PDA

View Full Version : I Think Flight 77 Hit The Pentagon



Gold9472
05-17-2006, 05:10 PM
And I feel fine. The purpose of this thread was to remind EVERYONE who happens across this site that I have NEVER, EVER, NEVER promoted anything other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and I am recruiting plenty of people into the movement, ALL THE TIME. Imagine that.

In other words...

YOU DON'T NEED THE ARGUMENT TO PROVE COMPLICITY

Ignatius Riley
05-17-2006, 05:58 PM
hmmm ...

We've all seen the tiny white missile- or military jet-looking thing in the video. Now Gold, do you really expect me to believe that that tiny white thing is supposed to be a boeing jumbo jet?

http://www.total911.info/2006/05/new-pentagon-video-shows-no-boeing.html

http://www.silverstatenews.com/rc/911_Revisited/AA_757.jpg

Tonya
05-17-2006, 07:35 PM
Ummm... pardon me, but I don't think he expects you to believe anything. I think he is just trying to make clear what his personal thoughts are and to state that that argument is not needed---as stated in his last sentence. That is all. He'll correct me if I have it wrong I trust.

princesskittypoo
05-17-2006, 07:51 PM
i think gold could argue for both sides because he's listened to both sides of the story.

AndrewLoweWatson
05-17-2006, 09:08 PM
It's no big deal. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I think it didn't. Let's move on to what we all agree on.

NORAD.
WTC7.
PUT OPTIONS.
PNAC.
BUSH SAYING HE SAW THE FIRST PLANE - THREE TIMES.
CHENEY SAYING OSAMA BIN LADEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 ( bet you forgot that one - but he really did say it)

PhilosophyGenius
05-18-2006, 12:13 AM
CHENEY SAYING OSAMA BIN LADEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 ( bet you forgot that one - but he really did say it)

Really? Can you explain that one to me?

911TRUTH
05-18-2006, 02:48 AM
wait a minute...

http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-1_11094135.WMV

Download that video and pause the at the very first sign of the "plane"

That is most definitely the front of some kind of jet or cruise missile. Unless the video is completely messed up, you can clearly see the tip...

Can anyone freezeframe it?

911TRUTH
05-18-2006, 03:54 AM
Ok maybe it could be the tip of the wing, if its a plane...what angle did the plane come in respective to the camera angle? Is there a diagram out there of the plane tragectory overlayed with the camera's field of view? its important know know what part entered the frame first so it can be analyzed correctly.

Ignatius Riley
05-18-2006, 06:12 AM
I monkeyed with photoshop on those photos for a couple of hours yesterday. And I still do not know what it was that was depicted in the first movie. The second movie does appear to feature a plane. A compact white one.

I also studied the white flash or fireball that erupted upon impact. Cordite = white flash; Petroleum explodes into an orange and red fireball.

I will remind everyone of Rumsfeld's freudian slip in a speech on the attacks where he refers to the "missile" that struck the Pentagon. Keep that in mind and remember that a Boeing 757 is more than 150 feet long. So it would have been almost twice as long as the Pentagon is high. It would have been silver and it would have looked like the plane in the link I posted above, like an elongated silver tube with dozens of visible windows and clear tail markings on its 40+ foot tall tail. The trees outside the Pentagon and the small cube building just inside of the impact zone might have been 40 feet tall (three stories), maybe. So clearly something is amiss if the feds expect us to believe that American Airlines flight 77 is what is depicted in those movies.

AndrewLoweWatson
05-18-2006, 06:52 AM
Really? Can you explain that one to me?


Sure.

Here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html) it is, from the horse's mouth.

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 08:56 AM
hmmm ...

We've all seen the tiny white missile- or military jet-looking thing in the video. Now Gold, do you really expect me to believe that that tiny white thing is supposed to be a boeing jumbo jet?

http://www.total911.info/2006/05/new-pentagon-video-shows-no-boeing.html

http://www.silverstatenews.com/rc/911_Revisited/AA_757.jpg

Ignatius Riley, you can believe whatever you want to believe. Here is the bottom line. People look at us like we're insane if we say anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The media, the newspapers, etc... FOCUS on that theory in order to make the 9/11 Truth Movement lose credibility. If you want to continue pushing the idea that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, be my guest, but it is my experienced opinion that is telling you that it is hurting more than it's helping. I'm also telling you have I have NEVER needed that theory to prove the point. NEVER EVER NEVER.

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 08:58 AM
It's no big deal. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I think it didn't. Let's move on to what we all agree on.

NORAD.
WTC7.
PUT OPTIONS.
PNAC.
BUSH SAYING HE SAW THE FIRST PLANE - THREE TIMES.
CHENEY SAYING OSAMA BIN LADEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 ( bet you forgot that one - but he really did say it)

Now you're getting it... divisive arguments create divisiveness.

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 09:12 AM
And it took me FOREVER to accept the possibility that those towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Believe me... FOREVER, and STILL I barely talk about it. However, I do refer people to Professor Jones, and I do promote movies like 9/11 Revisited, and Professor Jones' first and second lectures, etc... But I don't claim to be an expert. I'm not a metallurgist. I'm not a physicist. I'm not a structural engineer.

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 09:32 AM
See... there are currently 542 (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html%3Fid%3Db3ba5317-1678-46a7-a04d-58846a90a819%26k%3D83331) articles on google news right now telling us why the 9/11 Conspiracy is "over".

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 09:56 AM
wait a minute...

http://pserver.mii.instacontent.net/defense/flight77/fl77-1_11094135.WMV

Download that video and pause the at the very first sign of the "plane"

That is most definitely the front of some kind of jet or cruise missile. Unless the video is completely messed up, you can clearly see the tip...

Can anyone freezeframe it?

Remember, you're looking through a curved lens. Whatever is on the edges of the lens will appear distorted. Just as if you were to look through a glass.

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 10:52 AM
Something that I just responded to on blogger... I thought it was appropriate to post here.

"Jon, I respect your posts, but I don't understand this position you've taken on the Penta-plane. I cannot suspend my disbelief enough to accept all of the miraculous, coincidental, physically-unbelievable, and incompentence-related factors that had to converge to allow a 757 to do what it is alleged to have done on that day."

It's really very simple. People look at me like I'm an idiot if I say something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. People don't listen to anything else I have to say if just one thing slips from my mouth that they perceive as insane. I would rather have people listen to what I have to say than write me off as a "tin-foil hat wearing Conspiracy Theorist nutjob".

On top of that, there is enough evidence to suggest that Flight 77 did, in fact, hit the Pentagon. On the other side of the argument, there are no photos or videos in existence to show us Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. That reason, in and of itself, is why I don't spend any time on that particular subject. The "What". I can't prove one way or the other what hit the Pentagon.

The "What hit the Pentagon" argument is NO different than the "Magic Bullet Theory". People have debated FOR YEARS as to whether or not that bullet was able to do what it did. Whether or not Oswald was the "Lone Gunmen". Whether or not someone was in the "Grassy Knoll". I would rather focus on who benefitted from JFK's assassination. Once you figure out the "Who Dunnit" part, everything else falls into place. On top of that, you have a suspect as opposed to a theory.

I'll take a suspect over a theory any day.

Ignatius Riley
05-18-2006, 10:53 AM
I totally understand, Gold. If your goal is to get into the conscious of mass-market America you don't go the Pentagon route because it is too contentious amongst researchers. Agreed.

If you are looking for the least contentious in-route to the living room of most Americans, the controlled demolition of WTC 7 is your baby. There is no credible defense for why it was brought down. It is an easy shot, a ten-point buck in open season. That is where you start if you want the truth movement to make progress with the masses, in my opinion.

And I guess that is a vital point that you are making, Gold. We've got to make some sort of progress on this. That progress, in my opinion, starts with a publicized investigation of WTC 7, not the Pentagon.


Ignatius Riley, you can believe whatever you want to believe. Here is the bottom line. People look at us like we're insane if we say anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. The media, the newspapers, etc... FOCUS on that theory in order to make the 9/11 Truth Movement lose credibility. If you want to continue pushing the idea that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, be my guest, but it is my experienced opinion that is telling you that it is hurting more than it's helping. I'm also telling you have I have NEVER needed that theory to prove the point. NEVER EVER NEVER.

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 10:58 AM
Ignatius Riley, who scheduled, coordinated, ran the wargames taking place on 9/11? Who was, "The Maestro"?

You answer that question, and I think the game is over.

Ignatius Riley
05-18-2006, 11:04 AM
Promise? PROMIS or its progeny. Of course, someone was programming said software to get the desired results. Probably some privatize institution in intelligence, in other words a privatized arm of the CIA, with direct and deep-reaching ties to the CIA, MIA, et al, was tasked with development of War Game scheduling/strategy. Whomsoever it was used PROMIS or one of its kin, which is basically artificial intelligence to do this.

