View Full Version: Flight 77's Missing Tail Section

Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > Flight 77's Missing Tail Section

Pages: [1] 2

Title: Flight 77's Missing Tail Section
Description: Best smoking gun that no 757 hit there


Killtown - June 8, 2006 01:01 AM (GMT)
This is how the official story has Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon:

user posted image


Why didn't its tailsection hit the building?

user posted image


Where did it go?



See if you can find it:


http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/fligh...il-section.html

chucksheen - June 8, 2006 02:02 AM (GMT)
[clap]

ryandinan - June 8, 2006 04:06 AM (GMT)
Killtown -

While I am officially undecided about exactly WHAT hit the Pentagon, I dont think the lack of a missing tail section proves/disproves anything.
Like others have pointed out, if it was a 757, and it was traveling as fast as they say it was - into a reinforced contrete wall - odd things can and do happen. I must say though, I do have a hard time understanding how the plane could turn to confetti AND manage to continue to plow a hole through several rings. I could understand one or the other, but not BOTH at the same time. This one is truely a mystery, and unfortunately, seems that it will require more evidence before it can be finally put to rest.

Regards,

Ryan


chucksheen - June 8, 2006 04:10 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (ryandinan @ Jun 7 2006, 09:06 PM)
Killtown -

While I am officially undecided about exactly WHAT hit the Pentagon, I dont think the lack of a missing tail section proves/disproves anything.
Like others have pointed out, if it was a 757, and it was traveling as fast as they say it was - into a reinforced contrete wall - odd things can and do happen.  I must say though, I do have a hard time understanding how the plane could turn to confetti AND manage to continue to plow a hole through several rings.  I could understand one or the other, but not BOTH at the same time.  This one is truely a mystery, and unfortunately, seems that it will require more evidence before it can be finally put to rest.

Regards,

Ryan


Which story has more credibility considering all the lies and reputation of the PTB?

Killtown - June 8, 2006 05:36 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (ryandinan @ Jun 8 2006, 04:06 AM)
Killtown -

While I am officially undecided about exactly WHAT hit the Pentagon, I dont think the lack of a missing tail section proves/disproves anything.
Like others have pointed out, if it was a 757, and it was traveling as fast as they say it was - into a reinforced contrete wall - odd things can and do happen. I must say though, I do have a hard time understanding how the plane could turn to confetti AND manage to continue to plow a hole through several rings. I could understand one or the other, but not BOTH at the same time. This one is truely a mystery, and unfortunately, seems that it will require more evidence before it can be finally put to rest.

Regards,

Ryan

Hi Ryan,

It good to hear you're being open minded about the subject that your on the fence about.

I recommend you do one thing that might sound like I'm trying to belittle you or something, but that's not what I'm trying to do. Go back over what I wrote real slowly, read each word so you understand it, take your time in analyzing the photos, then use you common sense to figure out the right answer.

Do that for me, then come back and let me know what you come up with.

[cheers]

BenKenobi - June 8, 2006 05:58 AM (GMT)
In the surveillance video, a large piece of debris is ejected over the roof of the building in one frame. It is possibly the tail section. However, I believe the video is doctored to explain the lack of damage. With the amount of forward momentum, 375-525 mph, there's no way the fusulage and wings could have entered the building and had time to eject the tail over the top. And if it really happened they would have been showing the tail with the AA logo on it as evidence. Killtown, what's your take on the frame in question?

Killtown - June 8, 2006 06:24 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (BenKenobi @ Jun 8 2006, 05:58 AM)
In the surveillance video, a large piece of debris is ejected over the roof of the building in one frame. It is possibly the tail section. However, I believe the video is doctored to explain the lack of damage. With the amount of forward momentum, 375-525 mph, there's no way the fusulage and wings could have entered the building and had time to eject the tail over the top. And if it really happened they would have been showing the tail with the AA logo on it as evidence. Killtown, what's your take on the frame in question?

FinalStrike - June 8, 2006 07:07 AM (GMT)
user posted image

the windows above are intact- exactly where the tail impacted

get the gov to explain what those windows are made of- currently shown with foam plastered all over them.

this ignored little fact should be used more.

Killtown - June 8, 2006 07:49 AM (GMT)
The window were the new "blast resistent" ones they had just installed. I highly doubt they can withstand a 757's tail crashing into it.

The odds alone that the crash happened in this "blast resistent" section should raise eyebrows enough.

