757 Landing Gear in the Pentagon?
The evidence of this landing gear is, in my opinion, the best evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
However, I think the evidence that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon is very strong. In particular:
1) the small entry hole, only 80 feet wide (compared to the 120 foot-wide wingspan of a 757) and 25 feet high (compared to the 40-plus feet of a 757 tail).
2) the absence of a broken-off tail or broken-off wing tips on the Pentagon lawn
3) the unlikely approach path-- only inches off the ground, as must the only possible way to explain the entry hole.
4) the 6 foot high cable spools that would have been knocked over by a 757 flying inches off the ground, but were not.
5) the ground-level hole in the construction fence and the accompanying damage to the generator do not fit with a 757 engine-- plus there is the unlikelyhood that an engine hitting the heavy generator truck would NOT cause the engine to snap off.
6) the "exit hole" seems suspiciously "mocked up", particularly that the fragile 757 nose cone was apparently found inside this hole (when it should have been destroyed upon the first impact 300 feet away).
7) the several light poles supposedly knocked-down by the jet on the highway are fishy, as normally several impacts on a flying jet like that would seriously damage the plane and cause a fire, if not cause the plane to crash immediately.
8) the general dearth of plane debris in and around the Pentagon (as observed by first responders).
9) the astounding lack of any air defense around Washington DC and the Pentagon from a hijacked jet supposedly coming from hundreds of miles away-- and this is 30 minutes AFTER two hijacked jets slammed into the WTC. But if there was no 757 heading towards the Pentagon, then there was no need for air defenses.
These are some of the biggest reasons to doubt that flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon, although there are others as well.
Yet still we have this photo of a messed-up 757 landing gear covered with debris in a burned out room.
How to explain it?
1) a 757 really DID hit the Pentagon (in defiance of all the facts mentioned above) and one landing gear ended up in this room and was photgraphed. (One wonders if this is true, why more parts of the plane inside the Pentagon were not photographed.)
2) this photo is fake.
3) this photo is of a 757 landing gear crashed somewhere else, not at the Pentagon.
4) the landing gear was planted, next to explosives, as part of the overall frame-up to make it seem as though a 757 hit the Pentagon.
Unfortunately, like so much of 9/11, none of these explanations are entirely satisfying. For instance, a 757 landing gear is huge and would not be easily planted in the Pentagon.
But I guess if I had to pick one of these options, I would go with...
#4 (it was planted)
Although this may seem crazy, the fact is that there was clearly some airplane debris planted as part of the ruse. This famous piece of fuselage on the Pentagon lawn is a prime example.
I DON'T think this stuff was planted after the bombing, rather the plane parts were likely packaged in different areas of the Pentagon, along with explosives. When the explosives went off, the debris was blown around. In front of the Pentagon, almost exactly where the plane hit, was a construction contractors trailer. This trailer would be a prime place to plant some of the plane parts along with explosives. Other aspects of the ruse may be a heat-seeking missile or a low fly-over by an American Airlines jet (the second flight 11?) coincident with the planted explosions, and some sort of high-tech device (or small planted explosives) that knocked down the lamp poles.
However, I think the evidence that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon is very strong. In particular:
1) the small entry hole, only 80 feet wide (compared to the 120 foot-wide wingspan of a 757) and 25 feet high (compared to the 40-plus feet of a 757 tail).
2) the absence of a broken-off tail or broken-off wing tips on the Pentagon lawn
3) the unlikely approach path-- only inches off the ground, as must the only possible way to explain the entry hole.
4) the 6 foot high cable spools that would have been knocked over by a 757 flying inches off the ground, but were not.
5) the ground-level hole in the construction fence and the accompanying damage to the generator do not fit with a 757 engine-- plus there is the unlikelyhood that an engine hitting the heavy generator truck would NOT cause the engine to snap off.
6) the "exit hole" seems suspiciously "mocked up", particularly that the fragile 757 nose cone was apparently found inside this hole (when it should have been destroyed upon the first impact 300 feet away).
7) the several light poles supposedly knocked-down by the jet on the highway are fishy, as normally several impacts on a flying jet like that would seriously damage the plane and cause a fire, if not cause the plane to crash immediately.
8) the general dearth of plane debris in and around the Pentagon (as observed by first responders).
9) the astounding lack of any air defense around Washington DC and the Pentagon from a hijacked jet supposedly coming from hundreds of miles away-- and this is 30 minutes AFTER two hijacked jets slammed into the WTC. But if there was no 757 heading towards the Pentagon, then there was no need for air defenses.
These are some of the biggest reasons to doubt that flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon, although there are others as well.
Yet still we have this photo of a messed-up 757 landing gear covered with debris in a burned out room.
How to explain it?
1) a 757 really DID hit the Pentagon (in defiance of all the facts mentioned above) and one landing gear ended up in this room and was photgraphed. (One wonders if this is true, why more parts of the plane inside the Pentagon were not photographed.)
2) this photo is fake.
