Airplane Crashes Leave Wreckage and Witnesses

[Theobald]

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, the 6'2" Vietnam Veteran looked up, directly into the right engine of a 757 commercial airliner cresting the hilltop Navy Annex. It reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine. "Had I not hit the deck, the plane would have taken off my head."

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.' "

"I did see airplane seats and a corpse still strapped to one of the seats."
–Capt. Jim Ingledue, Virginia Beach Fire Dept.

Of course what do 104 witnessess mean when you have the wild eye speculation of people who weren't there and can't pick out airplane wreckage in pictures and see small holes where big ones exist.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. you would lose more than your head

an aircraft that size would blow you away (literally) if it comes that close! He would have noticed the noise.

One would have to duck for a missile?

[Theobald]

32. Really, this is what you come up with?

Would it blow away a man who was lying on the ground? He not only noticed the noise but he saw the airplane and was afraid that the engine was going to hit him so he hit the deck.

Yes, if I missle was heading for you it would be prudent to duck. Of course your question is spurious since no one actual saw a missle but over 100 people saw a plane. Why do you think that is? Do you think the government had the missle cloaked with a hologram of a plane?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. have you worked at an airport?

there were no holograms.

[Theobald]

51. I'll answer yours if you answer mine

No I have never worked at an airport. The closest I have been to a landing plane is 100 feet at Gravelly Point Park in VA.

You said an airline would blow you away if it got that close; would it blow away a prone man?

You asked 'one would have to duck for a missle?' Does that mean you believe there was a missle?

Why do you think none of the eyewitnesses saw a missle, but over 100 people saw a plane?

[Old and In the Way]

53. If the plane is traveling 500 MPH, that's 733 ft/sec.

The guy has damn quick reactions. And just what would any eyewitness really see in 1, possibly 2 seconds of conscious focus on the event? 100 people might have seen something, but given the wide and conflicting descriptions, I can't put much credence in this aspect of the story.

Tapes that were confiscated from the hotel and gas station would probably show us. When will those tapes get released? We've seen the 175 tape played over and over they released that crappy security camera tape....why can't the public see these tapes? I'm betting that they've gone missing.

[Theobald]

62. How long does it take for you to hit the deck?

I can go from standing to prone in less than a second and I'm sure he could to. It takes less than half a second for a major league fastball to reach the plate and yet batters can somehow react quickly enough to hit the ball with the bat and can react quickly enough to hit the deck and avoid getting beaned by that fastball in the same half second.

Single eyewitness testimony is hardly proof of anything, but when you have all of the witnessess to the event, and there were over 100, say that a plane struck the Pentagon, the evidence is hardly circumstantial. 100 people didn't just see something, they saw a plane. Are all the witnessess part of the conspiracy, just some of them, or were they brainwashed?

[Old and In the Way]

63. Lets say you begin the process of acquiring and recognizing the

plane when it's 2100 feet away...about 7 football fields. The brain takes, say, .5 seconds to think "it's a plane". Now your brain starts to evaluate the location and direction and concludes..."gee, it's coming right towards me"....say that takes another second. Now you realize you are in mortal danger....for a moment you freeze, maybe .5 seconds; I'm guessing the average person would be longer. You now have 1 or less seconds to react to the plane which is traveling 733'/second.

As far as I know, there's no major league pitcher throwing 500 MPH heaters. How long do you think that would take to travel 60'-6" at that speed? .0825 seconds. Do you think the batter would even see the ball?

Seriously, someone ducking his head so that the 757 doesn't hit him? Think any of that turbulence might have injured him? I guess if he's got lightening quick reflexes, he's not going to have problems with a little disturbed air.

What I find fascinating with the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon is that they'd have had to have been specifically watching for that plane. What are most of these people doing at this time? Listening and talking about the plane crashes at the WTC. 77 supposedly comes in at an angle that's low enough to hit lightpoles, so it has to have been an extremely shallow approach to do that - in order not to hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon. Most of these eyewitnesses probably don't see anything until it crosses the freeway....so they get maybe 1 second to "see" whatever it is they saw. Hardly enough time to analyze the object with any degree of certainty.

[Theobald]

64. Planes, trains, and automobiles

You queried "And just what would any eyewitness really see in 1, possibly 2 seconds of conscious focus on the event?" and I answered with the baseball analogy where it takes a batter .5 seconds to recognize and act on a pitch that is thrown to him at 95 miles per hour; so one can see a lot in 1 to 2 seconds.

Posted by OIW "What I find fascinating with the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon is that they'd have had to have been specifically watching for that plane." Bullshit! There were people working right outside the Pentagon where the plane hit, why would they have to be watching for a plane to see it? There were people in cars on the highway (right in front of the pentagon) why would they have to be watching for the plane to see it? There were people in the condos who saw the plane out their window, why would they have to be watching to see it? There were people walking in to work, why would they have to be looking specifically for the plane to see it? If something occurs in less than a second do you fail to see it? Did it not happen in your world because it happened so quickly?

Posted by OIW "Hardly enough time to analyze the object with any degree of certainty." This is a very good point. Because the occurance happened in such a short span of time, there is only so much information that can be processed. However, I can't see how someone could mix up a jumbo jet with a missle even in that short a time span.

