The "plane" that hit the Pentagon

[Wokeman]

This is taken from www.abovetopsecret.com:


"Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building."

who have got away with this gibberish for far too long. If you ignore the engines that weigh several tons each, there is one factor you cannot: the wheels, even if this fantasy is remotely possible, the wheels automatically deploy at this level ie, under 200 feet. So one of our newest supporters to the UK 9/11Truth network, also an expert on aeronautics and aircraft, told me today. I'll stretch the point just for the sake of argument, what we have is a 13ft tube with wheels, that unfortunately are absent.

[freddie]

Wokeman,

Are you saying that there was no plane?

Not sure I understood you right, so if I'm barking up the wrong tree, then please say so, but I thought I'd add my thoughts. I am still unsure 'what' hit the pentagon, but lean towards 'a plane similar to flight 77 hit the pentagon'. Like I said I am still unsure, but I know that many dodgy bits of info are floating about the forums that I believe to be misleading.

The 16-18ft hole is a mistake that needs to be corrected. The damage to the pentagon (prior to collapse) was more than a 16ft hole. This claim has been banded around in many documentaries and on many websites, often accompanied by one of many photos.

These photos are very misleading and there are many more showing far more damage to the building - some are close up, some are wider shots, but they all show enough damage to allow for the fusilage and engines to enter the building. The wings (other than the pieces that may have entered the building) I can't account for other than 'they were destroyed to confetti' - there is much that can be said on this issue alone - but it's certainly not as cut and shut as a loan 18ft hole.

One other quick thing to mention are the 'intact pillars' that some websites mention. On closer analisis these intact pillars (which are said to prove no room for engines) are clearly collapsed 1st floor slabs that have cracked at one wall and bent down to their almost vertical positions.

I have often wondered why these same deceptive photos are used in some of the popular docus, 'confronting the evidence', 'in plain site' and others I'm sure - If I'm missing something here, please put me wrong, but I'm pretty sure most people are still basing their theories on this small number of deceptive photos.

-----

The wheels ... hmmm, that is an interesting point, as I had never considered automatic deployment of landing gear - but I don't think I've ever read it anywhere either, so would like to know where I could find more on this topic.

But ... then what do you make of the wheel found at the Pentagon? - I realize it was just one (if I remember right), but do you or other people think it was planted?

-----

Like I said, I'm not sure about the pentagon, but I always come back to three things 1) we have other evidence 2) there are many elements to flight 77 that stink of disinfo (IMO to confuse, divide and discredit the movement) and 3) what is the motives to use a missile? ie: wouldn't it be easier just to remote fly the plane into the building?

Don't get me wrong here - I am totally behind a new investigation and see this whole thing stinks - I've written this in the spirit of keeping our arguements sharp - If we claim a 18ft hole, and people do the digging and find the other images, our entire effort is undermined.

Peace
Fred

[gypsum]

If it was a plane that hit the pentagon then the FBI wouldn't have taken away the cctv footage from the petrol station across the street and the nearby hotel. All we have seen is the 5 frames they released...none of which actually show a plane. If they want to prove it was a plane that hit the pentagon then all they have to do is release the footage from either the petrol station or the hotel, simple. But they do not...what have they got to hide?

[Wokeman]

No, IMO it was a drone, a pilotless Global Hawk, or a cruise missile. I come down in favour of the Global Hawk, an engine cowling of a similar size was found at the scene, and the object being carried away by Pentagon employees hidden under the blue tarp would have been a similar size and weight. However, the mystery is what punched the hole in the Pentagon wall, a Global Hawk is too lightweight to do that. I can just hear the Colonel quoted below, at his court martial "We weren't prepared for an attack" when these batteries operate automatically, and see if they take that plea into account.


"Again, let me reiterate the fact that the flight 77 was invisible ONLY to CIVILIAN aviation authorities. The fact that the transponders were turned off automatically alerts military air defense.

Next problem: There are five extremely sophisticated anti-missile batteries in place to protect the Pentagon from an airborne attack. These anti-missile batteries operate automatically.

Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Vic Warzinski claimed the military had not been expecting such an attack. This is not credible. Because the transponder had been turned off, the Pentagon knew full well where that aircraft was. Communications between civilian air traffic controllers and the various federal authorities functioned perfectly."

from: www.cassopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm

[Sinclair]

For any person under the impression that it was a plane that struck the pentagon, please view the Flash Presentation here:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

[freddie]

Gypsum,

"If it was a plane that hit the pentagon then the FBI wouldn't have taken away the cctv footage"

I believe that a plane similar to flight 77 hit the pentagon and they are withholding the tapes to allow the movement to argue amoungst itselves about the details of the incident - This is just my thought, but I think that if we ever get too close to the story breaking then they might even release this footage, and it would undermine us all. Like I said, just a thought, but withholding it alone doesn't prove a thing.

---

"All we have seen is the 5 frames they released...none of which actually show a plane"

The 5 frames of footage are IMO (and many others) a diversion. They are fakes, they don't show the imact and have been leaked to confuse the movement and support the 'no-plane' theory. Again, why are people so quick to denounce official sources and then don't question the source of these 5 frames?

-----

Wokeman,


"I come down in favour of the Global Hawk, an engine cowling of a similar size was found at the scene"

But then what of the larger engine and the wheel that match a 757 not a global hawk - and then what about all the eye witness statements - have they all been placed and staged?

---

"and the object being carried away by Pentagon employees hidden under the blue tarp would have been a similar size and weight"

This is another common misconception - there is no container covered in a blue tarp - it is a tent, simple as that. Look closer at the photo and you'll see the curved poles, they are lifting it so easily because there is nothing in it. Also, look around the site, there are many more identical blue tents.

---

As for the missile defence systems, this is my point exactly. If you believe in complicity, their is no need for a missile or drone plane - the defense system was either disabled or the 'highjacked' aircraft was designated as a friendly target (meaning it would not have been attacked). So if you're going to disable the defense system to let a missile through, why not just use a plane, what was stopping them?

Do you get my direction here ... I'm saying they knew it was coming, but there is very very little evidence that it was either a drone or missile.

-----

Sinclair,

Although the pentagon strike flash movie does have a few interesting bits, really it is still peddling the misleading photos and must not be taken as gospel! - The same mistakes are made in that movie, just like many others.

Also, its use of eye witness testimony is very misleading - they have been incredibly selective here, missing out many many reports of a '77 like plane' - Why be so misleading? - It's not as cut-and-shut as we may have liked it to be.

Or am I missing something? - What is it about this clip that should persuade me it wasn't a plane?

Peace,

[brian]

freddie, can you post links to the evidence that convinces you there was a plane?

[Sinclair]

freddie said:

[freddie]

Hey Brian,,, Yeh, I'mm digging some stuff up now.

Sinclair,

Like I said, I'm behind the idea of complicity, but to be honest this pentagon issue is something I am still unsure about.

[freddie]

I just want to make clear that I am not trying to derail any discussions or work on this website. I am only trying to protect us all from possible lines of attack.

The 'no-plane' theory has already massively distracted and damaged the truth movement, and yet it is still upheld - IMO due to the sheer number of documentaries still claiming this. Here is why first posted about this issue:

-If we hit the streets and talk to people and tell them any of the following, we are leaving ourselves open to the rare person who will actually do a bit of research beyond watching the films:

1- There is no physical evidence of a plane
2- Prior to collapse, the damage was limited to a 18ft hole
3- The CCTV footage shows no plane
4- The blue box being carried away may have contained something secret
5- The lamp posts were rigged to fall
6- The majority of eye-witness statements contradict the official line

These are all incorrect and must stop being said, or the rest of our evidence is undermined. Also, just to add, the reports of the smell of cordite also fails to prove a missile - I actually believe that area of the building was rigged and detonated after the 'impact' - so there is room for a plane and bombs.

[freddie]

sorry but I just realized that my last line was pretty misleading - I meant the building was rigged prior to impact, not after as it reads.
Peace

[Sinclair]

Hi Freddie,

[freddie]

Hey Sinclair,

[Sinclair]

Hi freddie,

Browse on web to the pic you want to post in here.
Right click the pic
Go to Properties
Highlight the Address (URL) web address
Right Click on the highlighted section & select COPY

Wherever you wish the image to appear in your composed message here, Right click & select PASTE
Now highlight the pasted URL (make sure there are no spaces at beginning/end) & click on the Img button in the compose message toolbar.