Again, Gold, sorry to be abstract. I know you want names. I want names. I am getting there, slowly.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PROMIS+software

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 11:09 AM
We're not in the "Skynet" world yet.

Ignatius Riley
05-18-2006, 11:31 AM
You've got proof? DOD has tech. that the public has yet to even dream of. Artificial intelligence crunched the numbers, analyzed the data, forged the strategy and provided a large degree of oversight on that day. That is why you have no major whistle-blowers, b/c only a handful of folks were in on the forging of the "master plan," if you will. Those folks on the primary tier are alienated from the task by at least one degree because it is artificial intelligenc, ie a system of computer applications, that did all the real work, not they. They know they face the death penalty if caught. They feel no guilt, largely because they are technocrats at the controls of a machine, not politikos constantly in touch with constituents, or even the appointees of politikos.

That primary tier may consist of a dozen folks with extensive histories in intelligence and military strategy, now in the private sect; they are sworn to secrecy with consequences worse than death in the balance.

Outside of that primary tier, you've got another dozen, maybe, who knew big chunks of the "master plan." Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, others within the cabal. Bush, a cretin, knew nothing. The cabal threatened him with assassination on that day. Bush capitulated to the cabal. Now he is probably schezoprhenic with guilt, which is why he can't talk for a damn. So, wait, I've got to say it, Bush is now a

drumroll please

crazy cretin

Understand that I believe the cabal was lifted to power as something of an A-team of politikos serving banking and big oil interests fully aware of the peak oil crisis at hand. They were thrust into power illegally and kept in power illegally to do one thing: send troops to occupy Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and eventually the rest of the mideast so that banking/oil interests could plunder it for all it was worth here at the very end of the era of oil.

911TRUTH
05-18-2006, 09:08 PM
Remember, you're looking through a curved lens. Whatever is on the edges of the lens will appear distorted. Just as if you were to look through a glass.

Ahhhh...

Well its strange, what could possibly be the reason for not releasing the other viedos?? Do you think they are simply deliberately holding back footage to keep an erroneous debate alive to keep the conspiracy theories down?

Why would they confiscate all those vids in the first place? Is that standard procedure? Why won't they release the videos so long afterwards? I don't understand how there isn't even one video or picture of that flight in the area.

Do you think there is somewhat of a smoking gun in one of those videos? The amount of secrecy is very strange...

Oh and Ignatius... just because it makes sense doesn't mean its true..

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 09:23 PM
Ahhhh...

Well its strange, what could possibly be the reason for not releasing the other viedos?? Do you think they are simply deliberately holding back footage to keep an erroneous debate alive to keep the conspiracy theories down?

Why would they confiscate all those vids in the first place? Is that standard procedure? Why won't they release the videos so long afterwards? I don't understand how there isn't even one video or picture of that flight in the area.

Do you think there is somewhat of a smoking gun in one of those videos? The amount of secrecy is very strange...

I think that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. It certainly doesn't look like it based on the footage that we have been able to see. However, logically, it makes more sense to use the actual plane rather than go through the hassle of "Swapping" them, and "disposing" of the passengers, respectfully...

I don't think that Hani Hanjour was the pilot of that plane. I don't know who was. How far have things like MK Ultra come? Are those types of practices even in existence in today's day and age?

Mentioning MK Ultra is a stretch for me because I don't ordinarily subscribe to what's considered "fringe", but it is possible because I saw an entire ABCNews special on it.

Anyway... I think it's possible the entire Pentagon/Missile theory was concocted by the Government in order to styfle the movement in one fell swoop. I don't think it's happened yet, but I think that day may be coming.

Perhaps on May 26th when Scott Hodges gets a decision on his FOIA requests. I don't know.

I am thankful that I never promoted the theory because it gives me some credibility if that happens. You KNOW the Government would NEVER release a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon, if, in fact that happened, which I don't think it did.

Think of it this way... if you were going to commit a crime, would you ever think to use a diversion? Something to let help you "get away"?

I think the Pentagon/Missile theory is a diversion. Cover for the "gangsters". When the noose gets too tight, they unleash a video that clearly shows a commercial jet crashing into the Pentagon. On that day, the 9/11 Truth Movement will have taken a massive blow.

Not because everyone promotes the missle either. But because SOME people have. I can't tell you how many times I'm laughed at for thinking a missile hit the Pentagon, when in fact, I think it was Flight 77.

It will be a blow, if the media is allowed to use it. Imagine footage of someone on their TV promoting a missile, and then play the footage of Flight 77... I can imagine it now, and it's a scary sight.

911TRUTH
05-18-2006, 09:56 PM
The missile theory actually started in France, from a guy named Thierry Meyssan. Either way, its very probable that the government is styfling the release of the pentagon tapes to distract from other more important 9/11 debates. I'm sure there is an intelligence operation to monitor and slow down 9/11 Truth.

There may be something else on those tapes that is incriminating. Flight 77 still could be seen, but is there something else? It is possible that some type of equipment is visible on the planes in one of the the videos, or just something damaging to the official story? Something we don't know about yet?

The government deliberately confiscating the videos to create a missile theory? Doesn't seem likely to me that they could predict these kind of theories would emerge and gain popularity. What seems more likely is that there is SOMETHING on those tapes. - or its just a distraction.

just my opinion.

Gold9472
05-18-2006, 10:08 PM
"Doesn't seem likely to me that they could predict these kind of theories would emerge and gain popularity."

They do if you promote them.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 06:12 AM
The missile theory actually started in France, from a guy named Thierry Meyssan. Either way, its very probable that the government is styfling the release of the pentagon tapes to distract from other more important 9/11 debates. I'm sure there is an intelligence operation to monitor and slow down 9/11 Truth.

There may be something else on those tapes that is incriminating. Flight 77 still could be seen, but is there something else? It is possible that some type of equipment is visible on the planes in one of the the videos, or just something damaging to the official story? Something we don't know about yet?

The government deliberately confiscating the videos to create a missile theory? Doesn't seem likely to me that they could predict these kind of theories would emerge and gain popularity. What seems more likely is that there is SOMETHING on those tapes. - or its just a distraction.

just my opinion.


Yo,
Gold's post appear contradictory but aren't. He isn't saying that he doesn't believe a missile, a Cesna, a B-12, or a Boeing hit the Pentagon. He is saying that it best benefits the movement that he officially say that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. That is all. Away from the forum and the blog I am sure Gold has read the scientific studies that prove the impossibility of the official account of what happened at the Pentagon. But differing from the rest of us, Gold wears the beliefs of the movement on his sleeve. He is in the public sphere. And let's face it, if you were to stand in front of a crowd and say a missile hit the Pentagon that day they will throw rotten tomatoes at you. They will call you insane. So for the benefit of preserving somewhat productive dialogue on the event, he concedes to the public. He says American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

The movement has to make progress, albeit through some concessions.

Ergo we act like we've never seen the following:

http://physics911.net/omholt.htm

http://www.911physics.net (http://www.911physics.net)

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 08:43 AM
Actually, I do believe 77 hit the Pentagon.

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 09:43 AM
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/171.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/174.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/367.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/064-large.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/178.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/067-large.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/173-large.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/065-large.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/184.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/185.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/186.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/187.jpg

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 09:44 AM
Because if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, where did those plane parts come from? Were they planted before the Pentagon was hit? No. Were they planted after the Pentagon was hit while everyone was watching? No. So where did those plane parts come from?

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 09:46 AM
A plane perhaps? Seems very likely.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 09:56 AM
I thought we wern't going to argue this

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 09:57 AM
I'm not, but clearly a missile did not hit the Pentagon.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 10:03 AM
You are too! You are arguing!

Clearly, Gold, a 150 foot long boeing passenger jet with a wingspan of 155+ feet and with a 40+ foot tall tail traveling at 500 miles per hour did not hit the Pentagon!

You saw footage of the explosion. Where the hell are the wings, each 75 feet long. The wings would have been as long as that building was tall? Where is the tail.


What, were they sucked into the 15' by 15' hole like it was some kind of vacuum?

The wings and the tail would have had to, HAD TO, shear off and bounce back onto the lawn. Traffic on nearby interstates would have been showered with debris.

A plane might indeed have hit the Pentagon. Yes, you are right on there. But if it was a plane it was a Cesna or a military jet of some sort.

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 10:14 AM
You are too! You are arguing!

Clearly, Gold, a 150 foot long boeing passenger jet with a wingspan of 155+ feet and with a 40+ foot tall tail traveling at 500 miles per hour did not hit the Pentagon!

You saw footage of the explosion. Where the hell are the wings, each 75 feet long. The wings would have been as long as that building was tall? Where is the tail.


What, were they sucked into the 15' by 15' hole like it was some kind of vacuum?

