View Full Version: Let's Hypothetically Assume A 757 Made Impact.....

Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > Let's Hypothetically Assume A 757 Made Impact.....


Title: Let's Hypothetically Assume A 757 Made Impact.....
Description: Now what?


Lyte Trip - September 26, 2006 08:00 PM (GMT)
Ok let's assume for a moment that Russell is correct in his belief.


It is physically impossible to prove that it was remote guided.

It is physically impossible to prove that Hani Hanjour wasn't the pilot.

It is physically impossible to prove that the original passenger plane was swapped out for a modified drone.

Clearly it would be in the best interest for anyone that has this belief but is truly interested in proving that 9/11 was an inside job to move on to other aspects of 9/11 that have better angles to investigate. Such as the hijacker discrepancies, the shanksville mystery, or controlled demolition of the towers. For a 9/11 truther that believes a 757 made impact to continue to focus on the pentagon is rather counterproductive. In fact most that have this belief acknowledge that the pentagon is a dead end and try to encourage the movement to drop the issue.

What I find particulary peculiar about 9/11 truthers that espouse the pentagon impact hypothesis is the fact that they have to accept one of the most outlandish sub-conspiracy theories of them all......

That the original plan was to FOOL us all into thinking a 757 *didn't* hit the pentagon in order to set us up to be debunked later!

You would need to accept this grand conspiracy requiring complex foresight because of the FACT that most evidence of the impact has been deliberately suppressed. So you would need to believe that:

1) The video tapes were quickly confiscated and suppressed strictly so nobody would see the 757.

2) They figured out the physics beforehand in order to somehow guarantee that no large plane parts would survive the impact AND that the impact hole would appear too small.

3) They made sure to suppress the usually public information of 911 calls so as to hide any additional accounts of a 757 that were called in.

4) They planted witnesses to describe something other than a 757 or to lie about the flight path in order to confuse the eyewitness accounts that DID see the impact. They also planted other unlikely and suspicious witnesses whose accounts would be shown to be impossible when investigated in order make it look like they were planted. (i.e. Bobby Eberle & Gary Bauer and many others)

6) They deliberately faked the FDR to conflict with the official account.

7) They went though all the trouble to stage Lloyd the taxi driver's impossible scenario of a light pole through the windshield to deliberately look like they staged his account so we wouldn't believe the plane hit the light poles even though it really did.




Now I am usually pretty open to conspiracy theories but this one is pretty nutty and extremely risky if you ask me!

All just so they can set us up to be debunked more than 5 years later!




johndoeX - September 26, 2006 08:21 PM (GMT)
[salute] [cheers]

john_in_CT - September 26, 2006 08:22 PM (GMT)
I agree. I've always thought the Pentagon was the weakest link in LC. And, if we put a lot of time and effort into the no-plane thing and they release the Doubletree video, say, and it clearly shows a plane, not only are we debunked but everything else we do will immediately be suspect. It's a good move for LTW to move towards experts and witnesses.

Lyte Trip - September 26, 2006 08:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (john_in_CT @ Sep 26 2006, 08:22 PM)
I agree. I've always thought the Pentagon was the weakest link in LC. And, if we put a lot of time and effort into the no-plane thing and they release the Doubletree video, say, and it clearly shows a plane, not only are we debunked but everything else we do will immediately be suspect. It's a good move for LTW to move towards experts and witnesses.

I guess you missed my point.*

*correction: You missed the bulk of my point.

But yes if you believe in the 757 impact hypothesis you are on the right track.

I guess my main point is that I hate to see Russell's talented investigative efforts be squandered away on what he is trying to prove is a dead end.

Hey Russell,

How about helping us out with the hijackers?

johndoeX - September 26, 2006 08:36 PM (GMT)
We know there was a plane.. the FDR confirms it.. eyewitnesses confirm it..

Where the conflict is.. is whether a 757 from American Airlines hit the pentagon.

One specific conflict is that the FDR shows it didnt hit the light poles.. FACT (based on the FDR provided by the NTSB). Unlikely that it hit the pentagon based on descent rate. I want the NTSB or any govt agency to explain why.

Russell Pickering, a photographer from Wyoming will not be able to explain it even if he flew for 20 years as a pilot. As has been shown by a supposed 747 Capt.

(and other various professional pilot forums i have posted)

Merc - September 26, 2006 08:54 PM (GMT)
IMO, there is nothing really left for anyone to say regarding a 757 impact.

Like it has been stated many times.