Preview your message to make sure that you've done things correctly.

Best Regards,

~Sinclair~

[freddie]

Wicked, cheers pal, good little trick to know.

Ok, so here are the images I say are misleading and can be seen in most docus:









----

But when we look closer we can see the so-called 'intact pillars' are infact slumped floor slabs:

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/blue6.jpg (Edited for layout sake - please go and view this and zoom in to get a much better image of the damage)









I'll leave it there for now, as that at least clarifies what I meant. Cheers again on the image posting tip.
Peace

--Edited to stop the huge images messing up the page. Hyperlink instead.

[freddie]

Just one quick thing to add would be to mention the composition of multiple photographs to draw this conclusion.

The same thing has been done to support the 'no-plane' theory with this very famous image, frequently used to 'illustrate' the impossibility of a 757 strike:



-This image is an amalgum of various photos. It is very misleading!

1) It reduces the damage that was clearly visible in the lesser know photos
2) It makes the spools appear as if they are right outside the building when they are apx 30ft away
3) It's alledged trajectory (and thus also the red 'hit points') is an approximation and thus does not represent the strike perfectly.
4) It's size makes it impossible to identify the slumped floor slabs.
5) The appearance of the plane gives the subconscious feeling that the plane was far more 'solid' than it actually is - a lesser point (as pointed out by 911research.com), but I think still relevent to the wider picture of accepting shakey evidence.

[Graham]

the problem with that very last pic, is that is shows the hole should be a bit higher up if the plane really did hit it. not at ground level.

[freddie]

Graham,

I disagree, the hole should only be higher if you expect the tail to cause major damage (other than knocking off limestone and exposing the steel).

Also, there is the possibility that the plane may have been been on a slight decline even at the point of impact, meaning the tail would have been even lower - small point I know, but haven't heard it said much.

Last thing off the top of my head would be the achievable accuracy from a remote controlled flight. Yes, I doubt Handur could have pulled off such an accurate hit, but a computer simulation could plant that plane down to strike the pentagon as close to the bottom as possible - would only take a slightly modified landing program to do it too.

[freddie]

Since I've learnt how to post pics now (cheers again Sinclair) I might as well slap up some other pics so we can compare and get this debate based on evidence.

-As for the 'no evidence of a 757' at the pentagon, I don't get it:

The wheel found at the pentagon:



Tires found both inside and outside the pentagon:



Landing gear found in the pentagon:



Now compare them all to an intact 757 landing gear:



Engine found in the pentagon:



-I know Loose Change (which I actually think is mostly very good) states that this can't be a 757 engine because of the absence of triangular bezels, but that really doesn't cut it for me, and if I remember right, not all 757 engines have those bezels according to Boeing's own material - I'm pretty sure I took some notes on this research and am now looking for them.

-----

Also, here is an even wider shot, taken before the commonly known misleading images with the fire trucks:

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pentagon-fire-width.jpg

It shows the wide area of fire which is what we'd expect from a plane carrying its fuel in the wings.

And just one more alternative to the 'Solid Silver Jet' commonly seen on forums and documentaries:





Edited so the massive picture doesn't mess up the whole page - hyperlink instead.

[ianrcrane]

Hi Freddie,

whilst I would tend to agree that there are other more compelling aspects of 9/11, (IMHO) none of your posts get anywhere close to demonstrating that a 757 actually struck the Pentagon.

The photographs of a wheel hub and parts of landing gear have no reference points to indicate that they were actually taken at the Pentagon; even if they are genuine 757 components. The photographs which do incorporate external reference points of the Pentagon, fail to show any meaningful sign of plane wreckage!

The photograph in your previous posts which highlight 'probable aircraft debris' and purports to show 'left wing damage extending beyond impact hole' is, forgive me, derisory.

