View Full Version: Flight 77's Left Engine

Loose Change Forum > The Pentagon > Flight 77's Left Engine


Title: Flight 77's Left Engine
Description: Why didn't it burrow into the ground?


Killtown - June 13, 2006 05:30 AM (GMT)
The official story is that Flight 77's left engine hit a vent structure in front of the Pentagon at about the time the plane's nose hit the building:

user posted image
(Graphic not mine.)

QUOTE
3.7 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT

At that time the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated. After the plane had traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15)


user posted image

Here is a pic that shows where the left engine supposedly hit the vent structure's wall seem at the lower left. Notice how low this wall is to the ground.

user posted image


This is a photo of an AA 767's left engine (which is about the same size as a 757's engine) next to a person for scale:

user posted image


Flight 77 was said to be traveling at 530mph when it hit and coming down at a slight angle. So if 77 was coming in that fast and down at a slight angle when it's left engine struck the low wall of the vent structure, why didn't it burrow itself into the ground anywhere after that?

user posted image

Notice in the above photo that there seems to be no evidence of anything being struck by a 10 ton Boeing engine except for a small portion of the vent structure's low wall.

user posted image

How could that be?


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

Russell Pickering - June 13, 2006 06:54 AM (GMT)
KT,

This is to scale as an experiment. The plane is based on the dimensions of the helipad which is 82x82. It all lines up. The nose is touching the wall. The left engine is hitting where the wall was broken and I put a yellow dot where the flap track would be hitting the generator perfectly.

user posted image

This is the kind of stuff that is driving me to investigate a plane swap theory.

I did not like the switch to thinking about a plane. It was hard given how deep rooted my beliefs were. But when you ask the real hard questions these things keep lining up and explaining themselves.

We know it was done on purpose. Now we have to find out how instead of doing all the mental gymnastics to try and explain away all of the evidence. It is a crisis of faith but finding the truth is like that.

Russell

chucksheen - June 13, 2006 06:59 AM (GMT)
[clap]

Killtown - June 13, 2006 06:59 AM (GMT)
I hear you Russ, but is it out of the realm of possibility that if we are using scales of planes to line everything up that the perps did the same thing before hand to study how they were going to make it look like it crashed?

It would be foolish of them not to go into detail to fake a crash. Of course I think they goofed with the unburnt debris scattered around outside!


Russell Pickering - June 13, 2006 08:19 AM (GMT)
KT,

Let's think it through. This is going to be sarcastic. It is directed at the idea - not at you our anybody else. Keep in mind I have been a hard-line no-planer myself. I am just tired of rationalizing evidence and willing to face an Operation Northwoods scenario or remote override. It was NOT Hani Hanjour.

In 1998 they started a process to reinforce the wall. If it was all going to be pyrotechnics why would they do this?

But let's say they do decide to fake it.

So let's get in their head. First of all, why did they choose a 757 as the fake plane?

Once they committed to it then they - back up a second - who are they and how many of them are there and how many will they have to recruit to carry out the plan? Where will they find all of these specialists and normal workers, crooked rescuers, fake witnesses etc.? Multiply your answer by four events.

So now we get out a satellite photo and look at the scene. We take a scaled 757 and decide on a flight path. We mark the poles, the generator, the trailers and the tree. At the same time we decide to leave the cable spools there just to raise questions.

Now we climb the poles and place explosives at the height we decide the plane comes in and another in the base. Should they be timed and synchronized or should we have them manually detonated? Also, we have to make at least four of them fall forwards in the direction of the flight path. We want to hit the taxi just right since we can't kill one of our planted witnesses. Why don't we just skip the poles? It's only 12 feet - we'll just say the plane came in steeper. No, it has to look real. OK.

We'll pull it off and not one person will notice that there was no plane and that the light poles just blew up. Even the woman who will be watering her plants a mile away and "hear" the plane has decided to play along and give us her support because we called her and asked if she wanted to help us kill 184 people and invade the Middle East.

