Hanjour, the alleged Arab hijacker that flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon), could not possibly perform the feats described by the official government conspiracy theory:
The probability that a real Boeing 757 could have hit the Pentagon and not left debris from its wings and tail or even its engines-not to mention bodies, seats, and luggage-is zero. The probability that the alleged trajectory could have been flown in violation of the laws of aerodynamics is even less than zero-since violations of these laws is not physically possible. The probability that the trajectory, if it were possible, could have left a smooth, green, unblemished lawn is zero. The probability that debris would have been planted or that smoke would have been simulated, had this event involved the crash of a real Boeing 757, is likewise extremely low. That all of these things would have occurred if the alleged impact were contrived, however, is very high. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any reasonable alternative. [...]
The conclusion that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon appears to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's been conclusively proven that in-flight phone calls were impossible in 2001. Why did Ted make up this story? Or, who told him to tell these lies? Where is Barbara now? Is it apparent to you by now that the media is a major part of the crime gang that pulled off 9/11? Are you aware that Zionist Jews with a particular agenda own most of the major corporate media and entertainment productions in this country?
Are those incapable of contemplating the fact that the "hijackings", planes, videos, and many of the victims on 9/11 were a major fraud, just like the rest of the official government conspiracy theory? It seems rather obvious to me that this is indeed the case.
We still don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, so it would be wise to keep an open mind about everything.
I have an unfair advantage. One of my co-workers is married to a Navy officer who was in the Pentagon Navy Annex, about a half mile west and uphill from the Pentagon. At the time of the crash he was in a meeting in a room with a window facing the Pentagon. They heard the sound of a plane coming so low that they thought for a moment it would and on them. They rushed to the window and saw the jetliner aim straight for the center of the nearest side of the Pentagon. It was a passenger jetliner and apparently the pilot had used the thrusters for maximum impact.
The wings of the jet lopped off the tops of some street lamps as it approached the Pentagon, and just before it made impact one of the wingtips gauged a line in the lawn. The Pentagon is just about a quarter-mile north of a major Interstate highway junction, so there were plenty of drivers on those highways that saw the crash, and the Washington Post had no problem finding a dozen or so.
The landing gear of the plane - the most solid single part - was thrown all the way through the Pentagon into the center courtyard.
The wings of the jet lopped off the tops of some street lamps as it approached the Pentagon, and just before it made impact one of the wingtips gauged a line in the lawn.
Well your "co-worker" or their spouse is lying, since there WAS no "gash" in the lawn, and IF the "plane" HAD scraped the lawn with a wingtip it would have;
A) Tumbled to shreds before striking the Pentagon. B) Exploded on the lawn. C) Torn the wing off, since any sort of impact with the ground at 500+ mph would have done so.
There was NO gash, NO explosion on the lawn, and the aircraft sailed LEVEL into the Pentagon, where it reportedly penetrated several rings AT GROUND LEVEL.
BTW, did you know that as large aircraft such as commercial airliners approach the ground at high speed, they have a tendency to CLIMB? When a plane ACCELERATES while approaching the ground, it can not help but climb UNLESS the nose is pointed down, which it wasn't otherwise it would have hit at a downward angle and left a crater in the ground at the Pentagon wall and would NOT have penetrated into it.
That's besides the fact the "pilot" couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna, never mind a large multi-engine jet aircraft.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
The Penta-Lawn 2000. It's skid proof! It's fire proof! It even repels plane debris!
Get real, you know the Pentagon has security cameras all over the place and they could, if they so desired, have released some pictures that actually showed something that looked like a plane hitting the building (assuming that one did). But they chose not to. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi
The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein
The author concludes that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a missile because of how missiles detonate. Apparently he believes that the perpetrators would have used an ordinary off the shelf missile for this task. Gee, didn't he consider the possibility that a specially designed missile would have been used to make it look like it WASN'T a missile?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
The author concludes that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a missile because of how missiles detonate. Apparently he believes that the perpetrators would have used an ordinary off the shelf missile for this task. Gee, didn't he consider the possibility that a specially designed missile would have been used to make it look like it WASN'T a missile?
The author concludes that the Pentagon could not have been hit by a missile because of how missiles detonate. Apparently he believes that the perpetrators would have used an ordinary off the shelf missile for this task. Gee, didn't he consider the possibility that a specially designed missile would have been used to make it look like it WASN'T a missile?
At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.
However, 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.
But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.
Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious.
A Trainee Noted for Incompetence May 4, 2002 Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot's license was genuine.
* Possible resident of Fort Lee, NJ; Wayne, NJ; San Diego, NJ * Alias: Nawaf Al-Hazmi; Nawaf Al Hazmi; Nawaf M.S. Al Hazmi
4) Salem Alhazmi - Possible Saudi national
* Possible resident of Fort Lee, NJ; Wayne, NJ
5) Hani Hanjour -
* Possible resident of Phoenix, AZ, and San Diego, CA * Alias: Hani Saleh Hanjour; Hani Saleh; Hani Hanjour, Hani Saleh H. Hanjour
Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers - including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? As none of the 19 hijackers names appear on any of the four passenger/crew flight lists, how do the FBI know who they are? Curiously, the FBI lists no dates of birth for any of the Flight 77 hijackers. A name without a birthdate is of dubious probative value. a In fact, at least 2 of the Flight77 "hijackers" are alive: Almihdhar,Khalid and Alhamzi,Salem
The pilot, or whatever was flying the plane that hit the Pentagon, had to perform a difficult manoeuvre to bring his plane around 270 degrees, and effectively land it right at the point where the Pentagon building meets the ground, and apparently did it so well that he hit the building at exactly ground level. Yet the supposed pilot of Flight77, Hanjour,Hani couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna.
& the purported pilot hani honjour was not even competent to fly a 2 seater much less a 757. That is a major flaw in the govt's pentagon story.
"...and this is the part which is confounding me ... how do you as the terrorist have the level of sophistication to take over the controls of a sophisticated airliner jet plane to be able to fly accurately into targets like hitting dead center into the Pentagon which is a low building?"