We already know that Hani Hanjour qualified for his pilots licence in April of 1999 but had trouble controlling and landing a single-engine Cessna 172.

However, you would ask us to believe that Hani Hanjour single handedly (we are told that he was the only one with a pilot's Licence on Flight 77) executed a 270 degree right-hand turn, while simultaneously dropping 7,000 feet; levelled the plane out and ploughed into the Pentagon without leaving a mark on the lawn in front of the building?

Now, let's just go back to the marks on the wall of the Pentagon that you identify as 'left wing damage'. These marks are horizontal. The wings of a 757 are indeed almost horizontal when standing on the tarmac but when a 757 is in flight, the wings are actually supporting the fuselage. Consequently, the wingtips would have been at the height of the top of the fuselage. So any impact marks would have been in an arc ......... not horizontal!

Coupled with which, if these marks are related to the impact of the wings, where are the engines? The engines should have ploughed into the building while the fuselage, being flimsy by comparison, would have been more likely to crumple upon impact with the recently upgraded steel re-inforced concrete structure of the outer wall. Consequently, if any part of a 757 was capable of penetrating through six nine inch, steel re-inforced walls; it would have been the power plants ........ not the unpowered fuselage!

As for the witness statements; it would seem that the witnesses who were in the immediate vicinity of the Pentagon, generally claim to have seen a 'Small Plane', 'Commuter Plane' or 'Missile with wings'. However the witnesses who were further away do indeed claim to have seen a large passenger plane heading towards the Pentagon.

Consider the possibility that the rapid drop in altitude and 270 degree turn was executed to bring 'whatever hit the Pentagon' directly under a legitimate 757 executing an approach into Ronald Reagan International Airport, situated just a couple of miles away from the Pentagon.

Finally, I invoke the computer simulation produced by Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at Purdue University, where they modelled what should have happened when a 757 hits the Pentagon. Once it was realised that their simulation showed, categorically, that the rear end of the fuselage, including the tail section, would have survived the impact, the model was withdrawn and is no longer available .................. but I just happen to have a copy of this simulation for use in my presentations.

As I intimated at the start of this post, I would agree that the following aspects of 9/11 are more compelling:

- WTC Collapse
- Building 7 Collapse
- Lack of USAF presence

However, the lack of evidence in support of a plane hitting the Pentagon makes it next on my list!

Ian R. Crane.

[freddie]

Hi Ian,

I apologize for the length of this post, but you have questioned so many things and I feel nothing you have said can be left without a reply, so I have used the quote system throughout:

[Justin]

Hi Freddie,

Thanks for giving us the challenge to consider the possibility that a Boeing 757 did actually enter the Pentagon - it is important that we do not become complacent and I have to say you did exercise my grey cells last night. However, after reading what you have to say and looking carefully at the pictures you posted, as well as doing a bit of trawling on the net, I came across this at www.reopen911.org:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

I spent over an hour (and that wasn't enough), and it would appear, according to this expert, that the photos of the 'rescue operation' immediately after the Pentagon impact had been tampered with and, in many cases, were actually staged. Please have a look and see if you think the same. Fascinating stuff!

A couple of weeks ago I posted this little package about the flying abilities of the Hani Hanjour and how it would be impossible for a pilot with his knowledge and actual flying experience to do what the official story said he did:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1161

By the way, a professional pilot friend of mine who flies for KLM and who actually flies 757s for a living, concurs with this.

In truth, to me the real evidence that no 757 went into the Pentagon is the lack of damage to the facade of the building where the tall tail plane and the heavy engines would have hit.

With best wishes

Justin

[insidejob]

We know that Hanjour or anyone else simply could not have carried out the required manouevre to smash any sort of plane into the Pentagon. The video, In Plane Site, actually shows the Pentagon video clips of the plane strike which shows the trail of a missile. I frankly doubt whether a plane controlled remotely or with a pre-programmed flight could have pulled off the strike.

http://www.physics911.net/sagadevan.htm
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FLYING HEAVY AIRCRAFT WITHOUT TRAINING
by Nila Sagadevan

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot.

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport by themselves are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.