The wings and the tail would have had to, HAD TO, shear off and bounce back onto the lawn. Traffic on nearby interstates would have been showered with debris.

A plane might indeed have hit the Pentagon. Yes, you are right on there. But if it was a plane it was a Cesna or a military jet of some sort.

#1, I'm not "arguing". I'm posting information. #2, you have NO IDEA what hit the Pentagon because we haven't seen a video of it. Logically, it makes more sense to use the actual planes, then swap them, and dispose of the passengers, respectfully.

If the plane was flying at 500mph+ then it's possible the plane disintegrated on impact, much like this F-4 Phantom (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7366). Granted, a 757 and an F-4 Phantom are not the same size, shape, etc... but the fact that it disintegrated, at the very least, makes it possible the same thing happened to Flight 77.

You would know when I'm arguing, BELIEVE me.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 10:37 AM
Wrong. I have seen footage. The footage that was released this week. In it, there is no 150+ foot silver Boeing passenger jet (an aircraft that would have been twice as long as the building was tall at the point of impact). Instead there is, what appears to be, a Cessna or a military jet, small, compact and white. When it hits the pentagon it explodes with a white flash, like it is hauling cordite. Eyewitnesses with military experience in day-of reports say they smelled cordite.

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 10:50 AM
Sorry dude, but that footage doesn't show anything. It shows a blur... I will say this... just for the sake of argument, if it was a missile, it would have left a tail of smoke that would have been HIGHLY visible after impact... for at least 5-10 seconds... whatever the "white blur" is in the video disappears after impact. That rules out a "missile". The landing gear shown at www.pentagonresearch.com (http://www.pentagonresearch.com) matches the size of the landing gear of a 757... if it walks like a duck...

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 10:51 AM
Also... the lamposts would not have been taken out by a "missile".

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 11:22 AM
Yeah, the lamposts pose problems for theory of the boeing too, though.

Or are we to suppose that a boeing would smash through five lamp posts without teetering off course or without pieces of the plane breaking off? One or two or three lamp posts, sure. Five?

Anyway, I am about to bog this thread down with a bunch of stuff so before I do I am going to end this post by saying that I am convinced that when asked about it prominent members of the movement should, as Gold has said, say:

We feel that it is most productive for the movement to approach the issue of the Pentagon as if American Airlines Flight 77 hit it.

There.

You happy?

Because my next post is focused on our little argument about what really happened at the Pentagon and it is by someone with a huge cerebral cortex.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 11:26 AM
http://physics911.net/physics911new.gif


The Missing Wings

















A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building (revised Dec 19, 2004)


A. K. Dewdney
G. W. Longspaugh












Abstract




http://physics911.net/pentagon_aftermath_250W.jpgDetailed analysis of the debris field, physical damage, and other factors in the alleged impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001 reveals an almost complete absence of debris expected from such an event. (Elliott 2003) The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit an entire Boeing 757. In order to decide whether or not a Boeing 757 (or aircraft of comparable size) struck the Pentagon on the morning in question, a comprehensive review of all the debris and other physical evidence is hardly necessary. It turns out that a study of the wings alone suffices for the purpose.

Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely absent. There is also substantial evidence of debris from a much smaller jet-powered aircraft inside the building. We conclude with a high degree of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the building. We also conclude with a substantial degree of certainty that a smaller, single-engined aircraft, roughly the size and shape of an F-16, did, in fact, strike the building.

Introduction

Over the last two years, beginning with the investigations of Thierry Meyssan (Meyssan 2002) and continuing to the present time, there have been numerous claims that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon building. (Citoyen 2003) (Desmoulins 2003) Although we have arrived at similar conclusions, we do so on the basis of a more focused analysis, one that relies not only on photographs, but on measurements, aerospace archives, and to engineering and physical analysis of the Boeing 757, as well as the structure of the Pentagon walls in the area of the impact.

The analysis is, for the most part, of the simplest type, such as any reasonably bright high school student might follow.

This approach has become necessary in the climate of suspicion that surrounds any attempt to question publicly the claims by major media outlets that Arab hijackers, with one Hani Hanjour in the pilot's seat, brought the aircraft in precisely on target. It is certainly true that Mr. Hanjour failed flying tests, dropped out of flight school twice, and on one occasion, a mere three weeks before the September attacks, was denied permission to rent a Cessna because he showed an almost complete lack of knowledge of aircraft instrumentation to rental personnel (Nat. J. 2003). It does little good to point these facts out publicly, however, because they are only what we call "suspicious circumstances."

In short, a devil's advocate might claim that in the three weeks before his failed rental attempt and the morning of September 11, he somehow acquired the necessary expertise to carry out a high-speed turn and dive worthy of a military pilot. We will show that it makes no difference whether Hanjour was an expert pilot or not. There are direct physical contradictions between the claims of the Bush White House, as echoed by the major media, and the facts on the ground. These contradictions are outside the control of the media, Mr Hanjour, or the authors, for that matter.

The analysis presented here is based entirely on standard and/or official sources, such as the engineering report issued under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as directed by an army engineering officer as chair. (ASCE 2003) That particular document details the damage to support columns inside the building, as well as providing an accurate track for the incoming aircraft, as revealed by the penetration of a presumed engine core to the rear of the inner ring. It was not within the mandate of the inquiry to determine what aircraft struck the Pentagon, but rather to evaluate how well the building withstood the impact, fire, and subsequent collapse of a section of the building.

Our general approach to the analysis that follows is to assume, whenever a range of options presents itself, that the White House version of events on September 11 is the correct one. For example, in determining the alignment of the incoming Boeing 757 engines with the support columns of the Pentagon, we have arranged the aircraft so that the engines were most likely to miss the columns that remained standing after the impact, in spite of the fact that a) this particular alignment was rather unlikely and b) the engines would probably have taken out both columns, even with this alignment.

In the first section below, we list all the relevant dimensions for three types of aircraft, as well as the walls of the Pentagon building. In the second section, we bring these elements together in a relatively simple analysis that uses basic principles and methods of physics and engineering that leave little doubt about the conclusions reached here.

At the very end of this article, we construct a mini-scenario that is consistent with both eyewitness reports and the conclusions reached in the analysis.

Measurements and dimensions

Two types of numerical data appear below. Manufacturer's data may be considered as accurate to within the last digit that appears in a dimension. For example, if the Boeing company gives the wingspan of the Boeing 757 as 127 feet, we assume that the measurement is accurate to the nearest 6 inches, that being the midway point between one length given in feet and the one next higher or lower. Measurements acquired from photographs use simple scaling to provide estimates of dimensions (measurements, in effect) that carry an inherent error that is comparable to error term as it applies to manufacturer's data.

Although we shall work primarily in meters, the international units used by all scientists, we shall constantly provide equivalent dimensions in feet and, where relevant, inches.

The Boeing 757 used by American Airlines Flight 77 was the 757-223 model. The relevant dimensions follow. Dimensions with the word "derived" following them were obtained from engineering drawings and a straightforward scaling technique.

Relevant dimensions of Pentagon (Infoplease, 2003)

height of building: 23.6 m (77' 3")
inter-window distance: 3.1 m (10' 2") (derived)
inter-column distance: 3.1 m (10' 2") (derived)

Relevant dimensions of Boeing 757-200 (Flugzeugtriebwerke 2003)

wingspan: 38.1 m (125')
inter-engine span:
center-to-centre: 16.3 m (49' 11") (derived)
outside span: 18.5 m (60' 8") (derived)
max. diameter of fuselage: 3.6 m (12' 4")
max. height of fuselage: 4.0 m (13' 2")

Relevant dimensions of McDonnell-Douglas F-16

wingspan: 32 ft. 10 in.
Length: 49 ft. 6 in.
Loaded Weight: 13,564 kg (29,896 lbs)

Relevant dimensions of Tomahawk Cruise Missile (Raytheon 2004)

length without booster: 18' 3"
length with booster: 20'6"
diameter 20.4"

Analysis

Claims that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon are difficult to substantiate on the basis of available evidence, primarily a suite of photographs taken by various individuals present at the scene, not to mention images captured by security cameras in operation at the time of the crash. We have, however, made every effort to accommodate the Boeing 757 as the crash vehicle.

The most helpful document in this regard is the report entitled The Pentagon Building Performance Report, issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers. (ASCE 2003). A diagram in that document clearly shows several tiers of support columns on the ground floor of the building (Wedge One) in the area of the impact. Although many columns within the general area remained standing, others were completely taken out by the initial impact or bent to one side, either by the impact or subsequent collapse of the floors above the affected area.