The imaginary plane will pass over the highway full of witnesses that we have briefed beforehand as to exactly what they will see. I hope there isn't any traffic jams that delay them or any honest people who sneak onto any of the roads around the building. Thank goodness the people at the helipad tower, the two firefighters outside and all of the people with window offices needed a few bucks and are willing to promise to remain silent. Can we trust them? Sure they won't confide in a friend, a priest, a psychologist, drink too much or cave in from the guilt and write a suicide confession.

One of us looks up 757-200 on the Internet. We find out about flap tracks and realize the flight path takes us over the generator. Dammit. Alright now we have to draw straws and see who has to climb up there and hand carve the damn trailer roof even though it is out of view of anybody except for the photographer that will be in the helicopter on the 14th and the people who haul the trailer away.

OK that's done. Crap.......what about the fence? Well we just have to bend down two steel poles and rip the fencing away. Of course now we'll have to look up the diameter of the engine to make sure there is room because those dang conspiracy theorists are bound to have a copy of Photoshop and find us out.

So all we have to do now is figure out how to move that trailer forward and sideways and launch the front of it through a 24 inch thick wall. Dang it - I just noticed the stupid little wall over by the left engine. OK, look my chisel is still on top of the generator but I'll just use a hammer and chip away some concrete while you go to the junkyard and get a 757 main landing gear and toss it inside the building.

Imagine the luck, I found a wheel rim, a combustion chamber casing and an engine rotor (I can't remember if that was in the RB-211, A3 or 737 pile but it will work). Crap! I forgot to tell the guys to set it out for the FEMA photographer on the 13th to get a picture of it.

Does anybody have time to paint the fuselage pieces I got on special? That reminds me, who is fast enough to zip around and place them all without detection. A 500 yard radius should be good to fool them.

I don't feel like waiting until the construction trailers are gone so we'll just use directional explosives to blow them towards the building but be very careful not to get anything out on the lawn. Make sure it is enough to penetrate that wall we just spent 3 years blast reinforcing as well. Maybe we should have the firefighters pull the truck out and torch it too. If we do the truck we'll have to do the cars. I think breaking the tower window out would be a nice touch as well.

Wait a minute.....if we're gonna have those video cameras running we have to make sure we have debris rain down. Photoshop. Call the guy who's planting the parts and make sure they all line up for the still photos later in the day OK?

How many columns should we blow?

OK I guess that's it. Oops what about those 59 pesky people on the plane? Do you think their families will go along with it? Doesn't that old Naval anti-terrorist guy work for American Airlines. Hold the paint - we need a sandblaster too.

Did you plant the black boxes and ask the firefighters if they are all willing to lie about what they see? Yep their covered.

What if our fake take off is late and the CGI happens on the towers first? Don't you think it's risky to do the show at the Pentagon in a highly populated military/media/political center? To hell with it. We are the masters of illusion. Nobody will notice.

The day arrives...........

Russell

Graham - June 13, 2006 03:54 PM (GMT)
[crylol] [crylol] [clap]

everec - June 13, 2006 04:01 PM (GMT)
if the the jets left engine hit a structure wouldn't that have been shown on the so called release of the jet hitting the pentagon footage. Did this happen before it was filmed? or did it happen at all?

behind - June 13, 2006 04:13 PM (GMT)
Now, what looks strange to me is... that the "plane" is supposed to be hit so many thing!

It hit 5 lamp poles... and then generetor... then small wall (nearly the ground)... and... it always fly nearly strait line! Nothing is supposed to happend to the plane even though the engine hit a generator, ... hmm... it just look unreal to me.


DarqueMatters - June 13, 2006 04:58 PM (GMT)
If the left engine and right engine are hitting something about the same time there would be a lever effect.

With this effect two things will happen:

1. The nose will come down really fast, eating its way into the ground, under the outer wall of the pentagon.
2. The tail of the plane would rise up and by my guess would at least hit the upper floor of the pentagon.

I don't see any of these effects so IMHO the 'engines truck an object' theory doesn't hold ground.