But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues, and is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they ‘lost it’ while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."
http://100777.com/node/237

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers _still_alive.htm

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”
http://www.willthomas.net/Books_Videos/911_Investigations_Stand_Down.h tm

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html


Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour presumably rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little chap with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. The weather reports say it was fairly clear, so let’s say Hanjour experienced a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of any significant surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario, with this kind of “situational NON-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments—nothing like he had seen in a Cessna 172. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour—whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all”—somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes—remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these fellows even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let’s assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended—and invisible—target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77’s flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio.)

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=4084)

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).

I SHAN’T GET INTO THE AERODYNAMIC IMPOSSIBILITY OF FLYING A LARGE COMMERCIAL JETLINER 20 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND AT OVER 400 MPH. A DISCUSSION ON GROUND EFFECT ENERGY, VORTEX COMPRESSION, DOWNWASH REACTION, WAKE TURBULENCE, AND JETBLAST EFFECTS ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS ARTICLE (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st Edition” contains an excellent clip of trucks being blown off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.)

LET IT SUFFICE TO SAY THAT IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO FLY A 200,000-LB AIRLINER 20 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND AT 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

WHY THE STIPULATION OF 20 FEET AND A MILE? THERE WERE SEVERAL STREET LIGHT POLES LOCATED UP TO A MILE AWAY FROM THE PENTAGON THAT WERE SNAPPED-OFF BY THE INCOMING AIRCRAFT; THIS SUGGESTS A LOW, FLAT TRAJECTORY DURING THE FINAL PRE-IMPACT APPROACH PHASE. FURTHER, IT IS KNOWN THAT THE CRAFT IMPACTED THE PENTAGON’S GROUND FLOOR. FOR PURPOSES OF REFERENCE: IF A 757 WERE PLACED ON THE GROUND ON ITS ENGINE NACELLES (I.E., GEAR RETRACTED AS IN FLIGHT PROFILE), ITS NOSE WOULD BE ABOUT FIFTEEN FEET ABOVE THE GROUND! ERGO, FOR THE AIRCRAFT TO IMPACT THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE PENTAGON, HANJOUR WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO HAVE FLOWN IN WITH THE ENGINES BURIED IN THE PENTAGON LAWN. SOME PILOT.

AT ANY RATE, WHY IS SUCH ULTRA-LOW-LEVEL FLIGHT AERODYNAMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE? BECAUSE THE REACTIVE FORCE OF THE HUGELY POWERFUL DOWNWASH SHEET, COUPLED WITH THE COMPRESSIBILITY EFFECTS OF THE TIP VORTICES, SIMPLY WILL NOT ALLOW THE AIRCRAFT TO GET ANY LOWER TO THE GROUND THAN APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF THE DISTANCE OF ITS WINGSPAN—UNTIL SPEED IS DRASTICALLY REDUCED, WHICH, OF COURSE, IS WHAT HAPPENS DURING NORMAL LANDINGS.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF THIS WERE A BOEING 757 AS REPORTED, THE PLANE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLOWN BELOW ABOUT 60 FEET ABOVE GROUND AT 400 MPH. (SUCH A MANEUVER IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE PERFORMANCE ENVELOPE OF AIRCRAFT WITH HIGH WING-LOADINGS, SUCH AS GROUND-ATTACK FIGHTERS, THE B1-B BOMBER, AND CRUISE MISSILES—AND THE GLOBAL HAWK.)


The very same challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains the following statement:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”


Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

[ianrcrane]

Hi Freddie,

I do hope that you will search out the uncropped pictures of the alleged Boeing components, to include clear reference points, irrefutably placing these items at the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Call it a hunch but I think that you might have some difficulty producing them!

In response to my observation that the Power Plants of the Boeing should have ploughed into the building, you replied:

[freddie]

Justin,

Thanks for the links. I will look again at the 911studies.com photo analysis, but I know that several of his points have been pretty convincingly debunked, so will try and find that too.

As for your point about Hanjour, for me it's a moot point considering I believe the planes were remote controlled.

I'll let you know what I re-dig-up about the photo analysis. I question I have, were any of the photos I posted in his analysis - I haven't seen any yet?