The outermost tier of columns is located just inside the Pentagon wall, a nearly three-foot thick structure of brick, concrete and limestone facing. Between every pair of adjacent windows there is a column behind the wall. Since the inter-window distance is 3.1 m (10' 2"), so is the intercolumn distance. This dimension was developed by direct measurement from clear photos of the building, using known distances such as the height of the pentagon and simple mathematical scaling. The error term is approximately 5 percent.


http://physics911.net/ACSE_030127-12A.jpg
9/11 Damage to the Pentagon Diagram from the ACSE Report

In the engineering report, four of the columns are missing altogether, while a fifth column on the right side of the initial hole is bent (outward), but intact. We may therefore take the width of the gap as 5x3.1 = 15.5 m (50' 10")

The track of the incoming aircraft, as measured by aligning the entrance hole with the exit hole three rings into the building, is approximately 45 degrees, with an error of three degrees in the calculation. A similar angle is displayed in the engineering report. Although we cannot say what the attitude of the incoming aircraft was, the absence of any impact disturbance anywhere on the Pentagon lawn area makes it clear that no part of the aircraft touched the ground prior to impact. However, if the aircraft came in at a significant angle relative to the horizontal, there should have been a crater or an explosively excavated hole just inside the building. Although the floor area was heavily scarred and burned in places, no such damage was found by persons entering the building after the flames were extinguished by firefighters. We may therefore assume that the incoming aircraft entered the building at nearly level attitude, leaving nearly all of its kinetic energy available for the destruction of interior walls and columns.


http://physics911.net/c-pentagon_montage.jpg
Boeing 757 Superimposed on Pentagon Grounds

An incoming angle of 45 degrees (horizontally) yields an effective gap width of 15.5xcos(45) = 10.96 m from which we can subtract approximately half a meter to allow for the half-width of the two flanking columns. The effective gap width relative to an aircraft approaching the building at a 45 degree angle would therefore be 10.5 m (34' 5")

It can be adopted as a general, commonsense principle that if a large, wide and heavy object, moving at a speed of hundreds of kilometers an hour strikes but does not pass through a physical barrier, it must remain on the side of the barrier it struck. Although, large, heavy objects may be destroyed or damaged by such impacts, neither they nor their debris vanish after such an event.

We will concentrate on the wings of the Boeing 757, the dimensions of which can be deduced from the data displayed above. The span-length of each wing is 17.3 m (56' 7").

However, the wings of a 757 are swept back at an angle of 29 degrees, as made by the leading edge with a line at right angles to the roll axis of the aircraft. Applying the cosine function to determine the length as measured along the leading edge yields a figure of 19.8 m (64' 11").

The figure below shows our reconstruction of the (alleged) approaching aircraft in proximity to the building, with the 5-metre wide fuselage creating a hole that was 15.5 m wide. The discrepancy would be partly due to the 45-degree approach angle and partly to the strength of the wing-roots, which might well be expected to take out a column or two as the aircraft entered the building.


http://physics911.net/a-diagram.gif
Boeing 757 Engine and Wings in Relation to Impact

As can be seen in the drawing, the engines could only have penetrated the building by being allowed to slip between support columns. This drawing was made before the authors viewed the ASCE engineering report, but it happens to match it rather closely. There would be no way, of course, for the wings to enter the building without taking out any support columns in their path. Structural integrity of the wings, as well as the lack of any holes on either side of the main initial entrance hole, preclude the wings from breaking into eight-foot fragments which then passed into the building individually. In any case, a majority of windows on the ground floor (not to mention all floors above them) remained unbroken after the crash.


http://physics911.net/7-pentmorris.jpg
Unbroken windows beside primary hole

In the image above, taken before a section of the Pentagon above the primary entrance hole collapsed, one can see the left side of the hole, partially obscured by drifting smoke. One can also see unbroken widows on both floors.

<edited for brevity by ignatius>

However, there are other reasons why the wings might be absent from the crash scene. Before systematically listing and evaluating such reasons, some information about the wings of a Boeing 757 is in order.

Aircraft wings have two main structural components beneath their aluminum skin. Spars are ultra-rigid metal beams that support a series of ribs that give shape to the wing. The main spar, a piece of solid aluminum alloy, has the same approximate shape as the floor beam of a house, being perhaps 10 cm thick and less than a metre high at the center of the aircraft. The main spar runs out almost to the end of both wings and therefore varies in height with the thickness of the wing. Two other spars, one aft of the leading edge (the forward spar) and one aft of the main spar (the aft spar) complete the main structural support of the wings.


http://physics911.net/wing.gif
http://physics911.net/boeing2.jpg
Schematic of wing structure of a Boeing 757 (above)
and structual details of aircraft (below)

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 11:27 AM
<note: this is a continuation of the text from the preceding post, which is from physics911.net and written by someone Riley thinks knows his shit>

Here are the possibilities:

1. Could the damaged wings have been carted off by cleanup crews?

The cleanup of the site did not begin until well after the morning hours of the day in question.

2. Could the damaged wings have "telescoped" into the body of the aircraft, as claimed by the Dept. of Defence?

This claim was clearly meant for reporters, whose technical competence, as a general rule, would be unequal to the task of evaluating such a statement. There would have been no significant lateral force acting along either wing axis and there is no possibility of a wing actually entering the fuselage of the aircraft. If you fixed a Boeing 757 firmly to a given piece of ground, then used a team of bulldozers to push the wings into the body, the wings would merely fold up like an accordion or crumple and bend.

3. Could the wings have been entirely fragmented by the explosion of the fuel tanks after the aircraft struck the building?

The fuel tanks of a 757 are located under the fuselage, as well as in the wing roots. The entire fuel storage area of a 757 would easily fit inside the initial entry hole and, consequently, any explosion would have been largely confined to the building's interior. As we shall see, the wings could not have entered the building, where they might possibly have encountered such a fate. The blast, as such, had little effect outside the building, as cable spools near the entry hole remained standing, for example.

4. This raises the question of whether the wings could have folded as the aircraft entered the building, bending backwards and following the aircraft in.

Except for fuel tanks, wiring and hydraulics, spars and ribs, wings are otherwise hollow. The spars could be described as locally rigid and globally flexible. In other words, a wing may flex (up and down) along its length when an aircraft encounters turbulence, for example, but, over much shorter distances, cannot bend significantly. Given sufficient force (applied either up or down) against a wing, it will simply break off. Sometimes the wings of older aircraft developed cracked spars. Even hairline cracks can be dangerous, as the slightest shearing force on the wing could widen and deepen the crack, causing catastrophic failure and the loss of a wing.

Of course, the force in question would not have been vertical, but horizontal. This makes the folding even more improbable, as the force of impact would be acting along the only possible fold axis, rather than at right angles to it. Try folding any material, say a piece of cardboard, by applying it's edge (not it's surface) to a tabletop. Folding horizontally is not an option, since all the spars would be lined up in opposing (momentarily) the folding force. Being locally rigid, the spars would simply snap within milliseconds of the impact against a support column that did not yield to their impact; they would fail as soon as the force of impact exceeded the elastic limit of the material. If they did not fail and if the support columns did not give way, the only remaining possibility would be for the aircraft to remain almost entirely outside of the Pentagon.

Only one possibility remains.

5. A devil's advocate might bring up the fire that burned inside the building for approximately seven minutes before being extinguished. Although the colour temperature of the fire appears too bright for kerosene (i.e., jet fuel), we will invoke the White House interpretation of events, as mentioned earlier. Kerosene burns at approximately 860 degrees celsius in ambient air and less in a confined space where the fire tends to use up oxygen. (ASCE 2003)


http://physics911.net/d-fireball.jpg
Fireball From Initial Hole in Pentagon, or secondary explosion?

Could such a fire have destroyed both wings to the point of near invisibility? The simplest answer is that the left wing was exposed to fire only near the wing root, the more distal portions being completely beyond the reach of flames or heat sufficient to melt the aluminum, let alone to burn it. The window frames to the left of the initial hole are all intact, so any heat radiated from the fires in the building would have had to come through the windows to the outside, largely missing any sections of wing that might have been lying outside them.

2. At six meters from the fire, even under direct exposure, the heat would have been insufficient to raise the temperature of the aluminum skin much above 500 C, well below the melting temperature of aluminum, namely 660 C (NASA 2003).

In other words, it would have been a physical impossibility for any portion of the port wing beyond about four meters from the fire to be melted, vaporized or in any way destroyed by it. Thus, at least 16 m (52' 6") of that wing ought to have remained (and to have been clearly visible) on the left of the entrance hole. In fact, no such debris appears in any of the pictures taken of the Pentagon that morning.


http://physics911.net/b-pelouse_pentagon.jpg
Absence of Major Wing Debris in Front of Pentagon Wall

Until we hear of a completely different means by which both wings could have disappeared, we must assume that neither a Boeing 757 nor any aircraft of similar size struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. We would be happy to hear from any readers with serious alternative suggestions for how the wings might have disappeared before, during, or after the impact event.

