Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

What hit the Pentagon?


Nightwatcher

Recommended Posts

What parts?

The parts of the plane which came into physical contact with the wall. Which parts of the jet fighter were still intact after the test crash you showed me? Again, did the wings simply break off and land on the ground, completely intact, as you seem to think the wings of flight 77 should have?

Over head and from take off so side view of a runway It is an immense noise.

I don't disagree jet engines are loud. But they are at their loudest when the plan has passed. When a plan is approaching, the engines are much less noticeable.

Its a debate so show me we are all asking questions looking for answers.

There are photos (at least one in particular that I recall) from the Massoui trial which show a victim sitting in a seat. Search for it if you want.

So what happened did the plane disintegrate at high speed explaining the supporting columns and lack of shattered glad immediately next to the incident?

For the third time, I did not say the ENTIRE plane broke down into small pants and burnt up.

Or it could be another view where it was not a 757 with passengers that hit it explaining the 'small hole' and the above traits...

I believe it was, and that the reports of the positive identification if the victims was not falsified. You never did answer my question about what you actually believe happened to the victims, but we've moved on. Guess you're off the hook on that one.

But what about the light poles? 5 were knocked down. Did the missile ping pong off these poles before slamming into the Pentagon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • aquatus1

    85

  • TK0001

    83

  • Space Commander Travis

    59

  • turbonium

    58

Get involved then Aquatus and please tell me why I should present the evidence that he claims to know? all but one passenger identified , I did not state this so why should I account for it???

I am getting involved to the extent that I need to as a mod. I have little interest in the subject itself.

If you didn't make the claim, and you have no interest in answering it, then don't answer in the form of a question; that leads people to believe that you are supporting that line of thought. Along the same vein, answering with questions eventually leads to confusion and vagueness, which is why people, lacking clarity from you, are forced to guess at what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parts of the plane which came into physical contact with the wall. Which parts of the jet fighter were still intact after the test crash you showed me? Again, did the wings simply break off and land on the ground, completely intact, as you seem to think the wings of flight 77 should have?

I don't disagree jet engines are loud. But they are at their loudest when the plan has passed. When a plan is approaching, the engines are much less noticeable.

not wanting to takes any sides here, but a big turbofan can be heard from a long way off if it's approaching on full throttle, as this would have to have been. Check this -->

. Note the sound at the end in particular. You can sure hear that coming.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

not wanting to takes any sides here, but a big turbofan can be heard from a long way off if it's approaching on full throttle, as this would have to have been. Check this -->

. Note the sound at the end in particular. You can sure hear that coming.

If I left the impression that I believe a jet engine makes no noise at all as it approaches, my apologies. I don't think that. But certainly the closer it gets, the louder it is. And the faster it's flying the more sudden the loudness. This 757 had it's landing gear down on approach, therefore I'm assuming it wasn't flying at cruising speed.

My thought is the people that reported a "woosh" sound may've not been familiar with the sound of a 757 approaching so close to the ground at cruising speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I left the impression that I believe a jet engine makes no noise at all as it approaches, my apologies. I don't think that. But certainly the closer it gets, the louder it is. And the faster it's flying the more sudden the loudness. This 757 had it's landing gear down on approach, therefore I'm assuming it wasn't flying at cruising speed.

My thought is the people that reported a "woosh" sound may've not been familiar with the sound of a 757 approaching so close to the ground at cruising speed.

In the final clip, the fast and low flyby, I think it's probably going as fast as was safe at that height**; but this was a highly trained military aircrew, of course; which does lead to some questions I've sometimes wondered about, about the level of flying skill it would take to put it precisely on target at that speed, in a situation you couldn't possibly have trained for. I do think that would take rather more skill than it would need to aim for two of the tallest buildings on earth. And if that is so, I have wondered where they might have got that level of training...

** somewhere around 200 - 250 knots, the cameraman estimated. What was the closing speed at the pentagon supposed to be, wasn't it more in the region of 400 or so? Imagine the sound from that.

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the final clip, the fast and low flyby, I think it's probably going as fast as was safe at that height**; but this was a highly trained military aircrew, of course; which does lead to some questions I've sometimes wondered about, about the level of flying skill it would take to put it precisely on target at that speed, in a situation you couldn't possibly have trained for. I do think that would take rather more skill than it would need to aim for two of the tallest buildings on earth. And if that is so, I have wondered where they might have got that level of training...

** somewhere around 200 - 250 knots, the cameraman estimated. What was the closing speed at the pentagon supposed to be, wasn't it more in the region of 400 or so? Imagine the sound from that.

