What Hit the Pentagon? A UFO!

[CCGirl]

No, you have more than raised reasonable doubt, which is all that is required.

 

[David Gould]

How do you explain the fact that wreckage found at the site was of the flight - including the black box?

I do not trust witnesses. I trust science. The black box was there, as was other wreckage. Claims about how well someone could fly are not an issue for me. The Pentagon is a big place - I reckon I could hit it flying a plane, and I have never flown before (I would definitely need someone to help watch the ground, though, as I have a shocking sense of direction) It is not as though it was a precision landing or anything ...

As I said in another thread, this is not a legal question; it is a scientific question. There are only two possible explanations for the wreckage of the plane being at the site within minutes of whatever it was hitting:

1.) The plane hit the building;
2.) The plane did not hit the building, had been destroyed elsewhere earlier, and the wreckage had been gathered up by persons unknown and rapidly strewn around the site without anyone seeing them doing it.

Scientifically, only answer a) makes any sense.

 

[David Gould]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

I have gathered further information on this.

Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.

It goes on:

One of the most interesting quotes comes from Afework Hagos who commented on the plane see-sawing back and forth, suggesting that the pilot was struggling to keep the plane level in either pitch or roll or perhaps both. Hagos was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when the 757 passed overhead. He reported, "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance." Another eyewitness named Penny Elgas also referred to the plane rocking back and forth while Albert Hemphill commented that, "He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just 'jinked' to avoid something." These observations were further confirmed by Mary Ann Owens, James Ryan, and David Marra who described the plane's wings as "wobbly" when it "rolled left and then rolled right" and the pilot "tilted his wings, this way and in this way."
This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."
Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

And finishes with an almost exact repeat of what I said above:

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

I think this pretty much wraps up the issue. The prosecution rests (or, my preference, the peer review is in and publication is assured).

 

[David Gould]

As to the cameras not seeing the plane, it was moving at around 350 mph when it struck. If a camera was looking dead on at the plane, at 1 mile away the resolution of the image would not be enough to see what plane it was. 11 seconds later, the plane would have hit - and in the low part of its approach, no camera would have been looking at it dead on and be in a position to survive.

From the side, the plane would be moving rapidly across the camera's field of vision. The chances of identifying any feature able to distinguish the plane would be minimal.

And, assuming we did have footage, what then? Camera footage can be faked.

Do not trust witnesses. Trust science.

 

[mwb]

I'm not sure how anyone would have a picture of the plane hitting the Pentagon because no one knew it was going to happen. Duh..

Just like there's no pictures of the first plane hitting the WTC. So do you deny the first plane hit the WTC?

 

[David Gould]

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that American Airlines flight 77 was not hijacked and flown into the Pentagon but that, instead, “a drone Boeing 757 is used or a smaller, more manageable plane painted in American Airlines colors.”
Facts: This theory ignores the fact that the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims, as reported in the Washington Post on November 21, 2001. This provides irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77, not a drone or other aircraft, crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.

Taken from:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

Now, there are only a small number of explanations for this.

1.) Members of the government are lying about the remains being found at the site.
2.) The remains were found at the site, but they had been planted there by persons unknown.
3.) The remains were found at the site because the plane hit the building.

The only sensible conclusion is 3.

 

[David Gould]

I would also add here that the defence in any case does present alternative hypotheses. This is because they are trying to convince the jury that there are other ways in which the facts of the case can be explained besides the prosecution's version. If no such credible - and I emphasise the word credible - potential explanation is put forward, what is a reasonable jury expected to think?

For example, in a murder trial, the defence will put forward the theory that someone other than the defendant committed the crime. They will point to supporting evidence for this hypothesis, such as fingerprints that do not belong to the defendant being found at the scene of the crime.

A defence that is passive will lose. The burden of proof is indeed on the prosecution. But that burden is not a burden at all if the defence whines about what the prosecution's theory does not explain.

This is again why I am presenting the alternative explanations for the facts. If you wish to present others, go ahead - I will be extremely interested in them. However, it is clear that the government theory is most likely the true explanation for what happened.

 

[CCGirl]

I would also add here that the defence in any case does present alternative hypotheses. This is because they are trying to convince

<snip for space>

Please read the posted link from Neverstop and we can start this debate by using the convincing ansalysis as a jumping-off point, so to speak.

For example:


Cheney did not enter the PEOC until 9:58.[2]

Accounts by Richard Clark[3], a White House photographer, and ABC News[4]all place Cheney in the PEOC long before the Pentagon was struck.

The 9/11 Commission Report explains that F-16 fighter jets were not attempting to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon, as previous sources state, but were instead chasing a phantom aircraft.[5]

The military was not notified at 9:24 about the plane approaching the Pentagon (as previous public records and testimony showed)[6], but instead claims that the military only learned, by chance, that AA 77 was lost at 9:34,[7]minutes prior to the impact.

Mineta&#8217;s testimony proves that Cheney knew about the incoming aircraft with sufficient time to intercept and shoot it down, thereby saving the 125 victims[8]who died at the Pentagon.

The orders that the young man was referring to when he asked if &#8220;the orders still stand&#8221; must have been orders to stand down and allow the aircraft to hit the Pentagon.

 

[David Gould]

Please read the posted link from Neverstop and we can start this debate by using the convincing ansalysis as a jumping-off point, so to speak.

For example:


Cheney did not enter the PEOC until 9:58.[2]

Accounts by Richard Clark[3], a White House photographer, and ABC News[4]all place Cheney in the PEOC long before the Pentagon was struck.