3) this photo is of a 757 landing gear crashed somewhere else, not at the Pentagon.
4) the landing gear was planted, next to explosives, as part of the overall frame-up to make it seem as though a 757 hit the Pentagon.
Unfortunately, like so much of 9/11, none of these explanations are entirely satisfying. For instance, a 757 landing gear is huge and would not be easily planted in the Pentagon.
But I guess if I had to pick one of these options, I would go with...
#4 (it was planted)
Although this may seem crazy, the fact is that there was clearly some airplane debris planted as part of the ruse. This famous piece of fuselage on the Pentagon lawn is a prime example.
I DON'T think this stuff was planted after the bombing, rather the plane parts were likely packaged in different areas of the Pentagon, along with explosives. When the explosives went off, the debris was blown around. In front of the Pentagon, almost exactly where the plane hit, was a construction contractors trailer. This trailer would be a prime place to plant some of the plane parts along with explosives. Other aspects of the ruse may be a heat-seeking missile or a low fly-over by an American Airlines jet (the second flight 11?) coincident with the planted explosions, and some sort of high-tech device (or small planted explosives) that knocked down the lamp poles.
posted by spooked at 8:17 AM
3 Comments:
I’ll try and be civil here (it will be difficult) but there are so many holes in this crap that I had to respond.
1) the small entry hole, only 80 feet wide (compared to the 120 foot-wide wingspan of a 757) and 25 feet high (compared to the 40-plus feet of a 757 tail).
You seem to think this is some cartoon with Wile E. Coyote and that a plane should end up cutting out a perfect silhouette in the side of a cliff or in this case the Pentagon. This is basically a presurrized aluminum tube hitting steel and concrete at 450 knots. I (professional naval aviator for 10 years) have no problem whatsoever with the sort of damage made by this 757 and am fully convinced it is consistant with such an impact.
2) the absence of a broken-off tail or broken-off wing tips on the Pentagon lawn
Again, you show your ignorance of aircraft structure and what exactly a 450 or 500 knot aircraft will do when hitting a concrete and reinforced steel structure.
3) the unlikely approach path-- only inches off the ground, as must the only possible way to explain the entry hole.
Feet off the ground. You are making up crap here. Not surprising.
4) the 6 foot high cable spools that would have been knocked over by a 757 flying inches off the ground, but were not.
See above.
5) the ground-level hole in the construction fence and the accompanying damage to the generator do not fit with a 757 engine-- plus there is the unlikelyhood that an engine hitting the heavy generator truck would NOT cause the engine to snap off.
An aircraft structural engineer now, are we! Nice. First a Building structural engineer (with those absolutely brilliant chickenwire experiments!), now aircraft. Are there no ends to your qualifications!
6) the "exit hole" seems suspiciously "mocked up", particularly that the fragile 757 nose cone was apparently found inside this hole (when it should have been destroyed upon the first impact 300 feet away).
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard you idiots talk about – that ”fragile nose cone” – and to keep harping this only shows how ignorant you are. The nose cone was never, ever, ever, ever “found” inside the building anywhere. It would have been obliterated instantaneously on contact. I have no idea where you came up with this but it really shows how gullible you are. There would be a significant amount of mass centered around what would have been the nose of the aircraft, and it was this mass that caused the blow-out exit hole.
7) the several light poles supposedly knocked-down by the jet on the highway are fishy, as normally several impacts on a flying jet like that would seriously damage the plane and cause a fire, if not cause the plane to crash immediately.
Bullshit. Light poles are designed to fall down when a freaking CAR hits them at 35 mph! And you think a 100 ton airliner traveling at 450 knots is going to get seriously damaged by a light pole?
8) the general dearth of plane debris in and around the Pentagon (as observed by first responders).
This I love! Using this logic, “the general dearth of office debris in and around the WTC wreckage” is indicative that there never was office debris. Brilliant.
9) the astounding lack of any air defense around Washington DC and the Pentagon from a hijacked jet supposedly coming from hundreds of miles away-- and this is 30 minutes AFTER two hijacked jets slammed into the WTC. But if there was no 757 heading towards the Pentagon, then there was no need for air defenses.
I am still waiting for someone to point out to me here (where I work!) where the air defenses were on Sept 11th. There. Were. Not. Any. They didn’t exist. Read my lips. Watch my fingers. They. Didn’t. Exist. Airlines fly directly (did you read that? DIRECTLY) over head the Pentagon courtyard oftentimes when the relative wind is from the right direction. Directly overhead. I look up and see aircraft belly. They have done that for decades, as long as National has been open. Ther were no and there are no Pentagon missiles or a Pentagon missile system that would have protected this building. Its protection lay in its location.
I say again., If you are going to wade into the aviation pool, then please either learn how to swim, or find someone who does. If not, then you really need to shut the hell up when trying to talk about things you have no idea about.
Well, yeah, spooked, pinch is right.
Live and learn.
In that spirit, a gift
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html#jokes
In my opinion everyone must look at it.
Post a Comment
<< Home