Of course that doesn't even go into the people who saw the plane for more than a second.
http://history.amedd.army.mil/memoirs/soldiers/responding.pdf
"I left my vehicle and started running towards the building, essentially perpendicular to the building, running not my fastest run, but a good clip towards the building. I was just about to make my turn up the sidewalk towards one of the entrances when I heard jet engines. It was not the normal jet track into National Airport, which is very, very different. I turned my head about maybe 90 degrees towards the sound of the engines, which were very loud. I fully expected to see A-10s or F-15s or something, and I saw the American Airlines airplane coming down. I watched the entire terminal descent into the building. It’s probably the loudest noise I ever heard in my life. I have heard artillery very close. I have heard rock concerts, but nothing came close to that noise. I watched the entire airplane go into the building. I was personally shook by whatever percussion, and not hit, and the fireball from my angle wasn’t as dramatic as I have subsequently seen on the file tape."

[Old and In the Way]

123. Gimme a break.

Throwing a pitch at 95 MPH is nothing like an aircraft allegedly coming at you at 500+ MPH. Your analogy is totally ridiculous. Anyone "seeing" an airplane coming at them at that speed has no time to duck...and they'd be dead if the plane passed them 2 feet overhead. It's too stupid to even argue.

[hack89]

65. Have you been to an air show?

I have watched fighter aircraft flash by at 700 knots and was able to see lots of details in a quick glimpse. I was certainly able to tell what kind of aircraft it was. I was certainly able to read the letters on the side.

What do you think hit the Pentagon?

[Old and In the Way]

122. When you are at an airshow, you are watching airplanes.

People in the vicinity of the Pentagon were not looking for airplanes at that time. Two totally different situations.

[seemslikeadream]

2. and a passport

and live 9/11 highjackers

[Bolo Boffin]

3. None of the 9/11 hijackers are alive.

Produce them if they are. Stop spreading factual inaccuracies.

[seemslikeadream]

4. alive and well.

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world

[Bolo Boffin]

8. The person in your picture is dead.

Try again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=236218&mesg_id=236524

[seemslikeadream]

5. "I'm still alive, as you can see.

Ahmed Al-Nami (Flight 93)

"I'm still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked." He had never lost his passport and found it "very worrying" that his identity appeared to have been "stolen" and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI had said his "possible residence" was Delray Beach in Florida." - Telegraph 23rd September 2001

[Bolo Boffin]

9. The Ahmed Al-Nami who helped hijack Flight 93 is dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_al-Nami

Try again.

[seemslikeadream]

7. passport

Satam Al Suqami’s remarkably undamaged passport, marked and wrapped in plastic. It was shown as evidence in the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial.


http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=penttbom

[Bolo Boffin]

10. "remarkably undamaged" - you intend that to describe the passport in your picture?

:rofl:

[seemslikeadream]

14. Three building totally destroyed

and yet a readable passport found in all that rubble, sure, whatever. Keep up your delusions, they are so becoming of you.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Passport found before any of the buildings collapsed.

Be careful of introducing the word "delusions" to this discussion.

[seemslikeadream]

22. Passport found before any of the buildings collapsed?.... if so...

that was even more CONVIENENT wasn't it?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. My goodness, those goalposts sure seem heavy. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

36. cousin of the 911 hijackers whose passport didn't burn is a top Israeli spy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/middleeast/19lebanon.html?_r=2

Israeli Spy? The Lebanese in shock over Jarrah's arrest
Published: Thursday, 19 February, 2009 @ 7:09 AM in Beirut
By Robert F. Worth

Maraj - For 25 years, Ali al-Jarrah managed to live on both sides of the bitterest divide running through this region. To friends and neighbors, he was an earnest supporter of the Palestinian cause, an affable, white-haired family man who worked as an administrator at a nearby school.



To Israel, he appears to have been a valued spy, sending reports and taking clandestine photographs of Palestinian groups and Hezbollah since 1983.

Now he sits in a Lebanese prison cell, accused by the authorities of betraying his country to an enemy state. Months after his arrest, his friends and former colleagues are still in shock over the extent of his deceptions: the carefully disguised trips abroad, the unexplained cash, the secret second wife.

Lebanese investigators say he has confessed to a career of espionage spectacular in its scope and longevity, a real-life John le Carré novel. Many intelligence agents are said to operate in the civil chaos of Lebanon, but Mr. Jarrah’s arrest has shed a rare light onto a world of spying and subversion that usually persists in secret.

Mr. Jarrah’s first wife maintains that he was tortured, and is innocent; requests to interview him were denied.

From his home in this Bekaa Valley village, Mr. Jarrah, 50, traveled often to Syria and to south Lebanon, where he photographed roads and convoys that might have been used to transport weapons to Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group, investigators say. He spoke with his handlers by satellite phone, receiving “dead drops” of money, cameras and listening devices. Occasionally, on the pretext of a business trip, he traveled to Belgium and Italy, received an Israeli passport, and flew to Israel, where he was debriefed at length, investigators say.

At the start of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli officials called Mr. Jarrah to reassure him that his village would be spared and that he should stay at home, investigators said.

He was finally arrested last July by Hezbollah, which now has perhaps the most powerful intelligence apparatus in this country. It handed him to the Lebanese military — along with his brother Yusuf, who is accused of helping him spy — and he awaits trial by a military court.

Several current and former military officials agreed to provide details about his case on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss it before the trial began. Their accounts tallied with details provided by Mr. Jarrah’s relatives and former colleagues.

It is not the family’s first brush with notoriety. One of Mr. Jarrah’s cousins, Ziad al-Jarrah, was among the 19 hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, though the men were 20 years apart in age and do not appear to have known each other well.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, declined to discuss Mr. Jarrah’s situation, saying, “It is not our practice to publicly talk about any such allegations in this case or in any case.”

Villagers here seemed incredulous that a man they knew all their lives could have taken money to spy for a country that they regard with unmixed hatred and disgust.

Many maintained his innocence. But Raja Mosleh, the Palestinian doctor who was his partner for years in a school and health clinic near here, did not.