The pilot, or whatever was flying the plane that hit the Pentagon, had to perform a difficult manoeuvre to bring his plane around 270 degrees, and effectively land it right at the point where the Pentagon building meets the ground, and apparently did it so well that he hit the building at exactly ground level. Yet the supposed pilot of Flight77, Hanjour,Hani couldn't even fly a single engine Cessna.
That would be impossible to do while accelerating, which is what the aircraft reportedly did, WHILE ALREADY travelling in excess of 500 mph. It would have violated several laws of physics, ie., it did NOT happen, and is IMPOSSIBLE.
Not even a highly trained and experienced pilot could pull it off, never mind an incompetent monkey.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#17. To: Lod, TwentyTwelve, Artisan, Shoonra (#16)
Not even a remote controlled 757 could behave like the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. It would have to be scaled down, in fact, I've seen images of a cruise missile painted as an American Airlines aircraft.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
STANFORD -- Using a 12-foot model, doctoral student Paul Montgomery has shown that an aircraft can take off, fly a specified course and land automatically without relying on hundreds of thousands of dollars of sophisticated equipment.
Before a flight, Montgomery programs into a laptop computer the path that he wants the aircraft to follow. This information then is downloaded into the airplane's onboard computer. After placing the plane on the runway and starting the engine, he pushes a single button, the aircraft takes off, flies the preprogrammed course and then lands all by itself.
Averaged over a kilometer course, the deviation in the aircraft's position from the programmed course was typically less than 0.5 meter horizontally, 0.25 meter vertically and 0.25 meters per second in air speed, Montgomery reported.
#20. To: FormerLurker, Lod, Artisan, Shoonra (#17)
Not even a remote controlled 757 could behave like the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. It would have to be scaled down, in fact, I've seen images of a cruise missile painted as an American Airlines aircraft.
Flight 77 is said to have crashed in the Pentagon Attack, but we know that it did not:
*There's insufficient Pentagon Attack Debris for it to be the scene of an airliner crash.
*The first photos of the Pentagon Attack Fire show it's too hot to be a kerosene fire.
* The Pentagon Attack Damage to the interior is too deep and too collimated to be from the liquid fuel of an airliner. Only a Shaped Charge warhead can cut a circular hole in a wall after going through 3-4 m. of steel-reinforced poured concrete.
It is interesting to note that American Airlines never officially said it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon on September 11th:
*The FBI never released the voice or cockpit from the Flight 77 Black Boxes
*The NTSB never did an investigation of the crash as required by law.
*There are no surveillance videos from Dulles airport showing the "hijackers" even boarding the plane.
*The "pilot" Hanjour, Hani didn't even have a ticket
*There are no indications in the Flight 77 Tower Conversations of a hijacking.
#21. To: FormerLurker, Lod, Artisan, Shoonra (#17)
Not even a remote controlled 757 could behave like the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. It would have to be scaled down, in fact, I've seen images of a cruise missile painted as an American Airlines aircraft.
Jetliner Aerobatics by Flight School Dropout Who Never Flew a Jet
None of the hijackers were good pilots. None had ever flown jets, let alone large commercial jetliners.
Hani Hanjour, the person accused of flying Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was failing his courses at the Arizona flight school. According to an employee, "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course." 1 Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: "It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."
In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Though Hanjour had attended a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ, for four months in 1996 and 1997, he never completed the coursework for a single-engine aircraft license. 2
It is doubtful that the best trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon. It required making a tight 320-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!
References
1. A Trainee Noted for Incompetence, New York Times, 5/4/02, page 10[cached]
2. Tracing Trail Of Hijackers, NewsDay.com, 9/23/01 [cached]
#23. To: James Deffenbach, Shoonra, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, All (#4)
Get real, you know the Pentagon has security cameras all over the place and they could, if they so desired, have released some pictures that actually showed something that looked like a plane hitting the building (assuming that one did). But they chose not to. Things that make you go hmmmmmm.
Not to mention that on the afternoon of 911 the FBI already knew where all 32 sites with video surveillance cameras, around the Pentagram, were, and had collected them all. NONE of those 32 video surveillance recordings have EVER BEEN RELEASED. That is an interesting datum in and of itself.
That raises several questions.
1. How was the FBI able to determine where every camera that could have photographed the "plane" was within no more than about 4 to 5 hours?
2. Why was every video collected - without court order and essentially seized by force? (Of course if they had a court order that raises other questions regarding the timing since you have to add a significant amount of time for securing 32 court orders which have to be typed and signed. That, given that the videos were being seized by mid-afternoon reduces the 4 to 5 used to identify the location of all the videos, securing exact addresses, and stipulating the location of the cameras to minutes, or less.)
3. Why, after ten years, ALL of the videos still being held, without benefit of court order, as a matter of national security?
The only reason I can see for still holding the videos is that they DO NOT support the Official Conspiracy Theory®™. As well, given the timing, the FBI almost had to know where every camera was on the morning of 911 - likely before any impact of anything into the Pentagram.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
The only reason I can see for still holding the videos is that they DO NOT support the Official Conspiracy Theory®™. As well, given the timing, the FBI almost had to know where every camera was on the morning of 911 - likely before any impact of anything into the Pentagram.
Seems to be the only logical conclusion.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi
The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein
#25. To: TwentyTwelve, Artisan, FormerLurker, shoonra (#14)
& the purported pilot hani honjour was not even competent to fly a 2 seater much less a 757. That is a major flaw in the govt's pentagon story.
"...and this is the part which is confounding me ... how do you as the terrorist have the level of sophistication to take over the controls of a sophisticated airliner jet plane to be able to fly accurately into targets like hitting dead center into the Pentagon which is a low building?"
