Political Crossfire Forums

[chrisbrowning]

Was the Pentagon attack a conspiracy? If so, what happened....

Some points:
-Only 5 frames of security camera footage have been released from the Citgo gas station near the pentagon, less than enough to show what happened.
-Parts found at wreckages do not match plane parts.(unconfirmed)
-Security camera footage from hotel across from pentagon which captured attack was confiscated by Government officials (unconfirmed)
-Important U.S. officials were placed conveniently on opposite side of Pentagon.
-Pentagon "crash" site inconsitent with other plane-crashes

[Straudos]

For starters you have hundreds of witnesses who saw it happen and have said it was a commercial plane. On top of that, the plane clipped several light posts along the way and based on the distances had a minimum wingspan of about 100ft.

[Gremlin]

This is a cut 'n paste from this site. Its not my words but it does make a compelling argument.


------------------------------------


This is how the official story has Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon:


(Pentagon Building Performance Report - 3.7 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT, PDF)


Notice it's fuselage strikes between the 1st and 2nd floors and it's vertical tail (or stabilizer/rudder) extends above the 3rd floor and it's right horizontal stabilizer should have contacted the wall between the 1st and 2nd story windows:


( http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm )


A Boeing 757's tail section is HUGE and should have either left a gash in the wall if it partially entered, or left a very noticeable mark on it if it sheered off and crumpled against it before bouncing off, or from being obliterated into a million pieces from hitting the recently retrofitted wall at a blistering speed of 530 mph. However, you can clearly see that none of that happened:


(Another hi-res shot: http://killtown.911review.org/images/fligh.../pcctrspray.jpg )


Also notice there is a piece of column still hanging from the 3rd floor. Columns are usually made of long thin steel rebar incased with concrete, so this piece should have been bent back into the building in the direction the supposeded plane crashed in and not dangling as if it were attached by strings:


(Hi-res: http://killtown.911review.org/images/fligh...hrlongspray.jpg )


You can see from this early photo taken before the roof callapsed (which was about 30 mins after the "crash" at about 9:38 am) that there is no large plane debris from a tail section or any other section from a 757:


(Hi-res: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg )


I have yet to come across any photo or video that shows what looks like debris from a 757's tail section or any photo showing a mark on the Pentagon's facade where the vertical and/or right horizontal tail section smashed up against.


Tail sections usually survive plane crashes since they are usually the last to hit the object the plane crashes into and because it's at the rear of the plane:





If you get into a debate with someone who still believes in the official story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, just show them that there is no evidence of a 757's tail section hitting the wall and sheering off, or obliterating against it. Also, mention that tail sections from planes do not simply disappear without a trace.

The missing tail section from Flight 77 is the best smoking gun that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon.


See also my page: Why They Didn't Use A 757 To Hit The Pentagon, The odd damage to the building, Merc's A 757 DOES NOT FIT, and Russ's Pentagon Research impact page.

[Gremlin]

Straudos wrote: For starters you have hundreds of witnesses who saw it happen and have said it was a commercial plane. On top of that, the plane clipped several light posts along the way and based on the distances had a minimum wingspan of about 100ft.


Yea talk about threading a needle.


-----------------------

This aspect of the official version has always bothered me (amongst a bizzilian others!). The official version, to me, makes it seem that Flight 77 essentially flew in a straight line from when hitting the lamp posts until striking the Pentagon. Here's some pics from Russell's awesome site that is what I would agree shows essentially the trajectory that they say Flight 77 flew in like; a straight line:






However, the official version also says, along with multiple witnesses, that Flight 77 was tilting it's wings to the left right before it struck:

Quote:

PENTAGON BUILDING PERFORMANCE REPORT - The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10 second before impact (figure 3.14). At that time the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/pbpr.html#3.7


Witnesses:

Steve Anderson - I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground...

Mickey Bell - The jet came in from the south and banked left as it entered the building...

David Marra - Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground.

Mary Ann Owens - I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed...

Noel Sepulveda - The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low...

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/witnesses.html

How could it have tilted it's wings to the left so much and not turn while traveling at a whooping "530 mph"???

[Straudos]

No matter how you look at it, the clipped lightposts clearly show it could not have been a missile.

And that's not even mentioning the hundreds of people who were there when the plane hit. There's flat out no way someone could claim it was a missile unless they totally ignore the clear eyewitness accounts of hundreds of people who saw it hit.

[Gremlin]

Straudos wrote: No matter how you look at it, the clipped lightposts clearly show it could not have been a missile.

And that's not even mentioning the hundreds of people who were there when the plane hit. There's flat out no way someone could claim it was a missile unless they totally ignore the clear eyewitness accounts of hundreds of people who saw it hit.


I dont belive that the aircraft was a missle, nor a 757.

My 2 top guesses would be an A3 skywarrior or a Glabehawk

The A3 wingspan doesnt exactly fit the dimensions needed to clip the light poles but it does resemble a 757. You also dont need to fly perfectly strait to clip the poles like they did. Hitting one pole would veer the plane a bit and may run into another and so forth. The veer from the pole strike would more then likely be an inside turn (ie: rightwing strike, veer right), but a correction would point the plane closer to the left side then the middle.

The Globe hawk fits the dimensions of what would hit the light poles flying perfectly strait, but does not resemble a 757.

[Straudos]

Ok, that's less of a stretch than the missile idea. But this naturally invalidates the article you posted earlier, which claims no plane hit because no tail section was found.

I disagree that hitting a lightpost would be enough to veer the plane significantly. This is an object that (even if it were an A3) weighs over 70,000lbs and is travelling at over 500mph. I also don't think it looks like a boeing, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.

[Gremlin]

Straudos wrote: Ok, that's less of a stretch than the missile idea. But this naturally invalidates the article you posted earlier, which claims no plane hit because no tail section was found.

I disagree that hitting a lightpost would be enough to veer the plane significantly. This is an object that (even if it were an A3) weighs over 70,000lbs and is travelling at over 500mph. I also don't think it looks like a boeing, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.


your right that there still isnt a tail section but the vertical stabilizers are far less on a a3/globe hawk then a 757-200.

Tail hiegth 22ft, 72 ft wingspan.



i estimate the tail at 20 or so feet, has a 124 ft wingspan.



id also like to point out this piece of debris as it comes into question.
Anyone got any thoughts what this might be?

[NautaPuella]

My take on it is, I have no clues whatsoever as to what happens when a plane hits a building. I don't do physics, so I just stick with the "it was a plan" theory.

Besides what about the passengers on the plane? Did they just go home that day instead of being flown into a building and incinerated?

[Patriot911]

The estimated speed of the plane that hit the Pentagon was 350mph, not 500+ as Gremlin claims.

While a global hawk has a wingspan necessary to hit the lightpoles, the wings have a much more narrow wing cross section than a 757 and probably would not have survived the multiple lightpole impacts. It also does not even come close to matching the descriptions from all the witnesses who at the least say they saw a two engined plane hit the Pentagon and at the most clearly identified the plane as a 757, and since they were commercial airline pilots, they ought to be able to recognize a plane when they see one. Not a single witness said they saw what looked like a Globalhawk, ie a single engine, split tail, very short plane with no cockpit. You also have the fact that a globalhawk doesn't have enough mass to blast it's way through the Pentagon as we saw happened.

As for the tail section, most impacts are relatively low impact collisions, and even still the tail section isn't ALWAYS intact. Saying no tail section proves conclusively that it wasn't a 757 is disingenuous at best and a downright lie at worst. If the tail ALWAYS survives, where is the globalhawk tail or the A3 tail?

As for your question of why didn't the plane turn when it was tilted, well, you have to understand flight dynamics. You can travel in a perfectly straight line and rotate the aircraft along it's axis. It isn't the banking of a plane that makes it turn, but a combination of bank, tail and ailerons. Ask any pilot and they will tell you. If you make an uncoordinated turn (rolling the plane without using the rudder), the plane doesn't turn very well. Also, the faster you are flying, the longer it takes for the plane to react to changes in attitude based on distance traveled.