“I never suspected him before,” Dr. Mosleh said. “But now, after linking all the incidents together, I feel he’s 100 percent guilty.”

“He used to talk about the Palestinian cause all the time, how he supported the cause, he supported the people, he liked everybody — this son of a dog,” Dr. Mosleh added, his voice thick with contempt.

Mr. Jarrah would often borrow money to buy cigarettes, apparently posing as a man of limited means. Investigators say he received more than $300,000 for his work from Israel.

Only recently did he begin to spend in ways that raised questions. About six years ago, neighbors said, he built a three-story villa with a terra-cotta roof that is by far the grandest house in this modest village of low concrete dwellings. Outside is a small roofed archway and a heavy iron gate, and on a recent day a German shepherd stood guard.

Dr. Mosleh asked him where he got the money, and Mr. Jarrah said he got help from a daughter living in Brazil. It is a natural excuse in Lebanon, where a large portion of the population receives remittances from relatives abroad.

Mr. Jarrah also had a secret second wife, according to investigators and his former colleagues. Unlike his first wife, Maryam Shmouri al-Jarrah, who lived in relative grandeur with their five children in Maraj, the second wife lived in a cheap apartment in the town of Masnaa, near the Syrian border. This apparently allowed Mr. Jarrah to travel near the border in the unremarkable guise of a local working-class man.

Mr. Jarrah has said he was recruited in 1983 — a year after Israel began a major invasion of Lebanon — by Israeli officers who had imprisoned him, according to investigators. He was offered regular payments in exchange for information about Palestinian militants and Syrian troop movements, they said.

After Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, thousands of Lebanese from the occupied zone in the south were tried and sentenced — mostly to light prison terms — for collaborating with Israel.

Far from the border, a different class of collaborators, rooted in their communities, persisted. A few have been caught and sentenced.

Mr. Jarrah’s motives remain a mystery. He said he tried to stop, but the Israelis would not let him, investigators said.

It all came to an end last summer. He went on a trip to Syria in July, and when he returned he said he had been briefly detained by the Syrian police, his first wife said. He seemed very uneasy, not his usual self, she said.

He left the house that night, saying he was going to Beirut, and never returned, Mrs. Jarrah said. Only three months later did she get a call from the Lebanese Army saying it had taken custody of him.

A few weeks ago, Mrs. Jarrah said, she was allowed to see him. He looked terrible, exhausted, she said.

Lebanese security forces released a photograph of Mr. Jarrah, taken before his arrest. In it, he appears against a blue and white backdrop, dressed in a formal dark shirt, wearing an enigmatic smile.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. That's Jarrah's cousin, not Satam's, whose passport was found in New York

Jarrah's passport was found at the Pennsylvania crash site. It looked like this:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ziad_Jarrah_Passport_Photo.jpg

It is most obviously burnt. Please stop posting factual inaccuracies.

[seemslikeadream]

39. Talk with your NYT

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Let's do a replay, shall we?

seems, this is how you have continued to try and hijack this thread with offtopic bullshit --

To the list of witnesses that saw evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, you added "and a passport and live 9/11 highjackers"

The passport was found in New York -- offtopic, and irrelevant to whether or not people in Washington saw evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

None of the hijackers are alive. I challenged you to produce any living hijackers. You responded with Waleed Al-Shehri and Ahmed Al-Nami, but both "living hijackers" are actually people with similar names to the very dead hijackers. To date, you have produced no actual living hijackers from 9/11.

You also published an image of what you called "Satam Al Suqami’s remarkably undamaged passport." Your ability to describe it as such while posting that image of a damaged passport indeed is more evidence of your dedication to posting factual inaccuracy.

I point that out. You say that three buildings were destroyed "and yet a readable passport found in all that rubble." And so you begin to move the goalposts - we go from "remarkably undamaged" to simply "readable." And you were also, again, wrong as the Suqami passport was discovered before any of the buildings fell.

When I point this out, you say that it's even more convenient for them to have done that. Another flagrent moving of the goalposts. Your earlier assertion of the passport being impossible to find in all that rubble is simply unacknowledged by you.

When I point out that you are moving goalposts, you publish an article you describe thusly: "cousin of the 911 hijackers whose passport didn't burn is a top Israeli spy."

However, this remote relation ("the men were 20 years apart in age and do not appear to have known each other well") is to Ziad Jarrah, not Satam Al-Suqami. Remnants of Jarrah's passport were found in Pennsylvania, but they could hardly be described as a passport that "didn't burn," as the image I posted of his extremely burnt passport shows. So not only does this have nothing to do with the OP but the survival of any part of the two passports has nothing to do with each other.

At this point, I say "Stop posting factual inaccuracies" to you. You say, "Talk to your NYT." I think the record of the New York Times is a hell of a lot better than yours, SLAD, because just in this thread alone, you only have tried to hijack, post factual inaccuracies, and attack. Why you think your factual inaccuracies prove anything at all is beyond me. Perhaps it's a triumph of the will for you, in that you can prove that you can believe anything you want, facts be damned.

But like I say, I would be careful throwing around the term "delusions" in a discussion in which that was your goal.

[seemslikeadream]

47. project much?

[greyl]

58. Post total bullshit

in order to get your kicks wasting the time of people who attempt to reason with you much?

[HamdenRice]

60. "get your kicks wasting the time of people who attempt to reason with you much?"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[seemslikeadream]

15. I was right about the DOW months ago and I am right about this

[rollingrock]

6. What happened to 230 airplane seats?

were they vaporized too?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. attached to the fuselage - went inside the building

The OP gave witnesses who talk about seeing airline seats. Try again.