Hi 747400,

I have taken flying lessons and can pilot a small plane, but admittedly I have never piloted anything bigger and more power than I small single engine, 4 person cessna. However, aiming an aircraft even of that size isn't really that hard. The hardest part about flying is really to land and to follow instructions from Air Traffic Control. I really don't see the problem in aiming an aircraft at something and then subsequently hit it, especially when you don't care about traffic around you and whatever rules are in places for that area. And both the twin towers and the pentagon were mighty big targets, hard to miss.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi 747400,

I have taken flying lessons and can pilot a small plane, but admittedly I have never piloted anything bigger and more power than I small single engine, 4 person cessna. However, aiming an aircraft even of that size isn't really that hard. The hardest part about flying is really to land and to follow instructions from Air Traffic Control. I really don't see the problem in aiming an aircraft at something and then subsequently hit it, especially when you don't care about traffic around you and whatever rules are in places for that area. And both the twin towers and the pentagon were mighty big targets, hard to miss.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Okay, but if it isn't really that hard, what kind of terrorist would ever crash into the outer ring? They're smart enough to pull off the most incredible terrorist attack of all time but they're not smart enough to aim for the inside rings? If that doesn't sound suspicious to you... well you're not the kind of person I prefer to talk to, let's put it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but if it isn't really that hard, what kind of terrorist would ever crash into the outer ring? They're smart enough to pull off the most incredible terrorist attack of all time but they're not smart enough to aim for the inside rings? If that doesn't sound suspicious to you... well you're not the kind of person I prefer to talk to, let's put it that way.

I'm also a private pilot, and also work in the aviation world. I have a number of friends who are commercial airliner captains (B747, B767, B737). They have said it was NOT some great feat of skill, that most anyone could hit the Pentagon with minimal training. Hitting one specific predetermined place would have taken greater skill, but as you point out, they just hit the Pentagon and didn't necessarily impact the most vulnerable part or the section that would have caused the most loss of life. Far from being suspicious, this actually agrees with the hijackers known flying abilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, had to actually do some work there for a bit.

Maybe the pilots who've joined the discussion can also offer their opinions on the following:

The 270 degree turn the plane took. A lot of people who want to prove government complicity like to point at this and say the pilot must have been a professional to execute such a maneuver. My contention is that only a fairly untrained, nervous pilot with nothing to lose or care for passenger safety would ever dare execute such a crazy turn. To me, the crazy turn is a much more of a smoking gun in favor of the official version than it is for a CT.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, had to actually do some work there for a bit.

Maybe the pilots who've joined the discussion can also offer their opinions on the following:

The 270 degree turn the plane took. A lot of people who want to prove government complicity like to point at this and say the pilot must have been a professional to execute such a maneuver. My contention is that only a fairly untrained, nervous pilot with nothing to lose or care for passenger safety would ever dare execute such a crazy turn. To me, the crazy turn is a much more of a smoking gun in favor of the official version than it is for a CT.

Thoughts?

That is pretty much how I see it. I think they meant to execute a straight-in approach to the target but found themselves too high; a turn to lose altitude and set up for another approach was required. The aircraft was put through a manoeuvre which exceeded normal limits - but the pilot was on a suicide mission, so exceeding structural limitations or causing passenger distress did not factor in his considerations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but if it isn't really that hard, what kind of terrorist would ever crash into the outer ring? They're smart enough to pull off the most incredible terrorist attack of all time but they're not smart enough to aim for the inside rings? If that doesn't sound suspicious to you... well you're not the kind of person I prefer to talk to, let's put it that way.

Hi Godsnmbr1,

You can't really crash into the inner ring with an aircraft like that. That has nothing to to with piloting experience, but physics. You would need to have an aircraft capable of very sudden changes in trajectory, which you can't do in the aircraft in question. The open area within the ring isn't that large in this context, so they'd basically fly right by it and crash on the other side on the Pentagon if they tried.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also a private pilot, and also work in the aviation world. I have a number of friends who are commercial airliner captains (B747, B767, B737). They have said it was NOT some great feat of skill, that most anyone could hit the Pentagon with minimal training. Hitting one specific predetermined place would have taken greater skill, but as you point out, they just hit the Pentagon and didn't necessarily impact the most vulnerable part or the section that would have caused the most loss of life. Far from being suspicious, this actually agrees with the hijackers known flying abilities.

I shall agree with you Obviousman, and your heavy iron captains.

They are correct. What occurred on 9-11 took no major degree of piloting skill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Godsnmbr1,

You can't really crash into the inner ring with an aircraft like that. That has nothing to to with piloting experience, but physics. You would need to have an aircraft capable of very sudden changes in trajectory, which you can't do in the aircraft in question. The open area within the ring isn't that large in this context, so they'd basically fly right by it and crash on the other side on the Pentagon if they tried.

Cheers,

Badeskov

So how accurate is Microsoft Flight Simulator? Would trying to recreate this event be a waste of time? I'm sorry, but I just can't buy the reasoning that they weren't able to hit such a large target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought is the people that reported a "woosh" sound may've not been familiar with the sound of a 757 approaching so close to the ground at cruising speed.