NickJ123 - June 13, 2006 05:37 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Russell Pickering @ Jun 13 2006, 08:19 AM)
KT,

Let's think it through. This is going to be sarcastic. It is directed at the idea - not at you our anybody else. Keep in mind I have been a hard-line no-planer myself. I am just tired of rationalizing evidence and willing to face an Operation Northwoods scenario or remote override. It was NOT Hani Hanjour.

In 1998 they started a process to reinforce the wall. If it was all going to be pyrotechnics why would they do this?

But let's say they do decide to fake it.

So let's get in their head. First of all, why did they choose a 757 as the fake plane?

Once they committed to it then they - back up a second - who are they and how many of them are there and how many will they have to recruit to carry out the plan? Where will they find all of these specialists and normal workers, crooked rescuers, fake witnesses etc.? Multiply your answer by four events.

So now we get out a satellite photo and look at the scene. We take a scaled 757 and decide on a flight path. We mark the poles, the generator, the trailers and the tree. At the same time we decide to leave the cable spools there just to raise questions.

Now we climb the poles and place explosives at the height we decide the plane comes in and another in the base. Should they be timed and synchronized or should we have them manually detonated? Also, we have to make at least four of them fall forwards in the direction of the flight path. We want to hit the taxi just right since we can't kill one of our planted witnesses. Why don't we just skip the poles? It's only 12 feet - we'll just say the plane came in steeper. No, it has to look real. OK.

We'll pull it off and not one person will notice that there was no plane and that the light poles just blew up. Even the woman who will be watering her plants a mile away and "hear" the plane has decided to play along and give us her support because we called her and asked if she wanted to help us kill 184 people and invade the Middle East.

The imaginary plane will pass over the highway full of witnesses that we have briefed beforehand as to exactly what they will see. I hope there isn't any traffic jams that delay them or any honest people who sneak onto any of the roads around the building. Thank goodness the people at the helipad tower, the two firefighters outside and all of the people with window offices needed a few bucks and are willing to promise to remain silent. Can we trust them? Sure they won't confide in a friend, a priest, a psychologist, drink too much or cave in from the guilt and write a suicide confession.

One of us looks up 757-200 on the Internet. We find out about flap tracks and realize the flight path takes us over the generator. Dammit. Alright now we have to draw straws and see who has to climb up there and hand carve the damn trailer roof even though it is out of view of anybody except for the photographer that will be in the helicopter on the 14th and the people who haul the trailer away.

OK that's done. Crap.......what about the fence? Well we just have to bend down two steel poles and rip the fencing away. Of course now we'll have to look up the diameter of the engine to make sure there is room because those dang conspiracy theorists are bound to have a copy of Photoshop and find us out.

So all we have to do now is figure out how to move that trailer forward and sideways and launch the front of it through a 24 inch thick wall. Dang it - I just noticed the stupid little wall over by the left engine. OK, look my chisel is still on top of the generator but I'll just use a hammer and chip away some concrete while you go to the junkyard and get a 757 main landing gear and toss it inside the building.

Imagine the luck, I found a wheel rim, a combustion chamber casing and an engine rotor (I can't remember if that was in the RB-211, A3 or 737 pile but it will work). Crap! I forgot to tell the guys to set it out for the FEMA photographer on the 13th to get a picture of it.

Does anybody have time to paint the fuselage pieces I got on special? That reminds me, who is fast enough to zip around and place them all without detection. A 500 yard radius should be good to fool them.

I don't feel like waiting until the construction trailers are gone so we'll just use directional explosives to blow them towards the building but be very careful not to get anything out on the lawn. Make sure it is enough to penetrate that wall we just spent 3 years blast reinforcing as well. Maybe we should have the firefighters pull the truck out and torch it too. If we do the truck we'll have to do the cars. I think breaking the tower window out would be a nice touch as well.

Wait a minute.....if we're gonna have those video cameras running we have to make sure we have debris rain down. Photoshop. Call the guy who's planting the parts and make sure they all line up for the still photos later in the day OK?