If a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon in the manner described in the ASCE report, the port wing struck a column just to the left of the presumed engine-hole. Since the column did not fail, the wing must have, Here is why: The aircraft came in at 45 degrees to the wall of Wedge One and the port wing of a Boeing 757 is swept back at an angle of 29 degrees. Thus the angle made by the wing with the support column would have been

45 + 29 = 74 degrees

at the moment of impact. Clearly, no other portion of the wing could have been in contact with the Pentagon wall at that moment and the entire weight of the wing still, traveling at 500-plus miles per hour, would have produced a bending force that was entirely concentrated on the point of contact of the wing with the support column. This would have snapped all three spars instantly. The outboard portion of the wing would then have pivoted into the wall of the building, slamming into it but unable to penetrate it, because now the momentum of the wing, instead of being concentrated at one point, would have been distributed along the length of it contact with the building's wall.

We can declare that this did not happen, since neither the port wing nor any significant portion of it was found outside the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Mini-scenario

A clear and definite distinction must be drawn between two aspects of any forensic or criminal investigation: What did not happen and what did happen. The foregoing analysis shows as clearly as we can state the case, that no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon that day. In a sense, that's the easy part of the investigation. Finding out what did happen is a necessarily incomplete process, although some parts can be filled in with a high degree of reliability. Scenario construction is an attempt to fit the anomalous and non-anomalous pieces together in a manner not unlike a jigsaw puzzle. Here is a brief foray into the "what did happen" side of the equation.

A possible alternate explanation of what happened on that morning can be pieced together from eyewitness accounts of the tragedy, as well as other sources of information. There were apparently three aircraft involved in the affair: (Killtown 2003)

1. A military C-130 transport aircraft carrying out strange diving and climbing maneuvers in the area of the Pentagon (restricted airspace) at the time of the crash.

2. A Boeing 757 or 767 painted in American Airlines colors (possibly Flight 77 itself) overflying the Pentagon within seconds of the crash.

3. A military jet, possibly an F-16, which came in low and very fast, straight toward the Pentagon.

If the Pentagon attack was essentially a staged affair, it would be necessary to create as much confusion as possible to distract potential eyewitnesses from seeing the actual attack aircraft or, if seeing it, assuming that it was not the impact vehicle. (pi911 2003)

Thus, the C-130 carrying out strange maneuvers near the Pentagon would have been deployed to keep as many eyes as possible riveted on that aircraft, much as a stage magician frequently uses the trick of focusing the audience's attention in one direction, while he employs sleight-of-hand in another. Under these conditions, it is highly doubtful that any of the motorists traveling the beltway adjacent to the Pentagon would have been looking in the direction of the Pentagon when an aircraft struck the building.

The actual Flight 77 (or a duplicate of it) flies over the Pentagon and on toward Reagan International Airport or, possibly, Hollings Air force Base. By this time, flights would still be coming to the nearest airport all over the United States and no one would remark on such a landing. Several witnesses reported this aircraft, as well.

As Flight 77 (or its duplicate) flies over the Pentagon, a high-speed military jet or, possibly, a cruise missile, comes in low, just clearing the grounds fence and the lawn area, then slamming into the Pentagon at approximately 1000 km/hr. It strikes the Pentagon at roughly a 45-degree angle, taking out four support columns inside the wall and removing or damaging many other columns inside the building

As evidence for this possibility, an image of the vertical tail of a military jet was captured by a Pentagon security camera. (Desmoulins 2003a)


http://physics911.net/e-pentagon_animation.gif
Image of Tail of Unknown Aircraft on Pentagon Security

It has been claimed that the stabilizer that appears in this picture belonged to flight 77. In fact, the stabilizer is too small and fails to bear any trace of American Airlines "AA" company logo.

Only one engine was found inside the Pentagon. The image below shows what appears to be part of the rotor element bearing the stubs of vanes. By comparison with the leg of the worker standing beside it, the part is evidently less than 0.61 metres (two feet) in diameter.


http://physics911.net/f1-engine.jpghttp://physics911.net/f2-engine.jpg
Images of Engine Parts Found in Pentagon

The engines used by the Boeing 757 include the Pratt and Whitney engine shown below (PW 2003), all having the same dimensions, being about 2.5 metres in diameter in the turbofan section and less than half this diameter at the high-pressure (rear) stage.


http://physics911.net/PW2000.jpg
Turbofan Engine used in Boeing 757

The next image enables us to compare the rotor element with those in the 757 engine shown here. Since the rotor element is dwarfed by the front-stage turbine rotors, we will assume that the rotor is from the rear (high-pressure) stage of the engine, as shown in exploded view in the maintenance diagram below.


http://physics911.net/engine.jpg
Engineering Blowup of 757 Turbofan engine

The front rotor element (inside its housing ring) has a diameter of approximately 1.08 metres (42 inches) with the usual error of at most five percent. If we strip away the vanes, leaving only stubs, the diameter drops to 0.86 metres (2 feet 10 inches). Clearly this part is not from the high-pressure stage of a Boeing 757 engine.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 11:28 AM
<note: this is a continuation of the text from the preceding post, which is from physics911.net and written by someone Riley thinks knows his shit>

It has been claimed (Catherder 2004) that the part is a rotor from the auxiliary power unit (APU) of a 757. The APU is a small jet turbine engine that supplies power to the 757's electrical system. The author in question gave no evidence to support the claim beyond providing a link that shows a bump in the rear of a Boeing 757 where the APU exhaust vent can be seen. If the APU lies within this bump, it is probably too small to be the source of this part. A further argument can be made on the basis of the power needed to supply electrical power. The rotor element found at the Pentagon is about the right size for the engine of a military jet like the F-16. It is not clear why such a large engine would be needed to supply power that is only the tiniest fraction of the electrical power that such an engine, suitably harnessed, could generate.


Finally, the 50-foot gap in the support columns of the Pentagon wall easily accommodates the 32-foot wingspan of an F-16 or an aircraft of similar size. Some have proposed that a cruise missile was employed for the job, but it is difficult to sustain this proposal, given the size of the turbine rotor element. A cruise missile has a 20-inch diameter, which makes it too small to contain a motor with a 24-inch rotor. Given its 9-foot wingspan, a cruise missile is unlikely to take out more than two columns as it enters such a building.

Counterfactual evidence

If the Pentagon attack was essentially a massive deception, it would be very much in the interest of the real perpetrators to sidestep the analysis presented here. Since it cannot be argued against successfully, the perpetrators would be forced to adopt a counterfactual strategy: explain why the crash must have occurred as described. Such an approach would be merely puzzling to anyone who understands this article. If it could not have happened, it did not happen. To someone in the media, however, with eyes glazed over from reading our simple argument, the counterfactual approach would carry telling weight.

In November of 2001, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) completed a massive study of the DNA of Pentagon victims (Kelly 2001), finding matches between remains and DNA samples allegedly retrieved from victims' homes (gleaned from hairbrushes and other articles of personal use). Although it may well have been the case that matches were expertly made, the weak link in the chain of evidence lies in the collection of samples. DNA technicians would have no way of knowing where all the samples came from. That would be the job of army and FBI personnel that did most of the collecting.

Few people realize how simple it is to obtain tissue samples or body parts clandestinely from morgues, medical school cadaver rooms, any place that dead bodies may be found. Such venues are easily entered by persons who identify the,selves as officials of one kind or another.
A piece of liver or arm tissue complemented by a few hairs, all from the same corpse would be all that's necessary to "identify" a particular person. Would DNA from these different sources match? Of course they would, since they're from the same individual. Hypnotized by the word "match," media types would probably not even realize that "match" does not mean "identify," unless there were independent verification of the source of the samples.

Other problems with the DNA identification process involve contradictions with other claims made by the White House and/or Pentagon about the attack. One claim, that the aircraft was "completely vaporized" makes it doubtful that any of the DNA survived the holocaust. Another claim, that the aircraft was blown into little bits by the initial explosion, would imply that body parts would have been scattered all over the Pentagon grounds - which they weren't.

Given the poor track record of the US government and military in providing accurate information about its military and "antiterrorism" activities, any counterfactual claims must be taken with a large grain of salt.

Summary

The main burden of this article has been to demonstrate that the debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001.

We have also presented a scenario that may be much closer to the truth of what happened on the morning in question, but our main conclusion is reached quite independently of the scenario and neither implies it, nor is implied by it.

Note

We are aware of another study of the Pentagon crash by scientists at Purdue University. (Sozen 2002) One of us (Dewdney) has designed scientific simulation programs and has taught the subject for many years. A simulation program invariably involves a model of the phenomenon being simulated and the simulation is never better than the model. The Purdue simulation modeled the wings of the 757 as essentially kerosene-filled aluminum bags, in essence, with little structural strength. The wings break into sections when the plane strikes the building, each section passing between columns and spewing fuel into the growing conflagration. The rudder and tailplane pass into the building unscathed, as well.