Not to mention that the plane, on its alleged approach path, came at the Pentagram from the opposite side of the wall that was demolished, did a 270 degree turn while doing a rapid descent from 7,000 feet, then leveled off at tree top height, dropping to a level flight with the engine cowlings inches off the ground, while having to use heavy flap control to hold the aircraft down, and then crash into the side of a 70 foot high wall, while doing no damage to the grass. Oh, and the pilot had NEVER flown a jet aircraft of any kind at any time and was described by his flight instructors as incompetent.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
#27. To: Original_Intent, James Deffenbach, Shoonra, FormerLurker (#23)
Some of the clearest proof that 9/11 was an act of United States Sponsored Terrorism comes from a close examination of the Pentagon Attack. In the above picture by Daryl Donley taken minutes after the attack at the Pentagon, the intense fireball is seen as coming from inside the building, and no wreckage of an airline crash is apparent.
The Pentagon Attack was not from a Boeing:
*There's insufficient Pentagon Attack Debris for it to be the scene of an airliner crash.
* The DoD Pentagon Attack Legend is that the entire plane and its contents was consumed by the fire, which would be the first time that has happened in aviation history, and would defy the laws of physics if the fire was caused by jet fuel.
* The plane that hit the Pentagon descended too fast and too sharply for it to be a Boeing 757 - the Dulles
Air Controllers, who cleared Flight 77 to take off, thought it was a fighter jet.
The Pentagon Plane Rotor debris does not match a Boeing 757.
The Pentagon was hit by an explosive warhead:
oThe first photos of the Pentagon Attack Fire show it's too hot to be a kerosene fire.
o The Pentagon Attack Damage to the interior is too deep and too collimated to be from the liquid fuel of an airliner. Only a shaped-charge warhead can cut a circular hole in a wall after going through 3 m. of poured concrete.
oThe light-grey smoke is indicative of a DU warhead strike, and not jet fuel.
The DoD and the FBI are engaged in a Ongoing Coverup
Photos taken after the Pentagon crash do not support the Government conspiracy theory that Flight 77, a Boeing 757 airliner, demolished a major portion of the masonry structure:
The only reason I can see for still holding the videos is that they DO NOT support the Official Conspiracy Theory®™. As well, given the timing, the FBI almost had to know where every camera was on the morning of 911 - likely before any impact of anything into the Pentagram.
Seems to be the only logical conclusion.
And that is before we get to any of the other conflicting datums such as:
1. The section supposedly hit had recently been rebuilt and hardened.
2. The section supposedly hit housed the audits unit that was attempting to figure out what happened to a little over TWO TRILLION DOLLARS that had "just disappeard".
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
#31. To: Original_Intent, TwentyTwelve, Artisan, shoonra (#25)
dropping to a level flight with the engine cowlings inches off the ground, while having to use heavy flap control to hold the aircraft down, and then crash into the side of a 70 foot high wall
Actually, flaps are used to increase lift allowing an aircraft to slow down sufficiently yet maintain a gradual descent for a safe landing, or while taking off in order to get off the ground at regular take off speed.
An aircraft flying at cruising speed (500 mph) would not benefit from flaps if it wanted to descend, applying flaps would just cause it to climb like a rocket at that speed, and in so doing would tear the flaps right off.
There are only two ways for an aircraft to descend, and that is to either point the nose down, or decrease speed dramatically (from 500 mph to approx 150 mph), yet THIS aircraft accelerated WHILE losing altitude, meaning it was DEFINITELY NOT a 757. It had to have been a cruise missle of some type.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
There are only two ways for an aircraft to descend, and that is to either point the nose down, or decrease speed dramatically (from 500 mph to approx 150 mph), yet THIS aircraft accelerated WHILE losing altitude, meaning it was DEFINITELY NOT a 757.
"attitude" is the thing, and "attitude", in aviation, means where the nose is pointed in relationship to the horizon.
if you point the nose down without dirtying up and reducing power, you accelerate.
if you reduce power and hold the nose up, you stall, spin, crash, burn and die.
aircraft are aircraft, they all obey the same laws of physics, whether they're cruise missiles or 757s, and all aircraft will accelerate while losing altitude if they dont dirty up and reduce power.
aircraft are aircraft, they all obey the same laws of physics, whether they're cruise missiles or 757s, and all aircraft will accelerate while losing altitude if they dont dirty up and reduce power.
But an aircraft will NOT descend unless the nose points down, OR when power is decreased, slowing the aircraft down thus reducing lift.
If the nose were pointed down, the aircraft would have struck at a downwards angle and either flipped over and crashed backwards into the Pentagon wall, or would have dug a crater into the ground and not have penetrated the wall. Perhaps a combination of both would have occured.
HOWEVER, that is NOT what happened, thus it was NOT a large winged jet aircraft that hit the Pentagon, ie. NOT Flight 77.
A MISSILE on the other hand does NOT rely on wings to achieve lift, it uses THRUST and the lift created by the fuselage itself to maintain altitude, descend, or climb. Short wing-like STABALIZERS or FINS can STEER the missile in the desired direction, but they do not provide lift as wings do on regular aircraft.
CRUISE MISSLES are a hybrid of both aircraft and missile, and depending on the design, can achieve the flight characteristics of both.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
all aircraft will accelerate while losing altitude if they dont dirty up and reduce power.
And just to stress the point, AIRCRAFT CAN NOT "LOSE ALTITUDE" if they are flying level and accelerating, the ATTITUDE (nose up or down) needs to be DOWN for it to descend UNLESS power is decreased, thus reducing lift.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:
I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.
I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).
The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.
If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.
This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.
We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)
EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete wallsÐa total of nine feet of reinforced concreteÐbefore exiting through this hole.
It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.
How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.
I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.
I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.
You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.
A MISSILE on the other hand does NOT rely on wings to achieve lift, it uses THRUST and the lift created by the fuselage itself to maintain altitude, descend, or climb. Short wing-like STABALIZERS or FINS can STEER the missile in the desired direction, but they do not provide lift as wings do on regular aircraft.
okay, i see your point.
my point is this... you say it could not have been a 757 because of ground effect.
there's lots of reasons, listed on this thread, that cast serious doubt on the official 757 conspiracy theory, but your ground effect argument is not one of them.