[rollingrock]

12. Got any pictures?

There were hundreds of photos taken of the Pentagon on that day, inside and out.
So far, I haven't seen any airplane seats in them.

[seemslikeadream]

13. he ain't got nothin"

[hack89]

17. There are pictures - you have seen them before. nt

[hack89]

16. Pictures of seats, pictures of bodies (WARNING:GRAPHIC)

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

[rollingrock]

18. Which ones?

There are lots of pictures in that link.

[hack89]

19. 12th row of the thumbnails - the ones clearly labeled "photograph of body." nt

[rollingrock]

23. Thanks

but all they show are what appear to be fully intact bodies (which isn't clear if they are from the Pentagon or the plane) but nothing recognizable as an airplane seat. Makes me kinda wonder, how could the bodies be in one piece yet there's nothing much left of the airplane parts that you can't pick up and hold in your hand?

[hack89]

31. Look closer

all you can see are the metal frames - the non-metal material has been burned away.

[rollingrock]

33. You must have a good imagination

because there's isn't anything there that remotely resembles the frame or outline of an airplane seat, or any kind of seat.

[hack89]

52. Your response is such a surprise.

so tell me, if I am so wrong, can you tell me what actually happened at the Pentagon? Or are you one of those "just asking questions" truthers?

[rollingrock]

54. Is it too much to ask for an honest answer?

I only asked to see a photo of some airplane seat(s). Considering there are hundreds of highly detailed close-ups of the scene posted on the internet, is that too much to ask? If you can't produce them, fine. Just say so. Don't tell me something is there when it isn't.

[hack89]

59. What about those curve pieces of metal with the connecting rods?

look like seats to me.


When are you going to tell me what you think happened at the Pentagon?

[rollingrock]

66. If you look real hard

you can probably find some clouds in the sky shaped like flying monkeys.


What happened at the Pentagon? It was struck by some type of missile or small craft. No commercial airliner on earth can fly that low to the ground at full speed, but a missile certainly could.

[AZCat]

67. They can't?

I'd love to see your proof that a "commercial airliner" can't fly that low to the ground at full speed. Can you provide it, or is this another claim that is based on a misinterpretation?

[SDuderstadt]

68. I'd raise the exact same question....

doesn't the claim rather assume the SAFE operation of the plane? Isn't it pretty obvious that the hijacker/pilot didn't care about operating the plane safely, as his plan was to crash it into the Pentagon?

[rollingrock]

70. Not just safety, but maneuverability

it simply isn't possible for a Boeing 757 to achieve full speed while flying that low and level to the ground, with level being the key word. You can reach full speed at low altitude by doing into a dive bomb, but the aircraft struck the side of the building, not the roof. Which means it was flying parallel to the ground.

Look up the concept of flight envelope, which explains the relationship between speed and altitude or the limits of speed at various altitudes. Generally, the greater the altitude, the faster the plane can travel. Speed is also limited by the weight and size of the aircraft. The larger and heavier the craft, the higher it has to be to achieve a given speed. Only aircraft such as fighter jets and missiles can overcome these limits, using their afterburners and supersonic speeds for example.


Flight Envelope
www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flight_Envelope

[SDuderstadt]

71. Read the first paragraph of your own source...

"It will describe the boundaries of altitude and airspeed within which normal flight manouevring can be safely conducted". As I stated previously, it's obvious the hijacker/pilot wasn't trying to operate the airliner safely.

[rollingrock]

73. In other words,

a Boeing 757 cannot be maneuvered accurately at ground level while flying at full speed.

Then there's the question of whether it is possible to achieve full speed at all.
Thrust and drag explains why it is physically impossible to reach full speed at ground level in a Boeing 757. It is certainly possible to go a bit faster then what is deemed safe, but certainly not to reach full speed at ground level.

Thrust and drag

In the denser air at low altitudes, both drag and thermal heating are much greater than at high altitudes. High airspeeds in dense air are limited by aeroplane structure considerations. Engines taking in large quantities of dense air and further compressing it will get very hot which imposes another potential airspeed limit. Engines have a much easier time working with less dense high altitude air which is also colder, since this allows compression without limiting temperatures being reached. The engine can therefore operate at higher rotational speed and at higher compression ratios, which make it more efficient. It also means that the engine intake can take in a greater volume of air per second and compress it properly so that the fuel used can generate more thrust.


www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flight_Envelope

[SDuderstadt]

76. Please tell us why the hijacker/pilot would care...

if the engines of the airliner would get very hot. Again, you are taking something relating to pilots wanting to operate their aircraft safely and misapplying it to AA 77. Very unconvincing. Also, whoever said that AA77 had to "reach" full speed when it was probably operating at full speed well before it hit the Pentagon?

[AZCat]

77. I don't think that word means what you think it does.

For someone who is "certain" you seem to lack any supporting documents. In a case like this, you need one of three things: valid theoretical calculations, substantial empirical data, or detailed simulation. I have yet to see any of these from anyone who has made this argument. C'mon, rollingrock - why not give it a shot? Surely you can calculate the drag on a Boeing 757-223 at a particular velocity and altitude? I'll even give you a freebie - you can pick the attitude.

[hack89]

84. Who said it was at full speed?

sounds like straw man to me.

[AZCat]

72. In other words, you don't know what you are talking about (again).

Generally, we in the rational world like to support our claims, especially when they are stated as absolutes. I know this is a new concept to you (for reference, readers can see previous threads by rollingrock) but perhaps you could consider it? Then we might be able to take you seriously. Until then, you're just another poster making grandiose, unsupported claims.