Cheers,
Fred

[freddie]

Inside job,

Wow, what a post - what you said about ground effect etc was interesting. Could you point me towards some good data on this? I have done a bit of reading on this but am still unsure of the 'half a wingspan' rule ... this could be the biggest piece of evidence in my view.

I get what you were trying to say with all the rest, but again, to me it is neither here nor there, as I think the planes were remote highjacked, and thus my theory needs no explanation of pilot skills / ability to navigate or to do the tricky manouvers.

Ian,

When I can, I'll look for them, for sure.

Firstly - please please stop jumping into the same old defences! Why are you talking about the WTC construction and the Shanksville witnesses? - You don't have to tell me the story, I've heard it before, and as I've said, I believe parts of it.

How about you answer some of my points from my previous posts before I give you any more time - I raised lots of things, none of which have been pulled up - I'm not saying I'm right, I'm not saying that at all - but if people just avoid the issues I'm raising, or shift to "he could barely fly!" then it looks pretty bad - and I might add, pretty unconvincing from the eyes of an official story believer - This is what I'm saying - the 'no-plane theory' is not believable!

I took the time to reply to each of your outlandish statements - are mine so rediculous that they can be ignnored?

I'm still well up for having this debate, but please can we look at this and agree that we ALL believe in complicity, so no need to cover that. I think as this debate goes on, the fact that a plane and a bomb are not mutually exclusive as well as the possibility of remote flight and even a smaller plane will open up a newish option.

Peace

[ianrcrane]

Hi Freddie,

I will now leave it to others to engage with you on this particular thread.

I will follow the posts with interest but I sense that we are getting rather bogged down in a debate when we would appear to be in fundamental agreement on the core issue of 'U.S. Administration complicity'.

I have no desire to promote or dispute the details of particular theories. The key issue is surely that we do actually agree the implausibility of the official version as presented in 'The 9/11 Commission Report'.

Consequently, that is why the primary focus of the 9/11 Truth Campaign is to establish an independent inquiry, to investigate thoroughly the anomolies between the apparent evidence and the Official Account.

It is not (IMHO) the role of the 9/11 Truth Campaign to propose an alternative account but simply to flag up the observation that the official account does not stand up to scrutiny.

Meanwhile, please keep digging, you never know what you may find.

Ian R. Crane

[KennyM]

Ian, if you email me the Purdue presentation I'll upload it for you

Peace

[freddie]

Ian,

Please don't leave the disgussion. If I appeared angry in my last post, then I am sorry. I am not angry at all, if anything, a little confused as to why major holes in the generally accepted 'alternative theories' are being ignored.

I totally get you on the 'we basically agree' point - but here is the crucial twist. If 'no plane' proponants tell untruths, which they currently are, then it makes our whole argument look less credible - so while I agree that we are generally pushing in the right direction, I have to conclude that no-plane-people are also pulling us back - back to a situation of basing claims on absolutely nothing!

Do you get what I'm saying? People are attracted to the Global Hawk theory - but if they do any research they will quickly find that it is based on absolutely nothing!

You can't just say, the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, and then give no possible alternative. If we can't prove it either way, we must admit that - not just casually throw in comments about pilot skill or damage that actually contradicts other elements (undisputable elements at that) of the pentagon attack.

Once again, please continue to post on this thread, you were the boldest person that viewed it - you had much to say, and I'd like to here your replies to my last post last night - do you get what I'm saying? - Is it still laughable? These are important to get out as it appears most people haven't seen many of the pentagon photos.

Peace

ADDED: I want to make clear that I want to debate this unlike most conspiracy forums - It is not a case of 'official theory' Vs 'alternative theory' - rather I am highlighting a dodgy area of many people's arguements and trying to explain why these arguments have come into being / have been purpetuated.

[Graham]

oh, for this I would give......



Are we able to completely prove exactly what hit? No. For that you need high up security clearance. Investigational powers to search Classified Records. Thats if they haven't been destroyed.

I agree a few things need clearing up. That picture of the "engine". Is there another one? A picture of the other engine that is?

I've also only ever seen one pic of some landing gear. what about the other two sets?