It is impossible to PROVE that it was remote guided, swapped, or owned or controlled by the CIA or Dov Zackeim. Technically, it is also NEAR impossible to also prove the exit hole was made a rapid breaching kit. Really it flies in the face of logic-if you're going to crash a 757 into the Pentagon, why do you need to fake the exit hole? He may suggest for "easy escape" for victims. This suggests benevolence, but it is NOT proveable.

I keep telling people it's a trap, because once you buy into the twisted flight path, the light poles, the generator, the trailers, etc.-you're stuck. You'll accept a 757 hitting the building, but will be stuck trying to PROVE it was remote guided. You will be suckered into ACTUALLY supporting the official story.

If Russell has it all figured out and a 757 hit the building and all the witnesses check out. Then what is he doing here? Why isn't he working on some other part of 9/11, like the hijackers, the towers, shanksville?

I mean if a 757 hit the building and there is nothing else that can explain the anomalies, then move onto something else, figure out how you are going to PROVE that is remote guided or owned by the CIA or swapped or inserted in radar by Dov Zackeim's.

Afterr reading this thread, Russell will without a doubt go into some drawn out explanation about wanting to analyze all aspects side by side for himself in steps in order to figure out what exactly happened and discuss it with others in order to "create awareness" and make the gov't give us information(cuz we all know how well that worked). And yet the answers he wants the gov't to give is video of a 757 hitting the Pentagon, which supports his theory, but only bolsters the official story since he CAN'T prove it was remote guided, swapped, owned by the CIA or inserted onto radar by Dov Zackeim's company.

Meanwhile, we went there and got answers. We have an FDR that the NTSB will not offer an explanation for.

And meanwhile children, women, men, elderly are dying needlessly at the hands of soldiers who themselves will die. Meanwhile our economy and country slips deeper into an abyss. All because he wants to take another year with this "before we know what happened". All because he wants to take his time and make sure all HIS research lines up, yet 5 minutes after getting back the "flight path matches up with the mechanical damage".


Dachsie - September 26, 2006 09:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
if we put a lot of time and effort into the no-plane thing and they release the Doubletree video, say, and it clearly shows a plane, not only are we debunked but everything else we do will immediately be suspect.


Lyte Trip, you are asking us to do what Russel Pickering has asked us to do --

just forget about the Pentagon

do not hypothesize (in any of many directions)

concentrate on other aspects of 9-11

save yourselves from being rediculed and debunked

save yourselves from the risk of having ALL of the findings of the 9-11 truth movement discounted


I say

we are not putting a lot of time into what you call the "no plane thing".

Referring to hypothesES (plural) that account for the observable evidence (damage at the scene and what it would have taken to effect that damage , as well as absence of damage (lawn) ) cannot and should not be summarily lumped in to one phrase -- "the no plane thing".

Many of hypotheses do include a plane - but just not 757.

You look at the observable evidence and it is clear that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

The size of the whole too small for the size of a 757.

The symmetrical hole in the third inner ring concrete reinforced steel wall could not have been made by the nosecone of a 757.

The absence of any and all physical evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon

The smooth undisturbed lawn of the Pentagon that should have been severely churned up just from the air pressure created underneath a huge commercial airliner at close proximity.

The pattern of damage - the extremely limited nature of it - in terms of columns and walls damaged and the extent of the damage thereto. Too little damage to account for 757 .

The employment of a missile DOES NOT automatically mean a "no plane thing."
Smaller aircraft, an A3 Skywarrior with missile deployment capability would be one example of a plane that possibly could explain all of the observable, though relatively little, evidence we have.

There was a plane part found on the lawn of the Pentagon. It was part of a plane engine, but definitely too small for a part on a 757 and too large to be a part on a cruise missile. The part and the size of it, after much research, appears to fit the engine of an A3 Skywarrior.

Flight 77 radar signal was completely lost 8:56 a.m. at the Ohio / Kentucky border. Whatever was being talked about as being 50, 40, 30 miles out that Norman Mineta related to the 9-11 Commission was not Flight 77 . What it was, we do not know.

Now we need to ask the question.

Who knows anything about a "crash" or anything related to American Airlines Flight 77 Boeing 757 in relation to a site almost at the bottommost tip of Ohio border with Kentucky?

We need to hypothesize about what did happen to this plane. Seems to me, since we know exactly where radar signal was lost, that narrows the site where "something" happened to this plane (and its passengers).



Lyte Trip - September 26, 2006 09:42 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dachsie @ Sep 26 2006, 09:24 PM)
QUOTE
if we put a lot of time and effort into the no-plane thing and they release the Doubletree video, say, and it clearly shows a plane, not only are we debunked but everything else we do will immediately be suspect.


Lyte Trip, you are asking us to do what Russel Pickering has asked us to do --

just forget about the Pentagon

do not hypothesize (in any of many directions)

concentrate on other aspects of 9-11


You are quoting somebody else.