The main problems with this model is the complete failure to take into account the structural integrity of the wing as well as the fact that fuel is stored only in tanks in the wing root, adjacent to the fuselage. As for the tail section being completely undamaged, no comment is necessary.

A home experiment

One of the authors made a simple home experiment to determine for himself just what the burning properties of kerosene might be. Here are the steps of the experiment:

1. Prepare a wheelbarrow (or other wide container made of steel) by removing all debris and cleaning the interior surface of all residue.

2. Pour in enough kerosene to cover the bottom of the container to a depth of one centimeter or slightly less.

3. Add a crumpled ball of aluminum foil, an empty pop or beer can, and any pieces of old aluminum you can find, such as lawnmower parts, aluminum door hardware or panels, etc.

4. Set the kerosene ablaze and wait a minute for maximum temperature to be reached.

5. Record which items survived the fire, as well as the degree of damage to each.

What do you observe? (See end of article for answer.)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank members of the S.P.I.N.E. Panel, in particular, Derrick Grimmer, Jim Hoffman, Joseph D. Keith, and Martha Rush. We also thank independent investigators Richard Stanley, Jim Hoffman and MIchael Elliott for providing critiques of an earlier version of this article. We also wish to thank John Dorsett and Marianne Sanscrainte for assistance in locating appropriate imagery.

About the authors

A. K. Dewdney is a mathematician and computer scientist who lives in London, Ontario, Canada. <www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/>

G. W. Longspaugh is an aerospace engineer who makes his home in Fort Worth, Texas, USA.

References

(ASCE 2003) ASCE Releases Pentagon Preliminary Performance Report. 2003. <http://www.asce.org/responds/> Retrieved October 29 2003.

(Bosankoe 2003) D. Bosankoe 2003. Pentagon video evidence shows fraud of war on terror. <http://www.world-action.co.uk/pentagon.html> Retrieval date unrecorded.

(Catherder 2004) Above Top Secret.
<http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html> Retrieved December 21 2004.

(Citoyens 2003) no attribution. 2003. Hunt the Boeing <www.asile.org/ (http://www.asile.org/) citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm> Retrieved September 20 2003.

(Desmoulins J.-P. 2003) Jean=Pierre Desmoulins. Pentagon 2001/9/11. 2003. <perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/english.html> Retrieved October 1 2003.

(Desmoulins J.-P. 2003a) Jean-Pierre Desmoulins. 2003. Image of tailfin. <perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/cctv.html> Retrieved October 1 2003.

(Eastman 2003) Dick Eastman, 2003. For AFPN: What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the killer jet. <www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm> Retrieved September 30, 2003.

(Elliott 2003) Michael Elliott. Pentagon Attack Debris. (From 911Review.org) <http://www.911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackDebris. shtml> Retrieved September 30 2003.

(Emiliani 1988) Emiliani C. 1988. The Scientific Companion. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

(Flugzeugtriebwerke 2003) <cip.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~pschirus/ aviation/flugzeuge/alt/engines2.phtml> Retrieved September 2 2003.

(Infoplease 2003) Infoplease.com. The Pentagon. <www.infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/) /spot/pentagon1.html> Retrieved June 12 2003.

(Jane's 2003). Jane's All the World's Aircraft. 2003. Entry - Boeing 757. Retrieved from <www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/java/boeing_757 (http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/java/boeing_757) .shtml> Retrieved June 12, 2003. [note: this subsite is no longer publicly available to non-subscribers.]

(Kelly 2001) Christopher C. Kelly. November 30, 2001. Forensic feat identifies nearly all Pentagon victims. Stars & Stripes. Retrieved from <216.70.54.91/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html> Retrieved October 8, 2003.

(Killtown 2003) Killtown. 2003. Questioning the 911 attacks. (From Killtown <http://www.geocities.com/killtown/>) <http://thewebfairy (http://thewebfairy/). com/killtown/flight77/witnesses.html> Retrieved October 1 2003.

(Nat. J. 2003) Carol A. Valentine. The National Journal. <http://globalfire (http://globalfire/). tv/nj/03en/jews/911remote.htm> Retrieved Sept 28 2003.

(NASA 2003) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2003. Commonly used elements and their properties. <http://www.ueet.nasa (http://www.ueet.nasa/). gov/materials/elements.php> Retrieved October 2 2003.

(pi911 2003) PI911. 2003. <http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index. html> Retrieved October 6 2003.

(PW 2003) Pratt & Whitney Inc. Turbofan Engine PW 2000 <http://www.pratt-whitney.com/?SMIDENTITY=NO]> Retrieved June 8/03, removed from website by September 20/03.

(Sozen 2002) Mete A. Sozen et al. Sept 11, 2002. September 11 attack simulations using LS-Dyna. Purdue University. <www.cs.purdue.edu/ (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/) homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/> Retrieved December 14 2003.

(USAF Museum 2003) USAF Museum; General Dynamics f-16A "Fighting Falcon." Retrieved from http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od11.htm Retrieved August 20 2003.

(Raytheon 2004) Tomahawk Cruise Missile. http://www.raytheon.com/ products/tomahawk/ref_docs/tomahawk.pdf, Retrieved December 20 2004.

Results of Home Experiment

If you tried this experiment at home, you may well find the paint burned off the outside of your container. However, the aluminum machine part, the door hardware, the crumpled aluminum foil and, yes, even the pop can will be untouched - except lettering on the can may partially disappear.

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 11:52 AM
*sigh*... you know I can go get whatever I need from Hoffman's site, and www.pentagonresearch.com (http://www.pentagonresearch.com), etc... which is WHY these "arguments" never go anywhere... which was original purpose of this thread... I was just trying to debunk the "missile" theory. Just for the sake of debunking it. It's a junk theory.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 12:00 PM
And I conceded a long time ago on the missile theory.

And I concede to your strategy towards the penagon issue when addressing the public.

It is in the best interests of the movement and it will best serve the progress of the movement if we address the pentagon issue under the understanding that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on that day.

That should be our stance when in the public sphere, no doubt. It will reduce the number of times we are called crazy by the naysayers by maybe 25 percent, which helps.

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 12:06 PM
You have, but a lot of people have not.

werther
05-19-2006, 12:07 PM
Gold I am not sure if you thought of this theory....

That Riley is in fact a member of the inner circle and is trying to convince us conspiracy theorists that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon so that we can later be proven wrong and our 9-11 truth movement ruined by video footage showing flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 12:12 PM
Ha!
Wait a minute.
R U serious?

werther
05-19-2006, 12:14 PM
no -just some conspiracy paranoia humour!

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 12:14 PM
I do think there's footage waiting in the wings to discredit us. It's the Pentagon... you're going to tell me that the video camera that enters into the parking lot is the only video camera focused on the Pentagon at any given moment? PUHLEESE....

werther
05-19-2006, 12:18 PM
its hard for me to believe that that cameras speed is only 1 frame every half second.

oops

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 12:21 PM
we need footage from the nearby interstate, from the Sheraton, from nearby gas stations

even audio alone would let us know if it was a boeing jumbo jet. They are loud and the sound of one landing is distinct. If it was a military jet, say a b-12 bomber for example, the sound of it landing would differ from the sound of a boeing landing.

Think I saw somewhere online that something like 80+ (exhibits) on the Pentagon are being witheld. Think that was total411.info

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 12:22 PM
its hard for me to believe that that cameras speed in only 1 frame every 30 seconds.

damn right

The DOD has access to technology decades ahead of the curve, but its survellance cameras around the Pentagon are more than a decade behind the curve. Right.

werther
05-19-2006, 12:26 PM
what I meant was

"its hard for me to believe that that cameras speed is only 1 frame every half second.

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 12:31 PM
But none of the people who saw the videos in the Sheraton and gas station have come forward to say they saw anything other than Flight 77.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 12:46 PM
Yeah, and that leads to questions that lead to speculation. Day-of accounts have eyewitnesses seeing a Boeing jumbo jet, seeing a small corporate jet, seeing a missile, and have people smelling cordite. According to some sources, folks were bribed and "compensated" and told by fed agents what to say about what happened. The event is shrouded in mystery and conflicting accounts. We've got some things to go on. Outside of what we already have we are pretty helpless and should fully expect evidence to be manipulated to support the official account.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 01:04 PM
I guess an important question to ask is, why would someone lie on that day.

The incentive to tell the truth is apparent. It is a catastrophic event. You will want to tell what happened and what you know to somehow cathartically dispel all that heinous shit.

But why would someone lie?

Why would someone say: "I saw what looked like a small corporate jet" if what they saw was a 150+ jumbo jet, why tell that lie

or

"I am in a helicopter over the Pentagon right now and it does not appear to me that what hit the Pentagon was an airplane. This does not appear to be the site of an airplane crash" or something to that effect" if it clearly were untrue. If the wings were being carted away and bodies moved on stretchers and the fuesalage (sp?) apparent? Why tell that lie.

Now we can all figure out why someone would say, "I saw a jumbo jet" when what they saw was a F-16. $$$ talks and for enough dough I bet I could get you to say you saw Big Foot in your yard last night.

Ignatius Riley
05-19-2006, 01:14 PM
If the gov't wants to tell a convincing story to folks in TV land, you put a white man who looks like a family man, wearing a tie, in front of a camera and have him say, "And I saw this jumbo jet shoot across the lawn at 500 mph." That alone will convince more than half of America who truly wants to believe what white family men say.

They also want to believe that the attacks came from abroad and happened like the government, the in-god-we-trust government, tells them it does. If the government backs the white man's story, bam! Another 30 percent bite.

The flipside is if some illegal mexican working on a road crew and taking his lunch outside of a gas station 300 yards from the Pentagon sees a small Navy plane shoot across the lawn and explode upon impact with the Pentagon --you put him in front of a camera and more than half of America will go "he's lying."

If a government spokesperson, a white man who looks like a family man, wearing a tie, says, "that illegal mexican is lying." bam! 30 more percent suddenly believe him to be a liar

Because Americans are xenophobic and racist and half the time don't even know that they are.

You see where I am going with this, right?

Eckolaker
05-19-2006, 01:52 PM
John, whatever happened to that Colonel lady(Karin was it?) that you spoke/interviewed. I think what had you convinced flight 77 hit the pentagon was speaking to her. Unfortunately all our threads and posts from the stern boards are gone. I wish I could go back to some of those posts.

Anyhow, its already been stated that none of us over there really believed the missle theory. We more or less focused on some other type of plane other then flight 77 hitting the pentagon.

This has been beaten to death time and time again. The release of the new camera angles does not give us any "new" information or proof to one arguement or another. The video's we have access to have never been enough information. For that reason alone we cannot rule out the fact that something other then flight 77 may have hit the pentagon.

Remember our dear friend Christopher? He deifnately had a lot to say about the pentagon. http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1606

However, this truth movement has never really needed the pentagon to prove our statements. It just happens to be the icing on the cake if you will.

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 01:59 PM
Karen Kwiatkowski was there that day... and she described the crash site, etc...

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 01:59 PM
And John Judge says he has a stewardess friend who usually ran that line, and she went to the crash site, and saw upholstery she recognized, and windows, etc...

Eckolaker
05-19-2006, 02:03 PM
Karen Kwiatkowski was there that day... and she described the crash site, etc...

Didnt she tell you that she saw flight 77 hit the pentagon?


I'm searching the my email archive for it, I hope I saved it.

Eckolaker
05-19-2006, 02:06 PM
And John Judge says he has a stewardess friend who usually ran that line, and she went to the crash site, and saw upholstery she recognized, and windows, etc...


You know, I have heard increasing "eyewitness" reports that place an ever growing debri field on the pentagon lawn. Its safe to say that a lot which can be ruled out.


What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes. However, sometimes we want our mind to see things that really arent there.

911TRUTH
05-19-2006, 04:40 PM
Gold - Those pics of the boeing jet in the pentagon wreckage are great! I've never seen such convincing proof of Flight 77 crashing into the pentagon. Those pics should be all over the web.

jetsetlemming
05-19-2006, 06:52 PM
I think that those ideas on the wings are interesting, but about the size of the planes, I saw the video on the news and I don't think it actually shows the whole thing in one shot. first screen shows it comng into view, the second an explosion. And the cameras are only on 2 frames a second because that's much cheaper and easier and smaller to store long term, esp. considering those cameras are running 24 hours a day. Watch the news next time they have a scene from a security camera, and you'll see that 2 frames a second is much higher than normal, and I'm sure the pentagon would store their video much longer than normal in order to look for people stopping by to check the place out more than normal. It may supposedly be a military installation and thus have access to high-tech stuff for the building security, but it's still a public installation and they didn't have any problems with 1/2 second frames before. Any money they spend, esp. on common, boring stuff like cameras, would be seen mby congress, which would probably bitch about paying extra for large memory computer systems and hi-def, hi frame rate cameras to run 24 hours a day, every day, mostly just to look at people's faces. 2 frames a second is enough for that goal. They probably have close circuit cameras with better quality near the entrances watched by security guards, too.

jetsetlemming
05-19-2006, 06:54 PM
When I was in high school, I helped my video production teacher scan the security cameras whenever a fire alarm was pulled or someone vandalized the hallway or something like that. the school's cameras were set on such a low framerate everyone would move about five feet between every frame. They really weren't at all useful except to discourage the students from doing anything because they were there.

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 06:58 PM
Gold - Those pics of the boeing jet in the pentagon wreckage are great! I've never seen such convincing proof of Flight 77 crashing into the pentagon. Those pics should be all over the web.

They're all available at www.pentagonresearch.com

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 08:56 PM
Didnt she tell you that she saw flight 77 hit the pentagon?

I'm searching the my email archive for it, I hope I saved it.

You can hear some of what she said that day here (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7405)...

I remember I had said that Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowsi burst into tears when she spoke of it, and was at the crash site, and I think I remember her saying she was looking out the window, and saw the explosion or something... Who knows.

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 09:09 PM
You can read what she thinks about 9/11 here (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5772).

911TRUTH
05-19-2006, 09:58 PM
www.pentagonresearch.com (http://www.pentagonresearch.com) <--- great site...the guy who made loose change should really take a look at this..

I love how that blue tarp the workers were carrying was just a tent...just goes to show how easily disinfo is created.

That hole on in the inner wall of the pentagon is very suspicious

look at this picture: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/101-large.jpg

The yellow columns are impacted, but are still structurally in tact. How could the nose of the plane, which seems to be made out of a weak material, punture such a large symmetric hole?

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 10:11 PM
He really did a lot of work.

somebigguy
05-19-2006, 10:36 PM
So those that believe 77 hit the Pentagon, can they tell me why?

Gold9472
05-19-2006, 10:38 PM
So those that believe 77 hit the Pentagon, can they tell me why?

Because that's what they told us.

AndrewLoweWatson
05-20-2006, 08:07 AM
Because that's what they told us.


Exactly.

somebigguy
05-20-2006, 08:19 AM
Since when does anybody put that much stock in anything the media or government says? If you want to believe it, so be it, but stating it as gospel is a dangerous thing and borders on spreading government propaganda.

I'm not doing the government's dirty work, if anyone asks me what hit the Pentagon, I'll say I don't know.

AndrewLoweWatson
05-20-2006, 08:30 AM
I agree somebigguy. We should not get too attached to any theories, in case new evidence comes out to disprove us. I have to say though, that I have been surprised by some of the things said on your forum this week by people who I thought were rock solid on the WTC demolition theories, in other words would be prepared to stand up in a court of law and say I believe that those towers were assisted by explosives of some sort. I would .

Gold9472
05-20-2006, 10:13 AM
Since when does anybody put that much stock in anything the media or government says? If you want to believe it, so be it, but stating it as gospel is a dangerous thing and borders on spreading government propaganda.

I'm not doing the government's dirty work, if anyone asks me what hit the Pentagon, I'll say I don't know.

Notice the title says, "I Think...". That is far from gospel.

Ignatius Riley
05-20-2006, 01:23 PM
http://physics911.net/c-pentagon_montage.jpg

really big plane

itty bitty hole

I say it is tetotally impossible that American Airlines Flight 77 made the 16' by 16' hole in the wall of the Pentagon without 1) the wings and tail shearing off and bouncing back, and landing perhaps as far away as hundreds of yards from the site of impact --that is if the plane was traveling at the speed it was alleged to travel at; 2) debris raining down on drivers on the nearby interstate; and 3) wreckage and bodies would have been everywhere. The thought that the entire plane, wings and all, zipped neatly through how-many-feet of reinforced concrete to disappear almost entirely into the building is an insane illusion to entertain.

And does anyone on here know anything about physics. I mean seriously. Could a plane, 150 + feet long, with a 150+ foot wingspan and weighing how many hundreds of tons, could a plane that size travel at 500 miles per hour 10 feet off the ground. Is it physically possible? I mean, this should be simple mathematics folks. And even if it is physically possible, which I doubt it is, could any human pilot do it?

... http://physics911.net/missingwings.htm

PhilosophyGenius
05-21-2006, 12:15 AM
Gold I am not sure if you thought of this theory....

That Riley is in fact a member of the inner circle and is trying to convince us conspiracy theorists that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon so that we can later be proven wrong and our 9-11 truth movement ruined by video footage showing flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Ya know now that you mentioned it Riley came just days before the govn't released that video which supposedly shows a plane hitting the Pentagon. It makes a lot of sense now that he's here for disino on the govn'ts dime.

So Riley, which agency are you working for!?!?!

PhilosophyGenius
05-21-2006, 12:16 AM
Just fuckin around...hehe...

Love ya Riley!

somebigguy
05-21-2006, 12:21 AM
I agree somebigguy. We should not get too attached to any theories, in case new evidence comes out to disprove us. I have to say though, that I have been surprised by some of the things said on your forum this week by people who I thought were rock solid on the WTC demolition theories, in other words would be prepared to stand up in a court of law and say I believe that those towers were assisted by explosives of some sort. I would .
I'm surprised about that too. Some people stating they are "on the fence" regarding controlled demo. We have a ton of evidence versus unprecedented collapses. Oh well, what are ya gonna do.

PhilosophyGenius
05-21-2006, 12:25 AM
I'm surprised about that too. Some people stating they are "on the fence" regarding controlled demo. We have a ton of evidence versus unprecedented collapses. Oh well, what are ya gonna do.

This is exacly what you do:
http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10206

MikeJr.
05-21-2006, 12:49 AM
This is exacly what you do:
http://yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10206

That was awsome!!

Gangster
05-22-2006, 09:21 AM
Well, you can´t be 100% sure of the veracity of those pictures or whether they were taken at the Pentagon at all. What's the original source?

A 100 ton plane would leave dozens of tons of wreckage, engines made of steel and titanium, large tail and wing sections etc. Now, where is all that? Why can´t they just take reporters to the warehouse where this has supposedly been kept (if a 757 hit the Pentagon) and just display all this stuff? All the parts are stamped with a unique identification number. So, it's no doubt from which airplane certain parts originate.

They want you to believe that a 757 crawled along the ground into the Pentagon at 500+ mph. ! It came over that 6-8 lane highway, cleared a hill and then leveled out in a very small space to crawl along the ground into the Pentagon ! Come on.

However; you are quite right in that the evidence for complicity is overwhelming even without the Pentagon. And I understand your reasoning for not focusing on the Pentagon segment of the 911 official fable. But all that accumulating evidence just isn´t getting the case any traction. We're just running in place. The mass media ignores it, congress ignores it, the authors of the official fable just continue ignoring the discussion. So; what to do? How is it possible to keep up a meaningful debate if one side, the govt. side, constantly refuses to join that discussion? Even though their fable has been taken apart.

Eckolaker
05-22-2006, 01:03 PM
Since the beggining I have always tried to compare known constants with the known evidence taken from 9/11.

With that being said, what we do know is that a plane cannot perform some of the manuevers mentioned in the official version of the story. Ask any pilot what the hardest thing to do in a plane is. They will tell you its landing. Why? Well its simple. What does a plane want to do naturally once its obtained the necessary velocity? Lift! The faster the plane is going the more lift the plane has. As a matter of fact, planes are outfitted with flaps, elevators, and ailerons... all are features of design added to counteract the effects of lift.

Knowing this I find it very hard to believe a jet powered aircraft weighing several thousands of pounds was able to maintain such an altitude without crashing. At its present velocity (someone may be a bit better at the math then I am) the plane would be looking at some several thousand pounds of lift.

Now lets apply these two factors with what we know about todays modern aircraft(jetliners specifically). The cockpit is full of one thing. Electronics. Computers, gauges, lights, alarms, monitors, ETC. All of which are there to assist the pilot in flight. Notice I mentioned alarms. These are pretty straight forward. They sound off when something is going wrong or some other malfunction has occured. This can be anything from engine failure to low altitude warnings.

According to our official version Hani Hanjoor(spelling) was the hijacker that piloted flight 77 into the pentagon. Long story short, he went to flight school in florida and was a terrible pilot. According to the official report, he piloted the plane from altitude, performed a 280 degree descending turn at 500+MPH immediately lined up with the west wall of the pentagon, dropped the plane to an altitude of 2 feet(the underbelly of the plane being at about knee-waist high), flew over the highway(completely missing the 3-foot high guard rails, but knocking over 5 light poles), and then crashed into the pentagon. All the while, the planes alarms would have been going nuts. Passengers on the plane im sure were not sitting quitely, other hijackers had to have been shouting orders or whatever. Im sure the activity and confusion on that plane would have been enough to cause most people to have a nervous breakdown. Yet, somehow Hani managed to perform amazing feets of flight that not only would test the limits of the most seasoned pilots, but the plane aswell.

Some reports even state the plane skidded on the lawn and then into the pentagon. Clearly this can be ruled out, as there was absolutely zero evidence (photos taken moments after the crash, and newly released security camera footage) that the plane skidded along lawn before impacting the pentagon.

I could go on and on with this shit...

Ultimately it comes to this. If "they" had evidence that would put any "conspiracy" theory immediately to rest. "They" would release it. Especially considering the current state of affairs in this country. However, this is not the case. "They" dont have evidence to disprove our theories. "They" never will...Why? because we stumbled on the truth. We have known the truth for the last 5 years now. Instead, were labled as "conspiracy theorists" Tin-foil hat wearing crazies. They dont attack our position with facts, instead they look to attack us personally and confuse/re-direct others into the same line of thinking.

robot
05-25-2006, 01:35 PM
I'm with Mike Ruppert on this one insofar as discussing physical evidence goes. I see the physical evidence as sort of "extra" but not "definitive" proof of conspiracy. I'm not a scientist so I have no way of knowing if a plane hit the pentagon or if airliners and fire can cause buildings to collapse. I can, however, research PNAC and The Grand Chessboard by zbigniew brzezinski (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LaSV7Y53VEHVQAoy9XNyoA/SIG=14ab3qh65/EXP=1148664152/**http%3a//search.yahoo.com/search%3fp=zbigniew%2bbrzezinski%2bunited%2bstates %26rs=0%26fr2=rs-top%26ei=UTF-8%26fr=sbc-web) where they basically come out and admit that a 911 type event was essential to maintaining US hegemony. When put against the background of the history of the CIA, the Northwoods document, Bush/Cheney connections to big oil/defense contractors/bin ladens, and the apparant peaking of world oil production, all of this evidence paints a pretty convincing picture that the people that had most to gain from 911 are the people running the financial sectors, not religious fanatics. Indeed, the elite have gotten everything they want since 911, while the Islamic world has been subject to the worst kinds of brutality. That isnt to say that the pentagon raises serious questions. How did a plane even penetrate the most important military target in the country? What was Cheney talking about when he said "the order still stands" to the radar operator in the bunker as told by Norman Minetta? Why were the video tapes from the adjacent hotel and gas station confiscated by the FBI minuetes after the attack? How would they have known where the incriminating videos were so quickly and have the presence of mind to seize them during a supposed suprise attack of a horrific nature, particularly when we are asked to believe that they were totally inept up until 911? I'm not saying the physical evidence is not damning. It is. But only when it is viewed in combination with the other evidence having to do with means, motive, and opportunity.

PhilosophyGenius
05-25-2006, 04:17 PM
My personal opinion is that the scientific evidence, although very debatable, should be used because just because people needed it to happen doesnt mean they made it happen. So you've got to prove they made it happen and not just that they picked up lemons off the ground and made lemonade-you've got to prove they made the lemons.

Some would say thta Ruppert doesn't go some places because they're debatable (explosives in the WTC, what hit the Pentagon) yet he still proves 9/11 was an inside job. Crossing the Rubicon was 500 pages. If the guy who made Loose Change had Ruppert's mentality (not to say that it's a bad one), that documentary would need to be 3-4 hours just to prove 9/11 was a govn't op rather than 1-2 using "debatable facts"

robot
05-26-2006, 12:40 PM
I agree we need to prove that they made it happen. Its just harder, in my opinion, to prove the "how" as compared to the "who" and "why". Lately I've been getting more and more bold about talking about 911 truth with my customers (bartender), friends, and families. I live in San Francisco so everyone already has an anti-Bush stance but they mostly accept the "blowback" theory for 911. Maybe they even know that we trained Bin Laden in Afghanistan and they think that he turned on us. But now as more and more information comes out about other failures in the administration, particularly
Iraq, the economy, gas prices, Katrina, they are more willing to believe the 911truth information. It's difficult for me, not being a scientist or even having a very firm grasp on physics or chemistry, to articulate why steal doesnt melt in fires caused by jet fuel fires. I do tell people about building 7 and suprisingly many people still don't know about it. Building 7 to me seems like the one piece of physical evidence that points to and inside job. I will mention the Pentagon but I usually stick to the fact that I don't believe a non military aircraft would be allowed to approach the Pentagon without being shot down.