Tappedops - June 9, 2006 12:19 AM (GMT)
A 757 can pass through a keyhole if its going fast enough...man you guys are paranoid...

Killtown - June 9, 2006 12:20 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Tappedops @ Jun 9 2006, 12:19 AM)
A 757 can pass through a keyhole if its going fast enough...man you guys are paranoid...

Huh? :blink:

Tappedops - June 9, 2006 12:31 AM (GMT)
Sorry Killtown...its just the pent-illusion thing is so sore with me...theres enough good footage of that Halk to go around the world, and they sit there and act like the footage theyve show us is the best they got...its so laughable--- why didnt they just go for broke and say that this same plane bounced of the building and landed in shanks and made that fire pit...

RedPillNeo - June 9, 2006 01:09 AM (GMT)
It DOES look like the tail section flies over the building, which is rather curious.

Strange things DO happen in collisions at such high speeds, BUT... Newton's law tells us a force would have had to give that tail section a HUGE PUSH upward. As the front of the plane is "flowing" into the building (modelled as a liquid at that speed) could the collision really impart enough upward force to ONLY break off the tail section and fling it over the building, yet allow the rest of the fuselage to go straight in, without buckling upward to damage the wall? Pesky Muslims, changing the laws of physics that morning again! [hmm]

What about that guy interviewed at the pentagon on 911, who said in some news reports that there were no signs that the plane had crashed into the pentagon. Not long ago, he angrily stated that he was quoted out of context, and claimed that he saw the cockpit, and "held the tail section in his hand?" I'd love to nail him down on that statement!

That avenue of inquiry will either clarify the disposition of the tail section, or more likely expose a lying reporter!
-Neo

Killtown - June 9, 2006 01:13 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (RedPillNeo @ Jun 9 2006, 01:09 AM)
It DOES look like the tail section flies over the building, which is rather curious.

Strange things DO happen in collisions at such high speeds, BUT... Newton's law tells us a force would have had to give that tail section a HUGE PUSH upward. As the front of the plane is "flowing" into the building (modelled as a liquid at that speed) could the collision really impart enough upward force to ONLY break off the tail section and fling it over the building, yet allow the rest of the fuselage to go straight in, without buckling upward to damage the wall? Pesky Muslims, changing the laws of physics that morning again! [hmm]

There is no way the explosion could break and push the tail upwards. At the speed officials said it came in, the tail would have smacked the wall before the plane exploded enough to effect the tail.

Remember, the security photos were fabbed. Don't believe anything on them.

RedPillNeo - June 9, 2006 01:42 AM (GMT)
I agree, Killtown.

One thing I never saw before was the picture showing debris scars on the facade. This could indeed be from something hitting the generator, but that doesn't explain the tail section appearing to fly over the roof.

Where DID that reporter claim to see the tail section?

One thing I noticed... the first picture in this thread, the simulation of the plane aligned with the building..? Notice they appeared to place the fall morning sun shining from NORTH-NORTHWEST! Nice attention to detail, folks!

-Neo

Killtown - June 9, 2006 02:40 AM (GMT)
I like this witnesses:

QUOTE
  Vin Narayanan, reporter USA Today - "The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately... driving near the Pentagon when the plane hit.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/witnesses.html


Vin, Vin, Vin. Tails can't burn that quickly!

Where did they find these witnesses???

9/ll-ll\6 - June 9, 2006 03:35 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
While I am officially undecided about exactly WHAT hit the Pentagon, I dont think the lack of a missing tail section proves/disproves anything.


Hi Ryan, good point on the missing tail section, but that is not the only section of the 757 missing. There are no opening in the walls, were the twin nine foot turbine engines entered the building (or landed in the lawn), no wings, no tail section, no seats, no luggage, no bodies, nada. Had the tail section went into the Pentagon; you would see clear evidence of that on the outside walls. Furthermore, that side of the Pentagon was recently reinforced, for just such an attack also. Fortunately, Hani Hanjour (Flight 77 hijacker/pilot) pulled a death-defying maneuver, banking the errant 757 in an incredible diving turn, to hit the reinforced side of the Pentagon, which was still mostly empty.

It's been nothing but a series of coincidences that helps the current administration grow even larger and more powerful. As a famous dictator once said, "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened." ~ Josef Stalin

ryandinan - June 9, 2006 04:39 AM (GMT)
Hey guys,

Thanks for all your comments back. Out of all the oddities surrounding 9/11, this one is the hardest for me to get my head around. In fact, I took it upon myself to do a lot of research and reading up on this event. While doing this research, Dylan and I started talking, and well, I ended up doing the animaiton you all see in the 2nd edition.