There is no debris on the lawn after the Pentagon Attack that is consistent with the crash of a 100 tonne airliner.
There is some debris from an aircraft, but nothing like what the crash of an airliner.
There are 8 foot tall cable spools for fiber optics that were just in front of the point of impact: they weren't even knocked over!
The debris is an eloquent witness to the Pentagon Attack, but not the crash of a Boeing 757.
* The original Pentagon press conferences said there was no significant sized debris from an airliner.
* There is insufficient debris on the lawn of the Pentagon for it to have been the crash of a Boeing 757.
*The upright cable spools are independent proof in their own right that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon on 9/11.
* The debris is inconsistent with the crash of a Boeing 757.
*The debris is consistent with the crash of a small jet aircraft, or possibly an unmanned AV if it were capable of launching a "bunker-buster" missile.
* At first glance, in the ruble photographed at the exit hole, there is no debris reminiscent of an airliner - just office debris.
* The sole piece of crash debris purporting to be from a Boeing 757 was probably planted as it comes from the wrong side of the plane.
*Some pieces of the wreckage was carried away by Air Force personnel.
Also worrying is that some of the photos of the debris removal work at the Pentagon long after the attack indicate that they are taking against contamination, perhaps because of the presence of Depleted Uranium.
BTW, an example of a cruise missile that does NOT "fly" like a standard aircraft is the Moskit SS-N-22 Sunburn missile. It can cruise at Mach 2.2 just 9 feet off the ground...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
a cruise missile that does NOT "fly" like a standard aircraft
yup.
it looks like it must have been a missile of some sort.
i think, given everything that's happened since, that would be a provisionally safe assumption... everything's falling into the PNAC pattern... everything.
my point is this... you say it could not have been a 757 because of ground effect.
there's lots of reasons, listed on this thread, that cast serious doubt on the official 757 conspiracy theory, but your ground effect argument is not one of them.
The Laws of Physics and Aerodynamics certainly DO pertain to whether or not a 757 hit the Pentagon. MY point it, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to have "flown" as it did just prior to impact.
Not only GROUND EFFECT (increased lift as an aircraft approaches the ground) came into play, but the simple fact is that an airplane will NOT descend UNLESS the nose was pointed down (which it wasn't), OR unless power and speed is reduced, decreasing lift (instead its engines were gunned causing it to accelerate).
Thus, Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.
Whether you find it relevant or not, is irrelevant.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie... Please see right margin for more testimony regarding Hani and his training.
is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to have "flown" as it did just prior to impact.
i'd bet that an experienced 757 pilot could hit the same exact spot on the pentagon, without scraping wingtips, engine cowlings, or anything else.
too bad the supposed pilots of that 757 couldnt even fly cessnas.
too bad that the tail, which was 50 or 60 feet above the ground, was sucked into that little hole without a trace.
it's useless arguing over, because i doubt if any 757 pilot is gonna demonstrate his skill by flying into a building.
i have to say, before i'd be willing to try it, that i'd need a few hours of practice --in type-- flying at extremely low altitudes... but i have no doubt that it could be done.
it's not as if there is no such thing as radar altimeters.
i'd bet that an experienced 757 pilot could hit the same exact spot on the pentagon, without scraping wingtips, engine cowlings, or anything else.
I'd bet that NO ONE could pull off the PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It wouldn't be impossible if speed were reduced and an actual almost landing was attempted, but that is not what happened, and the nose would not, COULD NOT, have been level for such an attempt.
How does an aircraft descend from treetop level (in a matter of a fraction of a second I might add) at 500+ mph while accelerating with the nose level?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Even the stunts in the movie "Airplane" were more believable.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
How does an aircraft descend from treetop level (in a matter of a fraction of a second I might add) at 500+ mph while accelerating with the nose level?
you point the son-of-bitch where you want to go, and it goes there... that's how it works.
you point the son-of-bitch where you want to go, and it goes there... that's how it works.
So there ya go. You POINT THE NOSE DOWN.
What part of the NOSE WAS LEVEL do you fail to understand?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
you're a proven idiot, you wont say how much flight time you have, and i think we're cluttering up what is an otherwise informative thread.
And as someone else pointed out the other day, I'm beginning to suspect that you're an asshole whose purpose here is to disrupt.
I'm relating KNOWN and PROVEN scientific principles, EASILY found by looking up any information on aerodynamics. You are trying to say the impossible is possibile, and that I'M the idiot for trying to tell you that what is impossible, is IMPOSSIBLE.
It doesn't matter how many minutes, days, or years I have in a cockpit of a jet, a rocket ship, or a f'ing go-cart.
Facts are facts, and apparently your purpose here is to dismiss the ONE set of facts which PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt Flight 77 did NOT, COULD NOT, have been what hit the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11/2001.
Again, you have even just now admitted that the ONLY way for a 757 to descend while accelerating at tree top level is to POINT THE NOSE DOWN. The NOSE WAS LEVEL when the aircraft impacted the Pentagon you dolt, otherwise it would not have penetrated as it did. In fact, I'd like to find ANY pilot who could descend from treetop level to an altitude where the engines were a mere three feet off the ground in a fraction of a second without digging a trench, no matter the speed. The fact that the aircraft was flying in excess of 500 mph makes it even that more ridiculous.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
you were a lot more fun to argue with when we were arguing about chemtrails... you had no evidence of a chemtrail project, while i had logic on my side... and the fact that even alex jones has backed off from his chemtrail promotion project must be a blow.
now you're caught... you cant admit to vast amounts of flight time without exposing yourself to inconvenient questions about chemtrail support apparatus at airports.
in this thread, i know what i'm talking about, and, seeing as how you're unwilling to say how much flight time you have, you apparently dont.
the fact remains: the official conspiracy theory is unbelievable, which renders your theories about aerodynamics irrelevant.
in this thread, i know what i'm talking about, and, seeing as how you're unwilling to say how much flight time you have, you apparently dont.