The 9/11 Commission Report explains that F-16 fighter jets were not attempting to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon, as previous sources state, but were instead chasing a phantom aircraft.[5]

The military was not notified at 9:24 about the plane approaching the Pentagon (as previous public records and testimony showed)[6], but instead claims that the military only learned, by chance, that AA 77 was lost at 9:34,[7]minutes prior to the impact.

Mineta’s testimony proves that Cheney knew about the incoming aircraft with sufficient time to intercept and shoot it down, thereby saving the 125 victims[8]who died at the Pentagon.

The orders that the young man was referring to when he asked if “the orders still stand” must have been orders to stand down and allow the aircraft to hit the Pentagon.

Sorry: I do not trust eyewitnesses. They get things wrong, as demonstrated - either Cheney was there or he was not, so someone must be wrong here. There is no reason to pick one set of witnesses over the other, so they should all be discounted.

I am unclear how one witnesses testimony 'proves' anything, by the way.

Further, this is all irrelevant to the question at hand, which is: what hit the Pentagon? The prosecution is not trying to prove where Cheney was or was not and when; we are trying to prove that a specific aircraft piloted by a terrorist hit the Pentagon.

 

[CCGirl]

Sorry: I do not trust eyewitnesses. They get things wrong, as demonstrated - either Cheney was there or he was not, so someone must be wrong here. There is no reason to pick one set of witnesses over the other, so they should all be discounted.

I am unclear how one witnesses testimony 'proves' anything, by the way.

Further, this is all irrelevant to the question at hand, which is: what hit the Pentagon? The prosecution is not trying to prove where Cheney was or was not and when; we are trying to prove that a specific aircraft piloted by a terrorist hit the Pentagon.

You didn't read the link....it is not "one witnesses testimony" and we are debating the link in the OP!

 

[David Gould]

You didn't read the link....it is not "one witnesses testimony" and we are debating the link in the OP!

The stuff that you posted was all irrelevant to the question at hand.

The link itself is huge. What there do you think is relevant to the question - the title of this thread - of what hit the Pentagon?

 

[David Gould]

In fact, the whole link is all about one person's testimony - Mineta. And the link seems to be basing its arguments on the basis that the aircraft that the government claims hit the Pentagon did indeed hit the Pentagon. This link supports the prosecution case.

 

[mwb]

That latest piece of evidence suggests a plane hit when the initial assertion doubts whether a plane hit the Pentagon at all.

Like you said. It really doesn't prove anything sinister is going on. They had to decide whether to shoot the plane down or not. People shouldn't assume Cheney knew where the plane was headed & that he intentionally didn't want it shot down because he wanted to invade Iraq.

 

[Loukuss]

Great thread, NeverStop. Well written and pieced together...even for a guy writing on no sleep.

 

[k]

Thanks lucas david, did you see the link in the op from the navy vet showing no dna from the hijackers was found? Plus, family members had to provide dna samples for their loved ones so where did the dna come from to match the hijackers?

 

[soblessed53]

Good thread, Neverstop. Like I said I'm not totally sure on Pentagon theories, but I do know there are some good questions, many that you raised, particularly regarding the fact that the individual who piloted flight 77 was such a poor pilot. You asked about the flight simulator information, I heard the pilot that I referred to being interviewed a week ago or so when he stated that he and other professional pilots used a high quality flight simulator during which they attempted to duplicate the maneuver that flight 77 accomplished on 9/11. It took one of them, a more experienced person, 9 tries to do it. The pilot (can't remember his name, sorry) said that he will be releasing information on this soon. I'm sure something will come up sometime down the road, but till then thats all I have.

Another point that I might add is the fact that we were told by both Bush and Rice that the government had no idea that airplanes would be used as weapons. In October of 2000, a mock terrorist drill was held at the pentagon in which an airplane hit the building. Other drills were held by NORAD that targeted the World Trade Center, as well as the Pentagon, again using airplanes as weapons.

Bojinka, the Pope, and Planes As Missiles:
Three huge terror plots were hatched by Ramzi Yousef. The first was called Operation Bojinka

Ramzi’s Toshiba laptop was held by the FBI and was later sent to Microsoft, who helped analyze and decode the information on the hard drive. The irony is the Philippine police already had access to the laptop, where they found detailed information about the plot to use planes as missiles aimed at seven targets within the USA. When the FBI got the laptop and had it analyzed, they restricted their comments to the original Bojinka plot and a plot to pilot a Cessna-like plane into the CIA headquarters.

(So when you hear the media or the government (especially the 9/11 Commission) tell you that they had no advanced warning that someone might fly a plane into the World Trade Center, you now know that as of 1996, that information was already available to the FBI and the Philippine police. )

http://www.iantanner.com/triplecross.htm

 

[Daniel19]

Yes, I was aware of that info as well, soblessed. Another strange example that I've found is that of a supposed Al qaeda recruit, Niaz Khan. He repeatedly warned that the US would be attacked with aircraft. The man passed two lie detector tests, and was believed by investigators. However, word came from headquarters to the FBI office that was investigating to "return him to London and forget about it."

 

[trunks2k]

The Pentagon is a big place - I reckon I could hit it flying a plane, and I have never flown before (I would definitely need someone to help watch the ground, though, as I have a shocking sense of direction) It is not as though it was a precision landing or anything ...

I've flown a small airplanes before, but the concept is basically the same. Landing is hard. Hitting the runway is easy.

 

[k]

Comparing a cessna to a 757 at 400+ mph is like comparing a honda on the interstate to a nascsar at 200 mph. Same concepts but there are clear differences as well.

 

[mwb]

I just wanted to let you know you haven't proven anything other then being a master of smoke & mirrors.

Please get back to us when you have proof there was funny business. Just a reminder, saying the official story doesn't sound right proves nothing.