A 757 Hit the Pentagon
Most likely.
See the explanations here and here. Basically it has to do with the landing gear that I previously posted about and thought it wasn't a 757 gear.
Now I think it was a 757 landing gear after all. I was mistaken. So sue me.
However, this certainly doesn't mean flight 77 hit the pentagon, and indeed I think it is unlikely that it did:
1) the extreme penetrating nature of the damage suggests it wasn't a normal 757,
2) the secrecy over the black boxes,
3) the lack of human remains ejected by the explosion onto the lawn even though many other large plane parts were strewn around.
If we assume it was a 757 that hit, it probably was a passengerless drone that was switched with flight 77, and the drone may have carried extra explosives. The drone was piloted by remote control-- I still do not think a human pilot, especially a poorly trained hijacker pilot, could take that approach path.
There is a new video that models the plane hitting the pentagon, from a National Geographic show. It is worth a look. They claim the famous "exit hole" on the Pentagon A-E drive was made by shock waves from the crash. Here are my thoughts about that:
The shockwave theory is nice, but it fails to account for two things:
1) there wasn't simply open space with beams where the plane went in-- there were lots and lots of separate rooms, with concrete walls between.
2) the "path of least resistance" for shock waves would have been OUT the hole the plane made coming in, not breaking down a thick brick wall, it seems to me.
So, I am simply not convinced by this.
Also, in the video, the plane goes well into the building before exploding. If this is accurate, then this means the famous pentagon security camera video with the explosion has a couple of seconds missing-- several frames have to be missing. Why were they cut out???
Furthermore, if the plane shredded and blew up once it got INSIDE, is it really feasible that so much large debris would get carried OUTSIDE by the explosion? And again, why were no seat parts or human remains thrown onto the pentagon lawn?
See the explanations here and here. Basically it has to do with the landing gear that I previously posted about and thought it wasn't a 757 gear.
Now I think it was a 757 landing gear after all. I was mistaken. So sue me.
However, this certainly doesn't mean flight 77 hit the pentagon, and indeed I think it is unlikely that it did:
1) the extreme penetrating nature of the damage suggests it wasn't a normal 757,
2) the secrecy over the black boxes,
3) the lack of human remains ejected by the explosion onto the lawn even though many other large plane parts were strewn around.
If we assume it was a 757 that hit, it probably was a passengerless drone that was switched with flight 77, and the drone may have carried extra explosives. The drone was piloted by remote control-- I still do not think a human pilot, especially a poorly trained hijacker pilot, could take that approach path.
There is a new video that models the plane hitting the pentagon, from a National Geographic show. It is worth a look. They claim the famous "exit hole" on the Pentagon A-E drive was made by shock waves from the crash. Here are my thoughts about that:
The shockwave theory is nice, but it fails to account for two things:
1) there wasn't simply open space with beams where the plane went in-- there were lots and lots of separate rooms, with concrete walls between.
2) the "path of least resistance" for shock waves would have been OUT the hole the plane made coming in, not breaking down a thick brick wall, it seems to me.
So, I am simply not convinced by this.
Also, in the video, the plane goes well into the building before exploding. If this is accurate, then this means the famous pentagon security camera video with the explosion has a couple of seconds missing-- several frames have to be missing. Why were they cut out???
Furthermore, if the plane shredded and blew up once it got INSIDE, is it really feasible that so much large debris would get carried OUTSIDE by the explosion? And again, why were no seat parts or human remains thrown onto the pentagon lawn?
posted by spooked at 10:43 PM
4 Comments:
I am NOT AT ALL convinced a 757 actually hit the Pentagon.
Not at all.
First off, it STILL doesn't explain what was able to punch a hole through SIX, RE-ENFORCED, MULTIPLE-FEET THICK CONCRETE WALLS THAT MADE UP THE PENTAGON'S CONCENTRIC RINGS.
Why were pentagon employees forming a line on the lawn to police up debris!?? What were uniformed members from the Pentagon carrying off the lawn in a big box, hidden under a tarp? What were they so afraid someone would see!? Why all the secrecy that morning? Why would some supposed "Terrorist" NOT fly right into Rummy's office? Instead, he chose to fly into THE ONE SIDE that was nearly empty because IT WAS BEING FORTIFIED!?? JUST DOESN'T MAKE any logical sense!
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/flight.77.attack.path.jpg
An aluminium clad, pressurizied thin-skinned, flying coke-can (which is what a commericial airliner essentially is), most certianly did not/was not capable of that type of penetration. Don't believe me? Throw a Coke can against a brick wall and tell me what happenes. Does it penetrate through SOLID BRICK? No way. So what did cause that amazing damage then? Something A LOT HARDER than a thin-skinned aluminium tube...that's what.
Another point: that plane took off from an airport that was less than 10 minutes flying time from the Pentagon..what the hell was that plane doing FOR ALMOST AN HOUR flying around the country (AWAY from its target), before the "Terrorists" suddenly remembered they had a job to do?? That plane was wandering for AN HOUR! Think about that. If you were a "terrorist" on that flight, any time airborne that was not used to fly directly to the target GREATLY increased your exposure time to the military, and therefore GREATLY increased the chances that you would be intercepted and possibly shot down, and unable to perform your terrorist duties. So this makes absolutely NO SENSE. And is HIGHLY illogical a story. The supposed "Pilot" of that plane could barely fly a Cessna...and was NOT instrument qualified. Yet he sucessfully managed to navagate his multi-engined jumbo jet all the way back to a point in space that he couldn't physically see by instruments alone, NEVER having been trained to do so!?? Please. I was born at night....but it wasn't last night. ;-)
Reporter Jamie McIntyre: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/pentagon1/911.pentagon.jamie.mcintyre.wmv
The Penatgon has a battery of anti-aircraft missles around it AT ALL TIMES (AND STILL DOES!!) WHY WERE THEY SUDDENLY ALL INOPERABLE THAT MORNING!???? That is the most secure, well defended BUILDING ON THE PLANET!! ...except for the moring of 9/11!?? A flying bus managed to defeat all these countermeasures!? Gimmie a break! And how does one explain away the small engine seen in one photograph, that IS NOT FROM, and TOO SMALL to ever be from, a 757?
I could go on, and on, and on...
Hey, I agree with you. The 757 theory has a lot of problems.
Mostly what I was saying was that was a 757 landing gear.
sorry if i got a little long winded! LOL i posted that after several beers. ;-)
This can't actually work, I suppose like this.
Post a Comment
<< Home