I will freely admit I have never flown a plane. That being said I don't know how any number of hours of flying time in any aircraft would make you able to do something which would appear impossible even for experienced pilots. And you have to keep in mind that, according to the official fairy tale, the guy who was supposedly flying this particular plane--the one they alleged hit the Pentagon--wasn't qualified to fly a Cessna.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi
The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein
you were a lot more fun to argue with when we were arguing about chemtrails...
I have never spoken with you concerning chemtrails.
You signed up on this forum on 8/16/2011, just a few weeks ago.
The only other topic I have spoken with you in the time you've been here is concerning religion.
So you ARE you really? It is obvious that you've singled me out on this particular thread because you can't refute the facts I present, so now you are engaging in character assassination to "prove your point".
Like I said, it does NOT matter if I'm a pilot or not, planes go UP if they accelerate UNLESS the nose is pointed down, or their wings fall off. I don't need to be Chuck Yeager to know that.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
I never said that. What I did say was that imo you couldn't reasonably believe that an inexperienced pilot, one who couldn't even rent a Cessna, could do tricks with a big commercial airliner that even skilled pilots with many hours of flight time said were impossible.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton
The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi
The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein
And you have to keep in mind that, according to the official fairy tale, the guy who was supposedly flying this particular plane--the one they alleged hit the Pentagon--wasn't qualified to fly a Cessna.
But then our "friend" Lead&Lag will eventually say it must have been someone other than Hanjour who flew the airplane.
And now he's trying to put words in your mouth saying that "any discussion of 757 aerodynamics is irrelevant".
We have us a shillster I do believe.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
you couldn't reasonably believe that an inexperienced pilot, one who couldn't even rent a Cessna, could do tricks with a big commercial airliner that even skilled pilots with many hours of flight time said were impossible.
i'm glad you agree with me.
and your position makes discussion of 757 aerodynamics irrelevant.
#67. To: lead.and.lag, TwentyTwelve, Original Intent, RickyJ, wudidiz, James Deffenbach, ALL, *9-11* (#65)
So L&L, have you been on this forum before, and if so, under which handle?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
i've left some clues... if you're too dense to put it together, deal with it.
in the meant;ime, we're fucking this thread up.
the official conspiracy theory is not credible, that's the main point... and maybe what's more to the point, the longer people think about it, the more people will see how haywire it is.
our job, here, is to present the facts, let people think, let them eventually get around to entertaining thoughts of what is, most likely, the truth...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
you point the son-of-bitch where you want to go, and it goes there... that's how it works.
how much flight time do you have?
Kids think that when you pull the trigger on a cap gun all the Injuns are supposed to fall down. Similarly, in kid-think, a pilot can do anything with a plane. He just points its nose where he wants it to go.
In this case the pilot, if he was indeed flying a 757, would have had a hell of a time controlling such a craft in these circumstances, not only because he was doing near acrobatic maneuvers but also because he was flying nearly 200 miles an hours faster than the aircraft was designed to do at sea level.
As I remember, I've seen heard it reliably cited on some of these threads that a 757 cannot even achieve 500 mph under its own power in any kind of controlled flight at that altitude.
Of course some folks believe aircraft can to well nigh anything. These folks have a lot of flight time themselves because they are bird brains.
Of course some folks believe aircraft can to well nigh anything. These folks have a lot of flight time themselves because they are bird brains.
LOL. Folks like that are worse than just ignorant of facts, they're convinced they KNOW things, and damn any evidence contrary to what they "know".
Just like the super duper "Magickal Jet Fuel" on 9/11 could cause the WTC towers to "fall" into themselves at near free fall speed, it HAS to be true because only KOOKS believe it's impossible.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Another relevant thing is, one shouldn't mix alcohol with flaming and shilling - particularly when you are trying to maintain a certain identity. It takes concentration to stay in character.
the biggest problem, here, is that it's irrelevant.
Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
If it were IMPOSSIBLE for something to occur, and facts are laid out describing WHY it's impossible, it more than certainly IS relevant to a discussion of why something didn't happen the way it was reported.
the second biggest problem is, nobody seems to know what they're talking about.
Well in YOUR mind perhaps, but if you are seriously interested in this subject, you should do a bit of research on the matter. Here, let me help...
At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.
In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)
And as far as trying to descend while ACCELERATING, ANY person knowledgeable about aircraft knows that an airplane can only descend WHILE ACCELERATING by pointing the nose down. This obviously did not happen since the aircraft flew into the Pentagon with its nose level, besides the sheer impossibility of flying so close to the ground at 500 mph in the first place.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
Another relevant thing is, one shouldn't mix alcohol with flaming and shilling -
well, i have a problem with being accused of flaming and shilling.
first of all, i flame people who believe in chemtrails, because they have no proof of the existence of chemtrails, or chemtrail support apparatus, or chemtrail workers... and even our lord prophet, the almighty alex jones, seems to have abandoned his chemtrail project.
if i'm shilling, i have no idea who i'm shilling for, other than what seems, to me, to be the truth... and i got to admit, my version of the truth doesnt seem to pay so well.
meanwhile, we've successfully derailed the thread from a discussion of a bullshit offical conspiracy theory to a discussiom of me.
And as far as trying to descend while ACCELERATING, ANY person knowledgeable about aircraft knows that an airplane can only descend WHILE ACCELERATING by pointing the nose down. This obviously did not happen since the aircraft flew into the Pentagon with its nose level, besides the sheer impossibility of flying so close to the ground at 500 mph in the first place.
Makes good sense.
BTW: shills and flamers and disruptors often do us a service in that they force posters on one side of an issue to dig for facts, credible opinion, and documented support for arguments and contentions that they might not otherwise have felt constrained to unearth and present.
first of all, i flame people who believe in chemtrails
You're the one that brought the subject up bud, and are using that as an excuse to ridicule what I have to say, even though I never spoke with YOU on the topic.