[rollingrock]

74. Look up the concept of thrust and drag /nt

[AZCat]

81. I'm not going to do your homework for you - I already know what they mean.

What's more important is whether you can properly calculate them in support of your claim. I suspect you can't.

[hack89]

78. Why does it mean it was flying parallel to the ground?

it could have been in a shallow dive with its nose pointing at the wall.

And what do you say is the max speed of a 757 at 10 feet off the ground? Give me a number.

[rollingrock]

82. Are you joking?

1) if it was coming in at an angle, there would be a hole in the ground, or on the roof of the Pentagon.

2) how could it do this, penetrating through several rings of the Pentagon interior structure, unless it was flying parallel to the ground?





Did this plane come from the same company that produced the JFK magic bullets by any chance? lol. do you ever think before you post?

[hack89]

83. So explain these magic physics of yours

that slow aircraft to a crawl when they get close to the ground.

BTW - a one or two degree dive would produce the damage seen. Or a steeper dive with a pitch up at the end. I question your assertion that it had to be flying parallel to the ground for a long period. For if that was the case, why didn't it hit the Navy Annex?

[rollingrock]

85. Not 1 or 2 degrees, but 0.0 degrees.

any deviation from 0.0 degrees would not have allowed it to penetrate through several holes lined up and come out 300 feet on the other end, while making a perfectly straight line in the process. any shallow angle would have caused the aircraft to hit the ground at some point, whether on the lawn or through the roof of the Pentagon.

Do you see a hole on the roof? I don't think so.

As for why it didn't hit the Navy annex, do to their small size and speed, missiles especially if they are guided missiles, are capable of some very extreme maneuvers that are simply not possible to do with a Boeing 757. I think that's pretty obvious.

[hack89]

86. So a last second pitch up is impossible too, I take it?

does it concern you at all that there is no physical evidence or eye witness accounts of a missile?

[rollingrock]

88. Some missiles have a resemblance to small aircraft

and might even be painted or disguised as such to give it a more convincing look.

there are several witnesses who said they saw a commuter airplane.

[AZCat]

90. I can tell already where he's going with this.

The path the goalposts go is the same every time. It always seems to end up at the Global Hawk. I guess if you can't provide proof of your other claims, it is a safe place to back up to.

[rollingrock]

92. I think you nailed it there

Good call.

[AZCat]

87. Now your claim gets weirder and weirder.

I hope you realize somewhere among all that hyperbole how ridiculous this claim is. Are you seriously claiming that the plane had to come in perfectly parallel to the ground? And I thought your reading comprehension was bad - this is worse!

Hmmm. Regarding missiles, I don't think you realize that missile << B-757.

[rollingrock]

89. Explain how it could have come in at an angle

without making a hole in the ground or on the roof of the Pentagon?

Perhaps you can explain to me how Scientology works while you're at it? lol.

[AZCat]

91. You really seem excited about Scientology.

If you're so interested, maybe you should go talk to a Scientologist - they might be more interested in discussing it than I am.

Flight 77 did come in at an angle - that's why the floor slab in the Pentagon was so badly damaged. It just slid along the ground (tearing up the slab as it went) rather than "making a hole in the ground".

[rollingrock]

93. Obviously,

its going to slide at some point, even if it comes in perfectly level.

the real question is, does the front end of the plane hit the ground before the body does, indicating an angle approach? or does the front end and rear section of the plane touch the ground at the same time, indicating a level approach?

first of all, the entrance would have been much bigger if it came in at an angle.

and the entrance hole would NOT have been round if it was angle appraoch.
and it would have been much taller than it is wide.

can you understand why?

its hard to explain it, but it should be extremely clear to you if you think about it.

I will draw a picture that explains my point when I get a chance.

[AZCat]

95. I know what you're talking about.

It's the size of the ellipse created by taking a section of a cylinder. However, the difference in size is not as significant as you think. I did a quick sketch comparing diameters for a right angle section and one taken at 15 degrees and for a 10' diameter cylinder, the 15 degree section created an ellipse with a long axis diameter of ~10'-4 1/4" (you can check the numbers using trigonometry). This is not what I would consider a significant difference in size.

Sketch:




Let me know if you can't see the image.

[rollingrock]

106. This ought to make it clear

If angle approach, shape of hole should have an elliptical shape,
not roundish shape as it actually was.








Official video frames released by pentagon: shows the object trailing white smoke moments before striking the building, traveling and trailing smoke parallel to the ground. Boeing 757s do not produce white smoke, but missiles do.







I don't know if the Pentagon explained why the date and time stamp is wrong,
but Sept 12 could have been when the frames were processed.





Another good point someone else raised; a Boeing 757 is much too tall to slip under the
1st floor. The 2nd floor slab of steel-reinforced concrete would stopped the plane long before it could have penetrated 300+ feet inside the building.








This is made even more unlikely or impossible if it approached at an angle (to the ground), because the height of a B-757 is amplified when it is traveling at an angle (the body raised up higher then the nose).

[AZCat]

108. The top image will have to wait until tomorrow at the earliest...

for me to make a sketch in response. As for your other points...

Official video frames released by pentagon: shows the object trailing white smoke moments before striking the building, traveling and trailing smoke parallel to the ground. Boeing 757s do not produce white smoke, but missiles do.

Actually, missiles and B-757s use the same kind of engine (turbofans). Neither of them normally produce "white smoke", although you might see trails of condensed water vapor (either from the engine exhaust at high altitudes, commonly called "contrails", or wingtip vortices). The white smoke in the video you show is probably smoke from a damaged engine. Flight 77 seems to have hit a number of objects on the way in, and one of the engines (the port engine, IIRC) was probably damaged from those collisions.