How many columns should we blow?

OK I guess that's it. Oops what about those 59 pesky people on the plane? Do you think their families will go along with it? Doesn't that old Naval anti-terrorist guy work for American Airlines. Hold the paint - we need a sandblaster too.

Did you plant the black boxes and ask the firefighters if they are all willing to lie about what they see? Yep their covered.

What if our fake take off is late and the CGI happens on the towers first? Don't you think it's risky to do the show at the Pentagon in a highly populated military/media/political center? To hell with it. We are the masters of illusion. Nobody will notice.

The day arrives...........

Russell

same people who flawlessly laced 3 skyscrappers w/ explosives without ANYONE noticing. I most certainly believe they staged this 757 crash and got eyewitnesses in on it to make their story plausible.

Too bad you still have that 16 foot bullet hole and no plane debri.

behind - June 13, 2006 06:42 PM (GMT)
I am going to try to use better word over what I mean there above.

Now, the plane was going very fast, I know that... but... have somone ever drive a car... maybe at 100 km p.h. and then suddenly hit something with the right (Or the left) side of the car ? (And it dont need to be some solid stuff the car would hit) People know what happen then ? The car dont just go through it strait line!

(but I think no one understand what I mean) :D

DarqueMatters - June 14, 2006 12:46 AM (GMT)
I do understand!

It's the same thing what I mean with my post.


Love your thoughts...

Merc - June 14, 2006 09:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Killtown @ Jun 13 2006, 06:59 AM)
I hear you Russ, but is it out of the realm of possibility that if we are using scales of planes to line everything up that the perps did the same thing before hand to study how they were going to make it look like it crashed?

It would be foolish of them not to go into detail to fake a crash. Of course I think they goofed with the unburnt debris scattered around outside!

Exactly.

Russell Pickering - June 14, 2006 09:29 PM (GMT)
How did they fake all of those details? A reasonable and logical sequence of how they did it in detail. I would love to hear it because I have spent 2 years trying to put one together.

Merc - June 14, 2006 09:52 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
In 1998 they started a process to reinforce the wall. If it was all going to be pyrotechnics why would they do this?


Who said it was to only reinforce the wall? They could have reiniforced it while placing explosives for the hole/damage. Who knows why they REALLY reinforced the wall. Who knows. Russell the reinforcement plain as day, are for a blast. Like a truck bomb. Where in the world are we getting that this wall was reinforced for likes of a 757?



QUOTE
So let's get in their head. First of all, why did they choose a 757 as the fake plane?



Because it's not a 767 and people can compare the holes at the WTC.



QUOTE
Once they committed to it then they - back up a second - who are they and how many of them are there and how many will they have to recruit to carry out the plan? Where will they find all of these specialists and normal workers, crooked rescuers, fake witnesses etc.? Multiply your answer by four events.



Again we don't know who's fake and who's not. I believe all you need is Rt 27 closed from both sides, a handful of people on the highway, a flyover and plants like Mike Walter willing to come forward and put their account on video or in print. Or a team of psy-ops with connections to go out and pretend to be witnesses. Or a team to simply call in witness account to crooked or legit reporters. Can you prove every single one of those people are who they say they are and actually exist Russell?


QUOTE
So now we get out a satellite photo and look at the scene. We take a scaled 757 and decide on a flight path. We mark the poles, the generator, the trailers and the tree. At the same time we decide to leave the cable spools there just to raise questions.


No, all these obstacles just add to the realism in their mind.

QUOTE
Now we climb the poles and place explosives at the height we decide the plane comes in and another in the base. Should they be timed and synchronized or should we have them manually detonated? Also, we have to make at least four of them fall forwards in the direction of the flight path. We want to hit the taxi just right since we can't kill one of our planted witnesses. Why don't we just skip the poles? It's only 12 feet - we'll just say the plane came in steeper. No, it has to look real. OK.