But if you wish to drag the conversation towards that topic, let's just say that there's ample evidence that chemtrails DO in fact exist.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
i think it's good thing if you steer the thread off onto a completely irrelevant direction.
the more iganorance, the more confusion, the more likely that people who know what they want will get what they want.
i got to say that you're the idiot sho supposedly believes in chemtrails, so you're an outcast from the getgo.
the thing that is so pathetic is ron paul, who is so desperate for media outlets that he panders to the chemtrail/abiotoic oil guru, alex jones.
although appaently, in a bid for respectability, alex jones has abanodoned chemtrails and abiotic oil, much to the consternation of his braindead worshippers.
Dozens of people saw the plane hit. Of course, all are lying, right?
They saw SOMETHING hit, MAYBE, but then again, there are TWO sets of witnesses. One group saw what appeared to be an airliner approach from a northwest direction, and another group saw something approach from a southwest direction.
It's QUITE possible that an airliner DID approach from the northwest, BUT, it flew over the Pentagon at precisely the same time as a missile impacted from the southwest.
That, and there are some serious questions about some of the "eyewitness reports", where some stated they saw the wingtips "scrape the lawn" and such yet not only would the aircraft had tumbled and disintegrated on the lawn if that had happened, there were NO scrapes or gouges in the lawn after the impact.
What happened, did the lawn magically repair itself?
So anyways, where are all those videos Turtle? Why are they still being withheld from the public? You SHOULD know that if ANY of those videos showed a plane hitting the Pentagon, they would have been playing it 24/7 for weeks or months after the tragedy, just like they did with the WTC videos.
What it comes down to is that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to have flown into the ground floor of the Pentagon at over 500 mph. That is beyond debate, as the Laws of Physics do not bend just because you want to believe the government.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
i think it's good thing if you steer the thread off onto a completely irrelevant direction.
That's it, do the deed then blame your victim. You are a piece of work, whoever you are.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
I don't know if anything actually hit it. It could have been just a some bombs that went off to make it look like something hit it. That would have been the easiest and surest way of doing it. There was a plane in the vicinity reported by multiple witnesses, but I think it was there only so people would confuse it with the explosion thinking it was the cause of it.
BTW: shills and flamers and disruptors often do us a service in that they force posters on one side of an issue to dig for facts, credible opinion, and documented support for arguments and contentions that they might not otherwise have felt constrained to unearth and present.
Yep. BeAChooser forced me to do a LOT of research into the events of 9/11, where much of what I found out I found by being instigated into doing so.
Just like shills over at FreeRepublic forced me to look into the OKC bombing more skeptically, and the TWA 800 tragedy as well. There was voluminious amounts of evidence that the "approved" story was pure BS, and indications are that in each case, the US goverment not only covered up the truth, but were actually behind the events themselves.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
the most pathetic thing is ron paul, who is so desperate for media outlets that he panders to the chemtrail/abiotoic oil guru, alex jones.
although apparently, in a bid for respectability, alex jones has abandoned chemtrails and abiotic oil, much to the consternation of his braindead worshippers.
It is YOU who is irrelevant here. You have nothing to add really, you're just trying to tear me down so that it becomes less obvious to casual readers that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a 757 to perform as the aircraft did which impacted the Pentagon, no matter WHO was flying it.
And if you are who I think you are, you have a bit of nerve to say MY record here is "not so pretty good".
So what are you, an Internet stalker who likes to hound certain individuals he selects at random, or is it more personal than that?
C'mon brave man, tell us your last handle here on this forum.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
the most pathetic thing is ron paul, who is so desperate for media outlets that he panders to the chemtrail/abiotoic oil guru, alex jones.
Ah, so you're a Sarah Palin fan, or is it now Rick Perry?
Maybe you're a closet Obama worshipper, eh?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
you dont know if it's impossible for a 757 to hit the pentagon, because nobody's ever tried it.
you have a record of being an idiot.
what are we supposed to think? ...that you've, all of a sudden grown a brain?
is your supposed expertise in 757 aeorodynaics supposed to give you some boost in status, even though 757 aerodynamics are compeletely irrelevant when it comes to the pentagon, seeing as how it was most likely a missile that hit the pentagon?
i'd bet that an experienced 757 pilot could hit the same exact spot on the pentagon, without scraping wingtips, engine cowlings, or anything else.
They might possibly be able to hit the same spot, but not at the same angle and not with the same relatively small hole being left in the Pentagon afterwords.
I don't know if anything actually hit it. It could have been just a some bombs that went off to make it look like something hit it. That would have been the easiest and surest way of doing it.
You have to look at how the missile penetrated the various rings, much like how a shaped charge would cause with the energy of a missile behind it.
The Pentagon also had to have SOME sort of exterior damage for the public to swallow the lie, and if it had been a simple explosion there would have been enough telltale signs indicating that is what it was. Remember, even the US military was expected to believe the story, and they are quite familiar with explosives.
After the WTC impacts, and with the confusion of the day, a missile painted like an AA airliner may very well have been seen as an actual airliner in the fog of the moment.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
They might possibly be able to hit the same spot, but not at the same angle and not with the same relatively small hole being left in the Pentagon afterwords.
We don't know a lot of damned things because our government and its agents are keeping forensic and physical evidence locked away out of sight and out of reach of independent investigators.
WHEN THE OFFICIALDOM MAKES ALL THE VIDEO TAPES AND THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF WHATEVER CRASHED IN TO PENTAGON AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION WE WILL ALL STFU.
you dont know if it's impossible for a 757 to hit the pentagon, because nobody's ever tried it.
So since I've never tried to fly by jumping off a tall building and flapping my arms, I don't KNOW if I'll crash into the ground or not, eh? Maybe YOU don't know what would happen, but I'd take a wild guess and say MOST people would.
you have a record of being an idiot.
Based on what asshole? Your word? You've been here for two weeks and you think you know people's "record" here? Screw off.
what are we supposed to think? ...that you've, all of a sudden grown a brain?