Another good point someone else raised; a Boeing 757 is much too tall to slip under the
1st floor. The 2nd floor slab of steel-reinforced concrete would stopped the plane long before it could have penetrated 300+ feet inside the building.

I don't know who created the image of the profile of the aircraft with the spools. I seem to remember the aircraft came in lower than this image shows. Perhaps one of the other posters can provide some insight? Regardless, why are we worried about the aircraft slipping under the floor slab? It's not like the edge of the slab is going to stop the aircraft from entering the building - it's just going to separate at the point of impact.

[rollingrock]

109. The video rules out angular approach

Actually, missiles and B-757s use the same kind of engine (turbofans). Neither of them normally produce "white smoke", although you might see trails of condensed water vapor (either from the engine exhaust at high altitudes, commonly called "contrails", or wingtip vortices). The white smoke in the video you show is probably smoke from a damaged engine. Flight 77 seems to have hit a number of objects on the way in, and one of the engines (the port engine, IIRC) was probably damaged from those collisions.

The trajectory of the 'exhaust plume' in the video shows it is level to the ground, not angular to it. The video evidence rules out an angular approach.

It's not like the edge of the slab is going to stop the aircraft from entering the building - it's just going to separate at the point of impact.

If the plane was horizontally separated at the point of impact by the 2nd floor slab, it could not have then traveled 300 feet inside the building and left a round exit hole on the first floor of ring C. The roundness of the exit hole and its location on the 1st floor proves the 'fuselage' was never separated in that manner.

[AZCat]

112. It does?

I'm surprised you can tell anything from that video - it's pretty low res.

If the plane was horizontally separated at the point of impact by the 2nd floor slab, it could not have then traveled 300 feet inside the building and left a round exit hole on the first floor of ring C. The roundness of the exit hole and its location on the 1st floor proves the 'fuselage' was never separated in that manner.

It seems you're assuming the exit hole was caused by the fuselage. I don't agree with this. As I stated in another post, I think it is most likely that the exit hole was caused by a debris flow, rather than a single object, although this opinion is not strongly held - others have suggested objects such as the nose landing gear were sufficiently massive to have created the hole and I find that plausible.

[rollingrock]

113. I'm not assuming

I'm going by the diagram in the (official) building performance report.








Note the entrance hole and the arrow pointing to the exit hole and how they line up at approximately 42 degrees, the same angle the plane entered the building (angular to the entrance wall that is) according to the report. I think its a bit far-fetched to consider it was made by anything other than the fuselage.

[AZCat]

114. Just because the hole lines up with the entry vector...

doesn't mean it was caused by the fuselage. Everything on the aircraft would have been traveling in that direction. I think it's a bit far-fetched to consider the fuselage as the cause of the hole.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

116. I don't know where you got this whole "Scientologist" idea.

It's a bit strange. But whatever floats your boat...

I think the problem is that you're assuming whatever made the hole was about that size and shape. I don't think that's a requirement. As I said before, a debris flow would have been sufficient. It only had to penetrate one exterior wall after the initial entry (the bottom floors of the Pentagon were contiguous).

[rollingrock]

117. It's a joke

I know you're not a scientologist, but that's the first thing that comes to mind when I read some of these 'creative' ideas attempting to explain away the unexplainable in regard to 9/11.

[AZCat]

120. Ahhh - a joke.

I don't know why you think these things are "unexplainable". Do you expect every problem to be instantaneously solveable? You do realize that a proposed solution doesn't have to be perfect to be acceptable, right?

[rollingrock]

118. What shape was this debris if not round?

square? triangular?

how does a square shape object make a round hole?

or in this case many round holes that line up perfectly along a distance of 300 feet?
that's quite an amazing feat, I have to say.

[AZCat]

119. It has to do with the type of failure of the wall.

If the wall fails in bending rather than shear, the hole will likely be round regardless the shape of the projectile (as long as its aspect ratio isn't significantly far from unity). If you're expecting a "Wile E. Coyote" silhouette, you're probably looking for the wrong thing.

[rollingrock]

121. Wile E. Coyote silhoueette?

You know that's a straw man, right?

Fair enough, I called you a scientologist (jokingly) so we're even. :D

Regardless, a square shape object isn't going to make a clean round hole. you are going to see a hole that has straight edges, not a hole that is uniformly circular all around. an irregular object produces irregular shaped edges, etc. not a clean round hole.

The best way to know what made the exit hole is to see a photo of it, don't you think?
Why is it nowhere to be seen? You seem to have no answer for that.

[Theobald]

94. Spurious facts!

Rock "it simply isn't possible for a Boeing 757 to achieve full speed"
Top speed of a 757 is 609 mph. Cruising speed is 500 mph http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/757.html
Flight 77 was estimated to be traveling at 350 to 400 mph so it wasn't at full speed when it hit the building. Also the plane was coming out of the sky which is where it achieved and kept whatever speed it wanted to, so it didn't have to achieve anything, it was already there.

[rollingrock]

111. Spurious facts?

where do you get this 350-400mph figure from? According to the NTSB flight path study, the plane was going 530 mph when it hit the Pentagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#cite_note-fps-13

www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA77.pdf



Edit: the NTSB study says 'the airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 mph) at impact with the Pentagon.' So it did not drop from the sky already at that speed, it accelerated to 530 mph once it was near the ground, according to the official story. lol.

[hack89]

69. So what physical evidence or eye witness accounts support you? nt

[rollingrock]

75. You should be asking yourself that question

What evidence proves a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon?

The lack of evidence proves that it didn't.

[SDuderstadt]

79. What bullshit....

There are 106+ witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Just out of curiousity, how many witnesses saw a missile hit the Pentagon? Hint: ZERO.