The point I'm trying to make is that in doing the project above, I had to investigate a lot of details - I've really looked at this from every angle (as much as I can at least).
After all of that, I'm still neutral on the issue. Why? Because of lack of evidence proving one over the other.

On the one hand, you have quite a few eyewitnesses (and I know some are government employees) saying they saw an AA plane. You do see what appears to be identifiable pieces of debris from an aircraft of some type - but mostly inside the building - not a whole lot outside - and what was outside, is mostly unidentifiable. Of course, you have the famous piece of fuselage that shows what appears to be AA livery, but people question its authenticity on the assumption that it should be burned or scratched up in some way. My problem with that, is that weird things can and do happen. It's unscientific to ignore that one piece based on an asumption of what is thought to happen. And speculating that it was planted is well, just that - speculation - not proof.

On the other hand, you see a hole in the wall of the Pentagon that really looks too small for a 757. You see lack of damage where there should be (like two large engine impact holes). There is a lack of easily identifiable pieces of the plane. There are conflicting eyewitness reports of what was seen (although in the minority of reports). You have pilots (my father included) who say it would be nearly impossible for a plane of that size to physically fly that low, for that distance, at that speed -- especially for a novice pilot like Hani. And of course, the fact that this plane managed to penetrate the most heavily defended airspace on the planet - over an hour AFTER it was well-known that other planes had been slammed into buildings. The circumstances just defy all probability and logic. However, I would be hypocritical if I didn't say weird things can and do happen. I don't want to be naive though. So there is a problem - there's no way to answer this without MORE data. Which brings me back to my original statement. There is a lack of evidence either way - but equal amounts of issues to fuel each side of the problem.

Since I am a 9/11 truther all the way, I want to make sure I'm bringing up points that have lots of solid evidence to back them up. WTC7 and WTC1/2 seem to be the widely accepted focus (it is for me) as far as visual evidence goes - because there is LOTS of it. This unfortunately is just not the case with the Pentagon. The Pentagon reeks of something fishy - and of course, if the government (or elements within) were indeed involved with the events in New York City, it would not be illogical to also assume (and even expect) involvement with the events at the Pentagon (and Shanksville too).

That being said, I DO think there is foul-play somewhere with the Pentagon (and Shanksville) - I just don't know to what extent. Until more evidence comes out, I'm afraid I'll just remain neutral on these issues. I'll listen and observe until I can be satisfied. It may never happen - but that's all I can let myself do.

I'm always open and listening for info!

Thanks,

Ryan


Killtown - June 9, 2006 04:50 AM (GMT)
Hi Ryan,

Good points.

I just can't believe a large tail section on a 757 can vanish into this air. So logic tells me one never hit there. It is simply TOO big to get lost without a trace.

[cheers]

ryandinan - June 9, 2006 05:06 AM (GMT)
Killtown,

I just followed a link to your "why a 757 was not used to hit the Pentagon". It was very interesting, to say the least. Like I said, there are so many coincidenses, and low-probabilities of things that had to happen, it just makes your head spin.

Have you ruled out the possibility of a remorte-controlled Boeing 757 that was used to hit the Pentagon? Perhaps "remote controlled" isn't the best phrase - maybe "computer controlled". With a computer at the controlls, a B 757 could be extremely accurate. I'm just playing devil's advocate here -
On the off chance that someone was videotaping something in the area, and happened to get a shot of (insert flying object here), their whole illusion would be shot to hell.

I dunno.... so many problems with the official story... there are SO many "IFs" that happened consecutively that day to make these events unfold the way they did, it just makes you want to slam your head into a wall. For example, WHY isnt there recordings of the pilots struggling when they were supposedly being hijacked? Why wasn't a distress signal sent?? My father (who was a captain for TWA for 30+ years) said there would be no way in hell he'd "let" some hijacker control of the aircraft - not without letting SOMEONE on the ground know what was happening - and not without first putting that plane on its back. All these things did not happen - no evidence of a struggle - in fact, it was as if the planes were hijacked before they even took off. [hmm]

I still don't know what to think...

-Ryan




Killtown - June 9, 2006 05:15 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
Have you ruled out the possibility of a remorte-controlled Boeing 757 that was used to hit the Pentagon?  Perhaps "remote controlled" isn't the best phrase - maybe "computer controlled".