Well if you're buckeroo, we all know that you never had one to begin with. If you're not, you're probably his inbred cousin or something.
is your supposed expertise in 757 aeorodynaics supposed to give you some boost in status, even though 757 aerodynamics are compeletely irrelevant when it comes to the pentagon, seeing as how it was most likely a missile that hit the pentagon?
How can you say it was a missile when you still cling to the idea it is POSSIBLE for a 757 to have flown into the building and done the damage that was observed? I don't claim any special expertise on any specific aircraft, I simply repeat KNOWN SCIENTIFIC FACTS which eliminate pretty much ANY large airliner as the aircraft which flew into the Pentagon. That said, it proves that Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon that day, so the government is LYING, and many people have died as a result of that lie.
You are not here to discuss, you are here to stifle and disrupt, that much is obvious. That you CLAIM to be interested in the matter yet ridicule the messenger carrying the message of what did NOT occur that day, indicates you are part of problem.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
How can you say it was a missile when you still cling to the idea it is POSSIBLE for a 757 to have flown into the building
i can say it's possible because it's probably possible...although nobody but the government says it's been done.
in the meantime, it's perfectly obvious that you're beating a dead horse, because the government conspiracy theory is so out of whack that your theory is rrrelevant.
i can say it's possible because it's probably possible...although nobody but the government says it's been done.
No, it is not probable, it is HIGHLY improbable. Scientifically, it is impossible.
Show me a large airliner fly less than say 40 feet off the ground at 500 mph, then I might consider it possible. Till then, with science as my guide, I say it's not only highly improbable, it is impossible.
That's besides the fact the supposed pilot MOST LIKELY couldn't even fly into the Pentagon with a Cessna, never mind a 757.
in the meantime, it's perfectly obvious that you're beating a dead horse, and the official conspiracy theory is so out of whack that your theory is rrrelevant.
I began by simply defending my analysis, and ended up having to defend my SELF against YOU.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
According to April Gallop she saw no plane or missile but she did smell cordite and knew the smell of it from her training in the military.
I'm pretty sure they had some "insurance" that things went well for them, at minimum destroying the investigative records concerning that missing 2 trillion dollars. That they pulled the show off without a hitch was just an added benny for them.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
I'm out of here for now. I think we all agree 19 Arabs didn't do 9/11 and that it was a false flag to benefit Israel. I am not going to be quiet about this with those that still think it was 19 Muslims that attacked us anymore. I am through suffering quietly around idiots.
you dont know if it's impossible for a 757 to hit the pentagon, because nobody's ever tried it.
http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623
Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job Posted on: 7/17/2005 7:54:00 AM - Columnist By Greg Szymanski
There was no fooling former Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg the morning of 9/11. He knew it was an inside job from the get-go, knowing the ‘big boys’ were up to the same dirty tricks they played in the Kennedy assassination and Pearl Harbor.
The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn’t one of them.
Now, almost four years later, Wittenberg is still shaking his head in disbelief more than ever, saying the country he loved and fought so bravely 40 years ago has fallen in the deep, dark and sinister hands of fascist leaders who are quickly turning America into a military state.
Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.
Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.
yeah, well...
it's hard to say what wittenberg would have been capable of had he had a few hours of training in extreme low level flying with his autopilot coupled to GPS and a radar altimeter.
the fact remains: there's too many holes in th eofficial story.
Who was Killed in the 9/11/01 Attack on the Pentagon
Whereas victims of the World Trade Center attack were identified by civilian authorities, victims of the attack on the Pentagon (like those of the crash of Flight 93) were identified by military authorities. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology issued a report in November of 2001 claiming to have identified 184 of 189 persons killed in the Pentagon attack. 1
Since there were five alleged hijackers of Flight 77, whom authorities did not identify since they lacked DNA samples from the families, that 184 identifications accounts for the 125 people killed inside the Pentagon, and the 54 people other than the hijackers on board the aricraft.
The following map of the locations of victims in the attack was released as part of prosecution exhibits in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. 2
An office of the Army that had just re-occupied the Pentagon's recently renovated Wedge One, named Resource Services Washington, lost 34 of its 45 employees. Most were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. 3 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had announced on the eve of the attack that more than $2 trillion was missing from the Pentagon.
you dont know that, i dont know that, nobody knows that, as far as i know, because nobody's tried it.
But aeronautical engineers DO know that and have reported on it. And that's besides the simple fact that planes climb when they accelerate, UNLESS the nose is pointed down.
IF the nose had been pointed down, traveling at 500 mph at tree top level, with approximately 500 feet between the initiation of descent and the time of impact, isn't it obvious to you that the plane would have hit the ground nose first and NOT have flown through the wall? Pulling the nose up too soon and it would have hit towards the roof; pulling it up too late and it would have crashed into the lawn. But even if the nose were pulled up at the exact right time, to get down to the altitude it HAD to have been at for it to enter the Pentagon as it did would cause it to bounce its engines off the ground due to the inertia of the descent, and the plane would have exploded on the lawn.
That's IF it could even get that low due to ground effect. A DIVE would overcome the ground effect of course, but a dive would have resulted in an impact from above, and this impact was level AND just several feet off the ground (considering the vertical height of the plane with its engines).
I'm still sticking with the fact it WOULD have been impossible for even the best pilot in the world to have pulled it off as claimed, never mind some idiot who really couldn't fly at all.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
it's hard to say what wittenberg would have been capable of had he had a few hours of training in extreme low level flying with his autopilot coupled to GPS and a radar altimeter.
Autopilot would not allow such a manuever, and besides that, according to the NTSB, it had been turned off WELL before the plane got to DC.
Autopilot holds a plane on course and at the proper altitude while cruising, it does not allow for the Flight Management Computer to be set to crash the plane into an object on the ground.
Besides, Hanjour didn't have the necessary skill or training to work the Flight Management Computer on a 757 to begin with.
So it is STILL impossible for it to have happened that way.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
i'd bet that an experienced 757 pilot could hit the same exact spot on the pentagon, without scraping wingtips, engine cowlings, or anything else.
Check out Pilots for 911 Truth and you will find that there are some very senior pilots questioning whether that it is possible at all for a 757 to do it once.
Interesting discussion on the Pilots for 911 Truth Forum here.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Shoonra: The wings of the jet lopped off the tops of some street lamps as it approached the Pentagon
Jump to Original_Intent's post at #112: Interesting discussion on the Pilots for 911 Truth Forum here.
Interesting comment there on Page 1:
If these wings were to hit light poles I don't think it would have done them the world of good at all. In fact it would have converted the aircraft 'more into a shorter winged projectile' for the last part of it's journey, before smacking into things in front of the wall.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
If these wings were to hit light poles I don't think it would have done them the world of good at all.
In fact it would have converted the aircraft 'more into a shorter winged projectile' for the last part of it's journey...
speaking as a helicopter pilot who's mowed down acres of trees, through ineptitude, overenthusiasm, or necessity, i think the "pilot" who made that comment needs to look into the construction of airliner wings vs light poles.
you try not to hit trees, and you never hit big trees or big branches...
it's embarrassing to come taxiing back on the flight line, and the damaged tip caps are making that unmistakeable "whoosh, whoosh, whoosh" sound... everybody piles out of the line shack to see who's made a fool of himself.
on the other hand, when you're training, sometimes it's better to keep your hands off the controls, hoping that the student pilot has judgement enough to pull it off...
when he doesnt, that's the breaks, but he learns a couple things: first, maybe his judgement isnt as good as he thought it was, and second, he cant rely on somebody else to bail him out.
i figured that the learning experience for the students was worth the ridicule.
on yet another hand, that philosophy may have backfired, because a disproportionate amount of my students seem to have bought the farm in vietnam.
speaking as a helicopter pilot who's mowed down acres of trees, through ineptitude, overenthusiasm, or necessity, i think the "pilot" who made that comment needs to look into the construction of airliner wings vs light poles.
And the helos were undamaged and as flight-stable as before? You can probably agree that fixed wing aircraft and helo rotor blades act differently. We're not talking about the jet wings shearing off tree branches or trunks with some flex to them. We're talking about the wing's metal impacting immobile metal objects at very high speed. Suppose your helo blades had jammed and they hit lamp posts as the aircraft was moving forward, even at a much lower speed. Might the blades have broken off or been mangled so as to make continued flight erratic or improbable?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
you got to screw up really bad to damage the aerodynamic properties of a rotor blade... the saving grace being, unless the trees are horrendously tall, you're close enough to the ground to survive the crash.
wings and rotor blades have to survive wind forces approaching or exceeding the speed of sound... light poles dont.
i dont know how much rotor blade you'd have to lose to put the rotor system so far out of balance that the lelicopter would shake itself to pieces, but, after observing the mechanics' efforts to balance and track rotor systems, i'd guess it would be a matter of inches, maybe less.
Do you think the wings of a plane could fly through a lamp post cemented in the ground and the aircraft not crash right there or go careening wildly off its flight path?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
light poles are designed to snap off on impact... the cement on the ground has nothing to do with it.
it's a matter of design... wings are designed to withstand 600 mph winds, light poles arent... they're designed to snap off when hit by a drunk on a bicycle.
light poles are designed to snap off on impact... the cement on the ground has nothing to do with it.
it's a matter of design... wings are designed to withstand 600 mph winds, light poles arent... they're designed to snap off when hit by a drunk on a bicycle.
I'm not talking about wind speed or the effect on the light poles. Compare the alleged plane impacts to your analogy of a drunk on a bicycle if you want to. How many light poles do you think the drunk could fell with their bicycle and still keep traveling on their course as if they hadn't done any such thing even once?
Edited to reword second sentence.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
if the wing was designed to withstand 600 mph winds, and the light pole was designed to snap, and the airplane weighs maybe 250,000 pounds, i'd guess that the airplane wouldnt much notice that it hit a light pole.
RegularGuy: Amazing how the smaller Gulfstream plane just chopped the top of the lightpole off, where the Pentagon flying object knocked the entire pole off its mounting, without being deformed at all.
Observer: the lights at the pentagon aren't just any ordinary lights...they are pentalights.
The former president, his spokesman Tom Freschette and a secret service agent were scheduled to travel to Ecuador for a business conference. They did not board the plane and their trip has been canceled, Freschette said.
[Jack Williams, a district chief with the Houston Fire Department] said the twin-engine Gulfstream jet, arriving from Dallas Love Field, apparently clipped a tall light tower at a Beltway 8 toll plaza, shearing off a wing. He said the severed wing rests near the base of the tower.
The district fire chief said firefighters found a trail of debris stretching about 1,000 feet from the light tower into a field north of the toll road.
No drivers on the tollway were injured, but one car was hit with wing debris while another was hit with jet fuel, according to Williams.
"There was a bright flash of light. Debris started raining down all over the road, hitting the car and the windshield," John Kaufmann said.
Workers at the toll plaza told officials they saw the plane clip the light pole and burst into flames.
Edited to shorten number of excerpts.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I thought the two comments there on the article were interesting. Let's Roll Forum didn't write the article. Don't you have a comment about that subject? For someone who claims that the government conspiracy theory is out of whack, you sure do seem to be arguing to the contrary.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
once the messengers have proven themselves to be servants of the powers-that- be, you're justified in shooting the messengers.
I could have posted the same article without referencing that controversial site and the comments there to avoid static but that would have been stealthy. Now, Ready- Aim-Fire at the article, if you feel like it. Ready-Fire-Aim at a secondary link source for it is ungood.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You're stalling and bombastically so -- like you're incensed. Why? Are you one of "Rivero's Rangers" over at whatreallyhappened.com who are instructed not to question the guv-issued line about the Pentagon on 9/11 or what?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Are you a global warmist? I was watching a modern day documentary recently about an Italian blimp that crashed at the North Pole back in the 1930's - the Italia. It showed footage of the watery conditions of the season even in that region, which impaired rescue attempts.
Edited for emphasis on the season.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