I made no mention of a "no plane thing" as I have in person talked to more than one unpublished random eyewitness that did in fact see a plane.

It wasn't a global hawk, it wasn't an A-3 skywarrior, and the flight path they put it on makes it IMPOSSIBLE to have hit the light poles. So I don't believe for a second that the plane they saw is what caused the damage at the pentagon.


But NOWHERE has Russell Pickering ever suggested that we forget about the pentagon and concentrate on other aspects of 9/11.

Quite the contrary.

Russell Pickering hyperfocuses on the pentagon and has done ZERO research in regards to any other aspect of 9/11 DESPITE the fact that he believes it was hit by a 757!

This is what I don't get and what I find to be a waste of his amazing research skills.

johndoeX - September 26, 2006 09:49 PM (GMT)
I dont know how many times i can say it..

The FDR is not theory or hypothesis.. it is FACT.

The NTSB and/or govt has to explain it.

Here.. lets just make it easy...

we know there is physical damage. We know there are "airplane parts" at the pentagon. (not sure if its from AA77 as that was never matched up).

We have an FDR provided by a Govt agency which doesnt match.

What are you gonig to do about it? Ignore it and continue to try and match up the physical damage?

Or start asking the govt why the data they provided doesnt match with their story...

johndoeX - September 26, 2006 09:55 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dachsie @ Sep 26 2006, 05:24 PM)


Flight 77 radar signal was completely lost 8:56 a.m. at the Ohio / Kentucky border. Whatever was being talked about as being 50, 40, 30 miles out that Norman Mineta related to the 9-11 Commission was not Flight 77 . What it was, we do not know.


You're wrong here...

Please review the 9/11 commission report. They said it was lost for 8 minutes.

QUOTE
FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.142 The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/flight_77.htm


please get your facts straight prior to posting

MichaelMR - September 26, 2006 09:57 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
I keep telling people it's a trap, because once you buy into the twisted flight path, the light poles, the generator, the trailers, etc.-you're stuck. You'll accept a 757 hitting the building, but will be stuck trying to PROVE it was remote guided. You will be suckered into ACTUALLY supporting the official story.


Exactly.

Dachsie - September 26, 2006 10:10 PM (GMT)
"please get your facts straight prior to posting

I heard Dr. James Fetzer say what I said on this video

speech in Duluth Minn.

http://www.v911t.org/Dr.%20James%20Fetzer.php


I believe there are also stories in Globabl Outlook magazines that say what Dr. Fetzer said.


I did attribute a quote to the wrong person in my last post - John in CT said "the no plane thing" not Lyte Trip.


I did not make my statement without back-up support, so I was not being reckless with the facts.

Apparently Dr. Fetzer operates on different "facts" from your "facts", JohnDoeX.




Lyte Trip - September 26, 2006 10:16 PM (GMT)
As much as I believe his heart is in the right place.....Dr. Fetzer tends to regurgitate incorrect information often.


john_in_CT - September 26, 2006 10:22 PM (GMT)
All I'm saying is that the truth movement can't claim that ALL of the evidence against it is faked. That makes us sound like a bunch of paranoids. We have to find experts and/or witnesses to create a theory that explains the things that PM and their kind like to throw up at us.

And I'm not saying to stop investigating. We should NEVER stop looking, never stop analyzing, never stop questioning.

Lyte Trip - September 26, 2006 10:40 PM (GMT)
The truth movement cannot and must not ignore evidence that was staged simply for fear that it makes us look like "paranoids".

Lloyd's account of the light poles is physically impossible.

The downed light poles are CRUCIAL evidence of a 757 impact so this must not be ignored not matter how "paranoid" it makes us look.

It is utterly disingenuous to assert that 9/11 was an inside job but dismiss the fact that witnesses and evidence was planted or to assume that we should take everything at face value.


john_in_CT - September 26, 2006 11:25 PM (GMT)
Lyte:

I'm not saying that we should ignore anything. I'm saying that we shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that ANYTHING that contradicts a theory is "planted" or "faked". If we're going to ask the tough questions, we should be prepared to be asked tough questions in return. And right now, I see the movement in disarray on the Pentagon issue. We have a huge amount of evidence but not a coherent theory. It was a 757, or an A-3, or a Global Hawk, or something. Russell is right on this; as long as we dispute things among ourselves, our enemies in the White House and the media will use our own words to debunk us.

Lyte Trip - September 26, 2006 11:37 PM (GMT)
Russell does not suggest it was anything other than a 757.