99% rulled it out. No trace of tail, no engines hitting the ground, and if if was loading with bombs as Eric Bart's "plane bomb" theory, then where is the 115 tons of confetti on the ground?

QUOTE
For example, WHY isnt there recordings of the pilots struggling when they were supposedly being hijacked?  Why wasn't a distress signal sent??  My father (who was a captain for TWA for 30+ years) said there would be no way in hell he'd "let" some hijacker control of the aircraft - not without letting SOMEONE on the ground know what was happening - and not without first putting that plane on its back. 

Killtown - June 11, 2006 04:32 AM (GMT)
I notice how this 9/11 "truth" site trying to debunk the Pentagon conspiracy didn't even try to explain away the missing tail!

QUOTE
Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself

Part 12 - Conclusion

I don't care if you assume there has to be an indentation of the tail on the building, even though it's complete speculation whether or not it should have left it.

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/penta...ensions_est.htm


And it says we're making an "ass" out of ourselves!

Merc - June 12, 2006 01:47 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Killtown @ Jun 9 2006, 02:40 AM)
I like this witnesses:

QUOTE
Vin Narayanan, reporter USA Today - "The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately... driving near the Pentagon when the plane hit.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/witnesses.html


Vin, Vin, Vin. Tails can't burn that quickly!

Where did they find these witnesses???

Yeah I love Vin.

He also claims the tail hit the overhead exit near pole 1 and 2.

The tail section was claimed to have hit that overhead sign while he didn't mention ol' Lloyd England and the poles behind him.

Great post by the way, it's always been my motto.

The tail section is the dead give away.

Merc - June 12, 2006 01:51 AM (GMT)
I love this whopper...

QUOTE
"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box."(Lie, firemen found the black boxes)


Allyn has super human strength AND the ability leap the truth in one single bound.

9/ll-ll\6 - June 12, 2006 06:07 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
Vin Narayanan, reporter USA Today - "The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately... driving near the Pentagon when the plane hit.


Steel melts at 2,777F, whereas jet fuel cannot achieve temperatures half as great as needed to melt the steel paperclips in the desk drawers, let alone evaoprate an entire tail section and set of wings of a passenger jet. It simply defies all known laws of physics. I am not sure what happened at the Pentagon but it certainly was not from a 757-223.

Sanders - June 12, 2006 06:42 AM (GMT)
I love getting cozy in on the sofa on a nippy winter night, throw a few sticks of aluminum in the fireplace, get a nice roaring fire going while I read a good book.

Russell Pickering - June 12, 2006 07:06 AM (GMT)
"Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong. Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships. However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water or regular fire extinguishers. In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel. The US Air Force 15,000 BLU-82B bomb contains 12,600 pounds of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene). The British built a few frigates with aluminum in the 1970s. During the Falklands war, one of these ships, the HMS Sheffield, was hit by a single Exocet anti-ship missile. The damage was not fatal since the missile failed to explode, but its rocket fuel torched the Sheffield's aluminum hull, which ignited and burned until it sank. In contrast, the steel hull frigate USS Stark was hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles in 1988 and survived."
http://www.g2mil.com/aluminum.htm

Here is the Material Safety Data Sheet on Aluminum, "Fresh, very finely ground aluminum, may be pyrophoric when its particle size is 0.03 um or less."
http://www.espi-metals.com/msds's/aluminum.pdf

Here is OSHA's, "DOT label: Flammable solid....."
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/...ecognition.html

Here is from the fireworks industry, "Certain "pyrotechnic" metals, such as magnesium and aluminum, ignite at very high temperatures and burn very hot, releasing large amounts of energy. For this reason, aluminum powder is sometimes added to explosives to enhance blast effect.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html

"The mixture called thermite is powdered aluminum and iron oxide."
http://www.galleries.com/minerals/elements...um/aluminum.htm

"The 21,700-pound [9,500 kilogram] bomb contains 18,700 pounds of H6, an explosive that is a mixture of RDX (Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine), TNT, and aluminum. H6 is used by the military for general purpose bombs. H6 is an Australian produced explosive composition. Composition H6 is a widely used main charge filling for underwater blast weapons such as mines, depth charges, torpedoes and mine disposal charges. HBX compositions (HBX-1, HBX-3, and H6) are aluminized (powdered aluminum) explosives used primarily as a replacement for the obsolete explosive, torpex."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...itions/moab.htm

Russell

Killtown - June 12, 2006 07:37 AM (GMT)
Ok I'm going to sound like a dumbass Russ, but what were you getting at? That aluminum CAN melt quickly under just enough heat?