Not too many people have ever heard a 757 pass by with engines full out at roughly 750 feet per second...at an altitude below maybe 30,000 feet or so.

I have. Whoosh is one way to characterize it...I suppose...a really powerful; frighteningly awesome whoosh! There are the engines whining of course, but the airframe itself, carving the air at such a velocity, adds a wild, loud, and scary character to the sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how accurate is Microsoft Flight Simulator? Would trying to recreate this event be a waste of time? I'm sorry, but I just can't buy the reasoning that they weren't able to hit such a large target.

I think their point was to hit the target, cause damage, and leave a very visible record...and of course, to die in the process. Flying into the side of the building makes sense, and they all (at least threee of four of them) did precisely that. They were going for effect, not surgically targeting specific areas of buildings. They picked big, important targets, and rather easily flew right into the side of them. The reports of the piloting skills required to do this being great or outstanding are exaggerated beyond reason. These were not skilled pilots. They didn't have to be.

...skilled pilots generally have no interest in dying in an airplane, nor any interest in hitting something with any part of the airplane, save of course the runway surface with the tires....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think their point was to hit the target, cause damage, and leave a very visible record...and of course, to die in the process. Flying into the side of the building makes sense, and they all (at least threee of four of them) did precisely that. They were going for effect, not surgically targeting specific areas of buildings. They picked big, important targets, and rather easily flew right into the side of them. The reports of the piloting skills required to do this being great or outstanding are exaggerated beyond reason. These were not skilled pilots. They didn't have to be.

...skilled pilots generally have no interest in dying in an airplane, nor any interest in hitting something with any part of the airplane, save of course the runway surface with the tires....

Again, the problem is that with the Pentagon they would obviously know that the inner rings are the most important. Flying just meters off the ground for an extended distance, just to hit the outer ring, doesn't make any sense when they could simply bring it straight down into the center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the problem is that with the Pentagon they would obviously know that the inner rings are the most important. Flying just meters off the ground for an extended distance, just to hit the outer ring, doesn't make any sense when they could simply bring it straight down into the center.

Ah, you see this is a very common misconception. Coming down vertical is actually far more difficult if you are trying to hit a building. Doing a horizontal approach is easier for the novice, and even then they nearly stuffed it up by falling short.

Additionally, think about if they had managed to fly the aircraft vertically down into the middle (clear) section of the Pentagon: there would have been a big explosion and some blast damage to the Pentagon, but far less than what we have seen with a horizontal approach. The horizontal made sure the aircraft would use its inertia to plough through the building until all the kinetic energy was lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the pilots who've joined the discussion can also offer their opinions on the following:

The 270 degree turn the plane took. A lot of people who want to prove government complicity like to point at this and say the pilot must have been a professional to execute such a maneuver. My contention is that only a fairly untrained, nervous pilot with nothing to lose or care for passenger safety would ever dare execute such a crazy turn. To me, the crazy turn is a much more of a smoking gun in favor of the official version than it is for a CT.

Thoughts?

I trust in the pilots’ assertions below, whose credentials are greatly superior to anyone elses here: -

“At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.”

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100. Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and Grumman F-14 Tomcat. 23,000+ total hours flown.

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.… For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

“The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...”

Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)
[/b]
– Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727. Retired Civil Engineer. Retired Naval aviator. Aircraft flown: Grumman E-1 Tracer and E-2 Hawkeye.

“Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".”

Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army
[/b]
– Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Turbine engineering specialist. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Private pilot.

“The Pentagon event shows that the official story is false because of the improbable flight path flown by the 757. The Shanksville event shows that the official story is false because of the characteristics of the aircraft debris field.”

Arthur L. Carran, BS Aerospace Eng, PE
[/b]
– Aerospace Engineer. Certified Commercial Pilot. Instrument Rating. Aircraft flown: Piper, Beech, and Cessna single-engine. 350 total hours flown. Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Ohio. Employed in Aerospace Engineering since 1983.

Quotes are taken from amongst the 180+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals on Patriots Question 9/11.

When all of this experienced pilot judgement is taken into account along with the words of the air traffic controllers on the day - “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” - it becomes increasingly dubious to uphold this was the work of rookie hijackers.

Consider now the description Boeing give for the GPS guidance system of a cruise missile - “Flies complicated, low-altitude routes to a target by utilizing a terrain-contour-matching guidance system”. Am I saying a missile hit the Pentagon? No no no! I am though showing how a GPS guidance system could easily and without any doubt peform the flight path attributed to Flight 77.

Of course this is without mentioning any of the other peculiarities surrounding the Pentagon event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm - you are mixing a lot of things together which are giving a false impresssion - but I am sure you know what you have done.