The notion that the plane impacted the light poles is in serious doubt due to the impossibility of Lloyd's account, the recently obtained FDR, and a new witness that was in the best vantage point possible to identify the flight path just before the poles.

At this point it is narrowed down to 2 coherent theories...........757 impact or large jet fly-over with staged physical damage.

I don't see why people that believe the former would continue to research the pentagon at all since their research leads to an inevitable dead end as far as 9/11 truth is concerned.

The latter of course blows open the entire 9/11 inside job case and obviously justifies further investigation.


johndoeX - September 27, 2006 12:09 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Dachsie @ Sep 26 2006, 06:10 PM)


Apparently Dr. Fetzer operates on different "facts" from your "facts", JohnDoeX.

I dont know where Dr Fetzer got his facts. .and i have been trying to contact him...

But my facts come from the NTSB and were recently acquired (2 months maybe?). Are you familiar with that govt agency?

These facts from the NTSB conflict with the official govt story.

johndoeX - September 27, 2006 12:11 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Lyte Trip @ Sep 26 2006, 07:37 PM)


At this point it is narrowed down to 2 coherent theories...........757 impact or large jet fly-over with staged physical damage.


Or a bombing run dropping a GBU/Drone of some sort.

Logic - September 27, 2006 12:25 AM (GMT)
People have a hard time believing and trusting, that's what it comes down to. We have all this data stating the FDR is wrong, Loyd's story, Light Polls, Damage path, and on and on. BUT we all personally don't trust eachother enough to believe what the other thinks, there for we all don't want to risk getting behind something completely. Face it, if we really all did believe in the story's that were brought home from the investigative trip and the findings that others here have un-covered, there would be 100% backing behind each of these issues, yet no one is willing to believe that they are 100% correct. There is doubt and when doubt is present, then it's impossible for everyone to be on board with thinking one way or another.

Here are some what if's that keep people backed into this corner:::

1. What if the plane did just dip real quick into the building after pulling up ? You know flying that fast corrections that seem impossible can be made in a split second, even going the speed it was going.

2. What if Loyd just has his story honestly wrong since he's an old guy. What if he couldn't change his story because that's what he told the original story like in the heat of the moment, there for he doesn't want to admit it was the smaller end of the light poll ?

3. What if the flight data FDR is actually right and JohnDoeX is just slightly off in his research, which would make the plane correct in what actually occured. How do we know if this research can be repeated over and over by others and get the same results ?

4. What if all the witnessess that were there all discribe the situation in their own ways, which results in all the different flight paths ? What if the plane did go on one flight path but it was viewd closer to some, because their points of reference are off in depth perception, ect ?

5. What if the reason all the video footage is withheld is really honestly because it is the Pentagon and they want to keep anything that risks security to remain secure ? What if all of their odd ways of keeping evidence is really just because they don't want the public to see any security breach ? odd yes, but possible.

6. What if we honestly don't know how the pentagon's strength in their blast proof wall would react to an actual plane hitting it, there for maybe it really would evaporate in the way it did. They are the Government right, maybe they have ways to protect their building that does in fact react in the way it did, if a plane hit ?

7. What if all the photo's that some say are doctored (ex: preacher victims on the lawn, ect) are really what in fact happened ? Can we trust the judgement of people saying any different ?

8. What if they do finally release video footage of an airplane hitting the pentagon, due to public demand ? Is the video footage doctored or real ?

9. What if the hole in the back is really caused by a wall breaching kit and was in fact used to help release tention to the situation and an exit or rescue entry ? What if they didn't want people to know any security plans that would use such a method, due to the Pentagon being secret and all.


and on and on and on..... Even though I don't personally believe all of these things, they are doubts that everyone has, if you do think of all sides of a possibility. When people have these doubts, even sub-conciously, it creates the doubts we see in this discussion. Many here do in fact think something is up for sure, yet no one can trust one another to the point of believing 100% that the researchers involved in uncovering these topics are right. If we did, then this all wouldn't be a discussion now would it ? I think all the research put into this topic shows that the Government is hiding something. If it's honest security concerns to cover up, they're hiding something. This alone is the reason we should demand the truth. We were lied to or not told the real story. They can spin it any way they'd like if it comes down to it, so the only real way for any of this to be cleared up, is to have someone from the inside "a la whistleblower" come out with the courage to risk their lives in stating the real deal. Even then, the information that would be known, would likely only be a small portion of the event which would leave room for damage control on their end. BUT it will take these people coming forward before we will know anything. The FDR information should be tested by many others with the same conclusion before I think everyone will be 100% sure of backing the demand of it being wrong. I personally think JohnDoeX has uncovered something big, but I do also think many other professionals in his area need to do the same tests and beyond to get others on board with this data actually stating the Government lied. It's the best chance in this area that we have.