Russell Pickering - June 12, 2006 10:04 AM (GMT)
KT,

That if it is crushed and "powderized" it acts as a brief accelerant to an explosion. Once ignited it also burns readily.

I believe a lot of the plane was consumed in the explosion and the pieces that remained exposed to heat were consumed. Other pieces were not.

Watch this full-length (6:58) Sandia F4 crash video that is from multiple angles. Keep in mind there was no fuel in this situation (except for the rockets). The plane fuel tanks were full of water.
http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx

Russell

P.S. You're not a dumbass!

Merc - June 12, 2006 01:37 PM (GMT)
Yes, but is it the exact same type of aluminum used on a plane?

Planes are not made of aluminum powder.

In a *mixture*, it is all those things you listed. But in a mixture.

Rick Ratjer did an excellent piece on this:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&..._plane_theories

You should go to the scholars forum, Russell. Lots of brains up there.

So question Russell.

Why would they blow out shiny, uncharred pieces of aluminum AA livery etc, as you propose, Russell? If they really used a 757.






Russell Pickering - June 12, 2006 08:16 PM (GMT)
Merc,

The only precedent we have for an aircraft impacting a wall is the Sandia experiment. You can see the disintegration for yourself. You can also see that some fair sized pieces get expelled too. In the case of a 757 you would have all of the air inside compressing and then expanding as the impact progressed. Then you would have the explosion expanding. The pieces of aluminum on the exterior that survived would constantly be ahead of the heat on the leading edge of the "shock wave".

The aluminum is composited with many materials that are just as flammable when ignited. Independent of the aluminum and composites thereof there are many flammable materials on an aircraft. When broken down as they would have been in such a tremendous collision they ignite more readily. That is why we use kindling in a fire instead of trying to torch a whole log.

I read the scholar's article. I am not a scholar and have no credentials or formulas. He is right in that the aluminum was not self-igniting from impact. But leaving the fuel out of the equation was unimaginable. Aluminum is added to Thermite, fireworks etc. to ACCELERATE the process not to create it. It requires ignition which can be produced only with fuel, heat and oxygen in this case. Trust me when I say leaving the fuel out was misleading to say the least.

In the Sandia video the powdered fragments did not ignite either. Probably the only fire we saw came from the remaining rocket fuel. Remember those fuel tanks were full of water which when vaporized is a cooling agent. If you had fuel in those tanks that would have been a Pentagon-like fireball. And that combustion process would have ignited and consumed its fuel.

Russell

Killtown - June 13, 2006 02:33 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Jun 12 2006, 10:04 AM)
KT,

That if it is crushed and "powderized" it acts as a brief accelerant to an explosion. Once ignited it also burns readily.

I believe a lot of the plane was consumed in the explosion and the pieces that remained exposed to heat were consumed. Other pieces were not.

Watch this full-length (6:58) Sandia F4 crash video that is from multiple angles. Keep in mind there was no fuel in this situation (except for the rockets). The plane fuel tanks were full of water.
http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx

Russell

P.S. You're not a dumbass!

I know about the Sandia video, but that just proves that a plane can disintegrate upon impacting something hard enough. Is this supposed to relate to the aluminum/explosive thing?

PS - sometimes I feel like a dumb ass!

[wink]

Killtown - June 13, 2006 02:37 AM (GMT)
Russ,

I would think if a 757 disintegrated into confetti like the Sandia video, you'd essentially see a 115 tons of confetti lying around.

Does that sound too simplistic?


Russell Pickering - June 13, 2006 02:57 AM (GMT)
KT,

Don't be so hard on yourself. I am the proud owner of a GED.

The first point is this - how much of the weight of the aircraft is aluminum or metal?

How much of it was normal flammables like plastics, rubber and composites?

How much of it was consumed in the explosion because some portion of it was converted into heat energy.

How much was converted to unidentifiable dust which you can see for yourself in the Sandia video?

How much did the smoke weigh that drifted away? I know that may sound silly but I have been in house fires and cleaned up the soot from just a couch fire and it is significant. All of that smoke drifting away was substantial weight. An example, light a piece of paper on fire - where did it go?

All of those initial fires on the outside of the building consumed something. And assuming portions of debris went inside they had all night to burn.