[hack89]

80. Pictures of 757 parts plus eyewitness accounts - you have nothing nt

[rollingrock]

110. Still waiting for pictures of airplane seats

No airplane seats, no fuselage, no wings, no luggage.

You have nothing.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. So you're calling the people who saw them and reported them liars? n/t

[rollingrock]

24. I don't trust anyone from the government

especially not the Bush government.

I prefer to go by the physical evidence, not the word of someone I don't even know.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. So, yes, you are calling them liars.

Including the flight attendant who normally worked on Flight 77 and went to help the clean up and saw the pieces herself.

All of them are liars so you can believe your fantasies.

[rollingrock]

27. Flight attendant who worked on Flight 77?

there was a survivor from Flight 77?

oh wow, that's news to me. :)

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Please read my English sentences for comprehension and try again. n/t

[rollingrock]

29. How could a flight attendant from Flight 77

be working on the Pentagon clean-up? I thought there were no survivors from the plane?

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Please follow the instructions of Post #28. n/t

[rollingrock]

34. You don't understand your own words?

lol.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. The only person embarrasssing himself here is you. n/t

[scrinmaster]

35. Did you actually read his post?

...who normally worked on Flight 77...
Seems pretty clear to me, although reading comprehension is usually too much to ask for troofers.

[rollingrock]

40. What the hell is a flight attendant doing at the scene of the crash?

Is it normal procedure for an airline to fly their flight attendants out to the scene of an airplane crash to help out with the clean-up and/or investigation? Is that standard procedure? LOL.

Sorry, but that sounds like a load to me. Not buying it.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. You're buying (against the witness of all the people in the OP) that Flight 77 didn't hit

the Pentagon, but you're not buying that a flight attendant could help with the clean up?

Is it normal procedure for an airline to fly their flight attendants out to the scene of an airplane crash to help out with the clean-up and/or investigation? Is that standard procedure? LOL.

This is called a straw man. What you have done is concocted a story that has no merit and pooh-poohed that rather than the facts of the case. You have done that twice so far, first pooh-poohing the idea that there was a survivor of Flight 77, and now pooh-poohing the idea that an airline would fly flight attendants to the scene of a crash.

Neither claim has been made. You have built two straw men, knocked them down, and then pretended to yourself that you have proven something.

Are you now cottoning to the fact that you missed the word "normally" in my original post on this? Are you ready to listen to the facts of this, coming from quite a surprising source for me to quote?

Are you ready to cease your silly games and have a mature discussion about this serious topic?

[rollingrock]

55. You should have made it more clear.

Either way, this alleged scenario of a bunch flight attendants helping out with the clean-up is very odd. What in God's name were they doing there? Don't you think it would have been a pretty significant story that a bunch of flight attendants were being ferried to the Pentagon 'crash' site for whatever reason? It would have been covered all over the nightly news. The media would have been all over it, interviewing them about what they saw, what they were doing there, etc.

Is there a story about this in the major media? If so, links?

[Bolo Boffin]

56. You should have been reading instead of looking for attack angles. n/t

[Theobald]

43. Your ignorance is quite astounding

Flight 77 took off from Dulles International Airport. The airport is 27.5 miles from the Pentagon therefor there was no need for the airline to fly her to the scene of the crash. Also, all flights were grounded so the airline, even if it wanted to, could not fly her to the scene of the crash. She went to the site of the crash with her mother to give moral support to those retrieving the bodies and wreckage.

The flight attendant switched shifts with her friend Rene. She identified her friend Rene's body by a bracelet she had given her which was found at the crash site.

Please explain to me what you buy? I have a feeling if I provided you with gold plated incontrovertable evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon you would still deny it.

[rollingrock]

44. Nope, you're wrong again

see post 25 where bolo claims the flight attendant helped with the actual clean-up.

'She went to the site of the crash with her mother to give moral support to those retrieving the bodies and wreckage.'

wow, that's such a load I don't even know where to begin, lol.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Please stop your childish posting about this immediately.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html

At the funeral service on September 20th in Annapolis for Charles Burlingame, the pilot of AA Flight 77, my friend was approached by another flight attendant to assist in support work for the rescue crews at the site. This work was being organized by the Salvation Army. The Pentagon was seeking people with security clearances that they could trust to be near the site and all the airline attendants qualified for that level of clearance. The shifts ran from 10 am to 10 pm, and then for the next twelve hours. She and her mother signed up for an overnight shift on Friday, September 21st.

She and her mother spent the entire night continuously providing drinks to rescuers from North Carolina. Burger King, McDonald's, Pepsi and Outback Steak House were the selected food and drink providers. She and her mother were given a special T-shirt to wear for the night, with red lettering for "Operation Noble Eagle". They did not wear the traditional Salvation Army outfits. No break came until early morning, the crews were large and worked continuously. The work was tedious and slow. She was in the second of five groups that were sent in that week. Rescue and clean-up work continued for months.

At the end of her shift on Saturday morning, September 22nd, she was approached along with other attendants to visit the crash site. One declined, but she and two others took a van driven by the Salvation Army to the area. They were forced to wait almost 45 minutes at a safety fence around the area before being admitted into the area of destruction. As they waited, members of a psychological support group talked to them about their feelings. She will never forget what she saw there.

More at the link. The flight attendant was a part of the clean-up effort. She saw parts of the plane that she had worked on. She saw bodies.

Your continued attempts to lol this topic is deeply disturbing and callous. Cease it at once.

ETA: Please also stop misreporting my actual words. I said she went there "to help the cleanup". That is what she did.

[rollingrock]

48. Since when do flight attendants help with 'crash' scene clean-ups?

Is that in their job descriptions?

The only people who should be doing work on a crime scene are professional emergency personnel (fire, medical, forensics people, for example) and crime scene investigators. The last time I checked, flight attendants aren't trained in any of those areas. Who was running this operation, Michael Brown?

[Bolo Boffin]

49. You have been provided with the facts.

The flight attendants who helped were approached because they had or could easily obtain security clearances to do their part.

You have constructed yet another straw man, despite being provided with the actual facts. Quit playing silly games with this topic.

[rollingrock]

57. I don't know about that

if it is indeed true, I'm pretty sure the media would have reported it.

Do you have a more reliable source?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. The sources in the OP. n/t

[Theobald]

50. What would you do if you traded places

at work with a friend and they ended up dying; a death you would have experienced had you been at work as scheduled?

Where does the crap begin. Do you deny that there was a Ms Carter who was scheduled to work flight 77? Do you deny that she switched places with her friend Rene? Do you deny that Rene perished? Do you deny there was a flight 77? Do you deny it hit the pentagon? You claim to see a lot of crap floating around, but provide no evidence to support your bloviations; I wonder why that is?

[Ghost in the Machine]

96. Since when have you cared about what eyewitnesses say? Only when they say what *you* want to hear??

Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-15-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Physical evidence trumps recall of witnesses. n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=176430&mesg_id=178352

:shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

97. When their eyewitness accords with the physical evidence.

Less lurking about trying to trip me up and more attention to facts and logic-based arguments, Mr. Ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

98. Ok, then go ahead and post some facts and logic based arguments...

You could even go so far as to post some physical evidence if you feel up to it...



http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm


Show some physical evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon...

[Bolo Boffin]

99. How many times does it has to be done, Ghost?

The links to the Moussaoui evidence has already been posted.

Lots of pictures of debris here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2

A person on the scene shows airplane damage that came close to his car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClVHovq4iTk

[Ghost in the Machine]

100. I see no physical evidence that a *757* hit anything there...

I see where *something* hit it, but there's no shred of evidence that it was a 757....

Do you have anything else?

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Then you aren't looking. You're just evading and confirming your bias.

Goodbye again, Ghost.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

103. You're not thinking that the engines should be intact, are you?

After an impact like this, I'd be surprised to find much at all from the engines. Remember all the rotational energy stored in the engine - that can be released quite violently if the engine suffers damage. If you're curious, look for images of turbine rotor disk failures - the 'net is full of them. They should give you some idea what happens even with a simple failure.

[Ghost in the Machine]

104. Maybe not fully intact, but they should be recognizable, wouldn't you think?

After all, we're talking about 6 tons of titanium steel alloy (per engine), right? Much, *much* stronger than an aluminum airframe.. yet we're supposed to be led to believe that the *nose cone* is what made the punchout hole in the C Ring? The same nose cones that are destroyed by impacts with geese, yet this one miraculously punched through a "blast proof" wall, and several other walls?

How could something make a hole the size of that punchout, yet there was no plane debris, or engine parts, found in the C Ring corridor?

Remember the photo of the punchout, while smoke was still coming out of the hole?



Where's there any aircraft debris? I don't see any, do you?


*** Off topic: How ya been, AZ Cat? It's been a while since I've been here in the "dungeon". Hope the world is treating you great. What happened with Flatulo? I haven't seen him post in a while... ***


Peace,

Ghost

[AZCat]

107. I haven't read the Pentagon BPAT in a while...

but I thought that it was not certain what actually caused the punchout hole. I don't think the engines would necessarily be recognizable, depending on what happened during the collision. The nose cone of a B-757 is pretty heavy. Boeing uses extra mass at the nose to balance the aircraft. They used to use depleted uranium (because it's wonderfully dense) but have moved away from that IIRC. It is my guess that the punchout hole was caused by a debris stream, rather than a single massive object. I agree that the whole thing is a little bizarre, but I think that is because very few of us (if any) are familiar with this sort of event (high speed aircraft collisions with buildings) and we just don't have a good basis for comparison.


OT: I'm doing okay, Ghost, but the economy here in southern AZ sucks right now. The whole construction industry is in the tank and there are a lot of people on the street. I'm pretty lucky (switched companies last spring) but I have friends whose jobs aren't very secure. Worst case, I go back to school for a while until the economy improves. How are things with you? Are you weathering the effects of the recession?

I don't know where Flatulo is. He hasn't posted in the 9/11 forum since last year. Maybe I'll send him a PM.

[djintrepid]

124. Disbelief

For all those who believe this was a mass conspiracy by our government, this message is for you. I watched the live feeds of the different air craft tearing holes in buildings across the country that day and I know what I saw. However in reading the comments on this site I have a few suggestions to all who believe the conspiracy theory. First sit down and think about all of the pentagon officials (government officials) who died in this attack and ask your self why would the government want to leave any question as to the reasoning behind there deaths. If this alone does not make your brain straighten out try my second suggestion. Call each family member who had a loved one die on that aircraft at the pentagon. When you have them on the phone convey to them that there family member either did not exist or that they where part of a massive conspiracy theory. That the government paid them to disappear and that they're probably sitting in the bahamas sipping pina coladas. If you have had the Balls to do this and you have not mannaged to remove your head from your ass then there is probably no hope for you. All I can say then is I hope that if anything were to happen to one of your family members that you don't come crying to our nation asking for our pity. Because you certainly wont find any.

[greyl]

105. Your OP is a great compilation of evidence to present to the sight impaired.

For those who have no trouble seeing, here are just a few more thumbnails of the physical evidence: