New 9/11 Findings: Pentagon and Boeing 757

[Nephrys]

Here is the link to the new findings

Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the buillding.

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. "It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact."

Interesting... Thoughts? I don't know if I buy into the whole 'the government planned 9/11' ideology but... there does seem to be a lot of evidence from a lot of different places that a boeing 757 didn't hit the pentagon.

[Snrrub]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

This link offers a great explanation of why it was a boeing 757 that hit the pentagon.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

The bolded part makes no scientific sense whatsoever.

[ejda]

Ah nooo, not another conspiracy theory! The only *possible* conspiracy is that flight 93 was shot down and intercepted by military but was covered up.

[Darion]

Are we really going to do this again?

[Rosuav]

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage

Define "barely above ground level". Does that mean "wheels would roll on the ground if the undercarriage were extended", or "under a thousand feet"? There's a fair bit of difference, but typical human exaggeration will tend to describe the latter as though it were the former.

Conspiracy theorists need not trouble to get true aeronautical knowledge. The fact that a 757 is listed as 13 meters high (I think - been a while since I was reading plane specs books) is proof that a 757-shaped hole in the Pentagon would be 13 meters high, right? (I'm getting this Wile E Coyote image in my head here... fly a plane through a building and see its exact shape in silly-o-wet...) If the nose hits a few meters higher, chances are the wall is going to fall down just as well as if it hadn't.

Suppose it wasn't a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon. Suppose it were a missile, deliberately done up to look like a 757. (There's certainly nothing to stop a group with forethought - enough to plant many people in positions of trust - to have obtained some kind of large ICBM and do it up in an airline livery.) The amount of trouble to fabricate the evidence as seen would be far less than the trouble to do it for real - it is far easier to turn an airliner into a bomb than to turn a bomb into an airliner.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Snrrub
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

This link offers a great explanation of why it was a boeing 757 that hit the pentagon.

Wow. Pwnt.

That is an amazing collection of data.

[Riek]

So if the conspiracy theory is correct, and it wasn't the AA 757 that hit the Pentagon, my query has always been: "So where did the 757 actually go and end up?"

You would have to get air traffic controllers, flight crew, engineers a whole bunch of Emergency Reponse teams and various Government agencies to all 'overlook' a bunch of data and clues that the plane was actually being diteched into the Atlantic somewhere. Sort of like the fake moon landing theory, it would be far too hard to cover all the evidence up, especially the people involved in the whole scenario.

[Nephrys]

Originally posted by Snrrub
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

This link offers a great explanation of why it was a boeing 757 that hit the pentagon.

Nice. Thanks Snrrub!

[Rosuav]

Originally posted by Haigen
Sort of like the fake moon landing theory, it would be far too hard to cover all the evidence up, especially the people involved in the whole scenario.

Haigen doesn't exist. It's all an elaborate conspiracy by the government of Threshold (ie Ari and Dal), with the connivance of a huge number of players, for no reason at all. But Haigen doesn't exist, and you can't prove to me otherwise!!!111one (And it isn't his birthday tomorrow, so there.)

You get to the point, with these sorts of theories, where you have to ask - how much does it matter? If nothing at all, drop it. If a lot, well, someone must have a purpose behind it. So find that purpose.

[Pae]

Originally posted by Haigen
Sort of like the fake moon landing theory

Whoa no way... we landed on the moon! We landed on the moon!