Then we had all of those FBI Agents picking up stuff as far as 500 yards away. What did that total up to? We have no idea. Look at this video clip:
http://www.smelternews.com/modules.php?nam...=article&sid=27

How much did all that weigh? How many more bags did we not see.

How much did that landing gear inside weigh? And the rest of the debris in the photos we know about?

If in fact there was a 757 at the scene then all of the above will add up to the weight you're looking for.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed - it only changes forms. (That was on my GED test)

Russell

Killtown - June 13, 2006 05:51 AM (GMT)
I get you Russ, but shouldn't there be unmistakeable evidence of burn residue from such a large plane such as this (I know it's not a similar type of crash, but it's all burned out)...

user posted image

Russell Pickering - June 13, 2006 06:29 AM (GMT)
KT,

100% different scenario. Think of the Sandia experiment. This hit the ground intact and caught fire. Look at how much of that plane vanished.

Russell

Killtown - June 13, 2006 07:02 AM (GMT)
is there a photo of the Sandia after off the "confetti" landed on the ground?

Russell Pickering - June 13, 2006 07:04 AM (GMT)
KT,

I have a written request in to them for photos of the wall and the area after the experiment as well as any reports that are available to the public.

Russell

Killtown - June 13, 2006 11:51 PM (GMT)
Russ, clarify a couple things for me:

1) Is it fair to call your leading theory "plane bomb" like Eric Bart describes? Also, you leaning to drone 757 or rigged Flight 77?

2) You leaning toward it was detonated before it hit the wall, or when it did hit the wall?

3) you think the odd shaped hole was "pre-cut" like I think, or your plane caushed it?

You can PM me your response if you want.

Russell Pickering - June 14, 2006 12:34 AM (GMT)
KT,

No need to PM. I am always open and public with my thoughts.

I would not call it "plane bomb". Part of my research includes trying to find out how a flight termination system works in detail. The comptroller of the Pentagon at the time (as you know) was VP of a company that had remote guidance, flight termination and radar simulation technology. All three of those played a part in 9/11 as far as I am concerned.

If you look closely at the first explosion frame from the furthest away video you can see that the plane is decomposing prior to the facade. Whether this was FTS or the wing/engine being ripped off by the generator I don't know.

I have found where 4 757-200's were acquired in 1998 (the same year they started wall construction) by an intelligence operation. They were previously owned by airlines. They have done registration and tail number swaps on them. They are at Eglin AFB.

I think remnants of the aircraft, primarily the fuselage, impacted the building partially intact. That is why they claim they found a cockpit seat and the black boxes in the impact zone. Front and tail. The ASCE report says they were by the exit hole. Probably more FBI provided information like the column damage back there. I have talked extensively with somebody who I consider credible that was there when they found them at the impact. I have to keep them anonymous so I don't say much about it. A lot of the interviews I do I keep to myself for this reason because I just want to know what they say and they don't want their names used. Obviously if I had a smoking gun I would become a whistle blower. But pretty much they consistently tell a similar story from different points-of-view. I have even talked to people who were there that believe in a conspiracy but are 100% convinced of a plane hitting the building from first hand experience.

Even though the black boxes were found in the impact site I believe that portions of the aircraft made it about 160 feet into the building corresponding to the column damage. This was clinched for me when they released the photos of the deceased Pentagon workers and one of them has a piece of fuselage embedded in the rubble behind him. That was not faked. Sure it could have been hidden in there but I am tired of explaining away all the evidence. Still nobody has explained the faked poles or generator. It is because there is not a simple alternative.

I believe the exit hole was made with a rapid wall breaching kit as either an escape for workers or to create cross-ventilation for the fire or both. That was in the unrenovated section and there were no windows or doors in the A/E drive back there.

I do not believe Hani Hanjour was at the controls. I believe the passengers and crew may have been on an electronically hijacked plane. That is why they released the flight data recorder info but not the cockpit voice recorder. The people behind this are too shrewd to allow that aspect of Operation Northwoods. They would not leave 200 and some people alive to roam the earth. They value themselves and their goals too much to chance that. Remember in 1962 you had newspapers, TV and word of mouth. Today there is too much information/communication readily available to take the risk.

I believe no-plane, plane and everything else should be thoroughly researched and discussed to find the truth.

Remember these are not beliefs as much as conclusions. I have had to modify my beliefs along the way.

There.....does that answer your questions?

Russell





* Hosted for free by zIFBoards