SO, with all that said. I'm basically saying, "DOUBT" is what causes this devide. Doubt in the offical story, doubt in eachothers research, doubt all around.... We will not know what happened here unless someone comes forward or the data that was given to us, can be proven in a court of law to be wrong. These are the areas we need to focus in. Anyway, this is why I can see the Pentagon area being in the state that it's in.. Take what you will from this, just adding to the discussion.

johndoeX - September 27, 2006 12:37 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Logic @ Sep 26 2006, 08:25 PM)


3. What if the flight data FDR is actually right and JohnDoeX is just slightly off in his research, which would make the plane correct in what actually occured. How do we know if this research can be repeated over and over by others and get the same results ?

The FDR research is confirmed by many pilots around the Globe (and non-pilots who actually do their research and learn from it.. such as UnderTow, Merc and Lyte.. etc). There arent any mistakes. Please visit our credentials page (i need to update it.. which i may do now). Our current number of pilots exceeed 20 and growing everyday. Combined flight experience is over 250,000 Total Flight Time. Also please review the calls to the NTSB/FBI. If we were inaccurate in our calculations.. im sure the NTSB would have at least tried to correct us.. no? Over 13,000 hits on my site since 3 weeks ago. No attempts to debunk or correct. Only emails from pilots to sign up. (the stats on bottom are unique hits)

My research is available at many different airline/professional pilot websites. The common rebuttal from those pilots who believe the official story is "Have you seen Elvis lately" without ever once looking at the subject matter.

Other pilots have emailed me to sign them up... while one in particular has tried to debunk it. Since then.. i have shown that one pilot (Billzilla), the proper way to calculate his "theory" of working back from the impact hole. It blew up in his face.

Billzilla doesnt argue the altimeter indications because he knows there arent any errors. He tries to work back from the impact hole ignoring the altimeter. He was wrong in his calculations and the aircraft is still to high to hit the poles using that alternate theory.

Please click on banner below for full analyisis.. alternate analysis.. and any attempts you have to debunk.

Saying "What if..." without offering any facts to back it up is worthless.

UnderTow - September 27, 2006 01:53 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Logic @ Sep 26 2006, 08:25 PM)
We have all this data stating the FDR is wrong, Loyd's story, Light Polls, Damage path, and on and on


What the heck is THIS??

Please show me the DATA which states the FDR is wrong!!

And I'll say this. Other then the *cough* Building Performance Report, there is NO DAMAGE PATH that goes beyond the Black Billowing Trailer of fire-resistant combustibles, and 5 Light Poles which are completely suspect.

In FACT, I challenge anyone to show any damage or evidence in between the Light Weight Light Poles and the Satans Trailer of Fire.

And I also say, I don't care what ANY WITNESS SAYS. There is nothing more holy grail in aviation then the Flight Data Recorder. Well, except maybe the actuall Intrustments on the Dash.
I just got done reading 4 NTSB reports from 1969-1972 and even way back then, the tape based FDR's were the Golden Ruler by which everything else is measured. PERIOD.

Russell Pickering - September 27, 2006 02:09 AM (GMT)
your to slow Russ, go to the new thread. I'll paste this for you

Russell Pickering - September 27, 2006 02:11 AM (GMT)
thanks

UnderTow - September 27, 2006 02:13 AM (GMT)
thanks

Logic - September 27, 2006 02:50 AM (GMT)
Undertow and JohnDoeX, I agree with you guys, I don't think you read my entire post if you think I personally was asking those questions. I was stating that as why some don't agree or get on board with all the research. Do you see where I was going with that post or ? I'm not trying to debunk anything or question the FDR. I wouldn't know where to begin and I don't think a lot of people would know what to do with that data either. That's why my entire post was about the concept of "doubt" and what "doubt" creates in members and people in general about the pentagon. Hope that clears up why I posted all that.

Yes I have those questions in my head, but I've been able to focus on which seem most reasonable and which don't really hold water. JDX posted his update and I'm going to his site right now. I think, once there are many pilots that have signed their names as testing the FDR themselves and everyone agreeing with the conclusion. That means, I don't think all pilots will agree, but enough to make a huge impact in the media, then that writen paper with all those names backing it up, sent to media outlets and other agencies, will push the topic into a whole new light. I haven't really been over to JDX's site much so I'll do my research over there as well, but I honestly think after presenting the sheer amount of support from many pilots in this finding, people will then start to lose that "doubt" and major breakthroughs will occur.

johndoeX - September 27, 2006 05:48 AM (GMT)
[cheers]




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree