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.
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.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" 