Let's deal with the pilot comments first; I'll deal with the other comments later.

Hey….if any Navy guys out there know this guy Ralph Kolstad, ask him to get in touch with me so I can tell him to his face he’s an *******, an idiot and a moron.

I know that the Naval aviation community in general and the fighter community in particular has its own share of idiots, and there’s no guarantee this guy “Ralph Kolstad” is actually a tactical naval aviator, but this one takes the cake.

I see with a quick Google look that Kolstad is getting his limelight at Info Wars and Huffington Post. Wow.

I guess he does not believe Popular Mechanics book on the matter from multiple experts in various fields who are risking their professional reputations by debunking his drivel.

I wonder, as an alleged Tomcat driver, if he believes the TF-30 would shed blades for no reason just because it never happened to him?

Something smells Troofy about this.

http://instapinch.com/?p=700

Have a read what other Naval Aviators say about his opinion.

It's been about 28 years, but I remember Ralph Kolstad at NAS Miramar. Didn't know him too well and haven't seen him in many years. But I do remember him to be a big BS'er (more so than most everyone else there at the time, and that's saying something) and one who sought and loved attention.

I don't recall him ever being a "Topgun" graduate, but I suppose it's possible. (Although I think I would have known if he actually did.) But I find it next to impossible to believe he was ever a Topgun instructor. Rather, since he flew A-4's in the reserves, he probably augmented some Topgun exercises as a reserve A-4 adversary pilot. (VC-13?)

He left active duty I believe as a senior Lt. or a junior Lcdr. as I recall about 1978 or '79, and then worked for either Continental or PSA. Soon furloughed, he sold some financial "investments" out of a Coronado office. After a few years on furlough, American then hired him, (which surprised many) and I believe he did finish over 20 in the reserves.

http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/forums/index....pic=2568.0;wap2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next: Russ Wittenberg.

You have Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret), a retired airline pilot with a butt-load of hours (I don’t need to add that a “butt-load” of hours means absolutely nothing in the big scheme of things). His statement .... should strike fear into the hearts of air-travel people of today, if the pilots flying these aircraft can’t operate an aircraft. That, plus the ignorance of someone with supposedly such experience believing that anyone…ANYONE …can’t vertically navigate an aircraft (pull the yoke back, houses get smaller!) or laterally navigate an aircraft (turn yoke right, airplane goes right!).

http://instapinch.com/?p=1209

Loose Change quotes Russ Wittenberg, a pilot, as saying no plane hit the Pentagon- it was a missile. However, this quote from here shows the problems with Wittenberg’s claims: “Yes, Wittenburg is a pilot. He is also a conspiracy theorist who does not believe that ANY aircraft hit the Pentagon, which makes him stupid or insane. Too bad, because his former co-workers were on that plane. I wonder what he thinks happened to them. He believes a missile hit the Pentagon. He has not produced a single piece of evidence to back that belief. He has not attempted to account for the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the crash.” Wittenberg is not the only conspiracy nut that ignores the NUMEROUS eyewitness accounts.

http://forthardknox.com/2008/08/22/loose-change-fried-2/

Russ is wrong, gee, I have real experience with people, still alive who flew faster at low altitude than the limit of the aircraft. And I have put real people who never flew before in a simulator who were able to hit buildings with jets as on 9/11. No training needed, Russ is wrong again. Russ is wrong as seen on 9/11. A few pilots, fringe nut cases, make stupid statements as Russ has only to be proven wrong before they opened their mouths.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=304...p;postcount=803

Remember - CAPT Wittenburg is a "no-planer".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep up the smear campaign, Obviousman. The forum links and random net opinion you are linking is, ah… great.

I'm sure all 1,800+ members of Patriots Question 9/11 are fakes in your opinion.

Anyway, two down… :lol:

How many "patriots" are professional pilots? That is the issue we are dealing with at the moment. Also, it's not a smear campaign - it's showing that other people with the same or graeter degree of experience disagree with the one person's claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next: Russ Wittenberg.

“Yes, Wittenburg is a pilot. He is also a conspiracy theorist who does not believe that ANY aircraft hit the Pentagon, which makes him stupid or insane.

That source, of course, is completely without bias.

A few pilots, fringe nut cases, make stupid statements as Russ has only to be proven wrong before they opened their mouths.

And that one.

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep up the smear campaign, Obviousman.

Would you not agree that some people who appear to be qualified to give an opinion on matters can still be dead wrong, or making things up to get fame? Does that ever happen, in your opinion?

We have opinions from pilots from both sides of the argument, which are opposed to one another. Isn't the next logical step to investigate the individuals who made the comments? I don't see that as a smear campaign, I see it as the next logical step. When you said the pilots who commented just in this thread were not qualified to give an opinion on this matter, was that your attempt at a smear campaign?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.