No see, you're melding two theories Russell. I am the promoter of planted witnesses and a staged Rt. 27. I don't promote explosive light poles. If you have a staged Rt 27, all you need is 5 light poles and taxi lparked at a peculiar angle. Some people could have been under the impression it was a MASCAL excercise.

QUOTE
We'll pull it off and not one person will notice that there was no plane and that the light poles just blew up. Even the woman who will be watering her plants a mile away and "hear" the plane has decided to play along and give us her support because we called her and asked if she wanted to help us kill 184 people and invade the Middle East.


Again, a flyover for all around the vicinity to verify while the real culpit explodes or hits simultaneously when the plane flies low and over the target.

QUOTE
The imaginary plane will pass over the highway full of witnesses that we have briefed beforehand as to exactly what they will see. I hope there isn't any traffic jams that delay them or any honest people who sneak onto any of  the roads around the building. Thank goodness the people at the helipad tower, the two firefighters outside and all of the people with window offices needed a few bucks and are willing to promise to remain silent. Can we trust them? Sure they won't confide in a friend, a priest, a psychologist, drink too much or cave in from the guilt and write a suicide confession.



Some people may have thought that's what happened to them Russell. If you were within the trajectory of this plane coming in low and fast and you thought it was coming stright for you. Wouldn't you think it hit near you while it came in low and loud then this HUGE explosion goes off as you were running away diving under a van.

QUOTE
One of us looks up 757-200 on the Internet. We find out about flap tracks and realize the flight path takes us over the generator. Dammit. Alright now we have to draw straws and see who has to climb up there and hand carve the damn trailer roof even though it is out of view of anybody except for the photographer that will be in the helicopter on the 14th and the people who haul the trailer away.


Dude, they have ample time to plan this. That flap track dent could have been put there when it was delivered. It could have been accomplished at night, Shit in the daytime, who is going to question some guy working on a trailer across the lawn they can't walk on. No one is even paying attantion let alone thinking it has or had anything to do with the attack.

QUOTE
OK that's done. Crap.......what about the fence? Well we just have to bend down two steel poles and rip the fencing away. Of course now we'll have to look up the diameter of the engine to make sure there is room because those dang conspiracy theorists are bound to have a copy of Photoshop and find us out.



No because it's more believeable to think a 757 engine ripped though it leaving only a section missing, moving a trailer a few feet to the right, while only opening the top like a can opener.

QUOTE
So all we have to do now is figure out how to move that trailer forward and sideways and launch the front of it through a 24 inch thick wall. Dang it - I just noticed the stupid little wall over by the left engine. OK, look my chisel is still on top of the generator but I'll just use a hammer and chip away some concrete while you go to the junkyard and get a 757 main landing gear and toss it inside the building.


Do you know for sure the damage to the 24 inch thick wall is from the trailer or the little wall chunk missing is from the engine?

QUOTE
Imagine the luck, I found a wheel rim, a combustion chamber casing and an engine rotor (I can't remember if that was in the RB-211, A3 or 737 pile but it will work). Crap! I forgot to tell the guys to set it out for the FEMA photographer on the 13th to get a picture of it.



We have no proof those pics are really even from the Pentagon. Unless you want to divulge your source Russell, we are just spinning tires.

And yeah, I think they would go through the hassle of finding the parts, fabricating damage or throwing them in there to be blown up. Yeah, that easy.


I really can't continue, I can do this all day.

We both know that. haha.

Still not convinced.

Russell Pickering - June 14, 2006 11:00 PM (GMT)
Merc,

My goal is truly not to convince anybody of anything. It is to communicate the direction I am taking and asking for the checks and balances of differing opinions. I thrive on this dialogue and every good question causes me to write a letter or make a phone call.

I am with you that people should look at ALL possibilities (except for maybe the victims being traded to aliens for technology and cow blood).

I am only representing one of 6 or 7 possibilities as I see it. I have exhausted no-plane for myself for now. I may return to it if it is the path with the most evidence.

The way we know the wall was reinforced is by the photos of them doing it, the Kevlar cloth in the collapse photos, the new red steel reinforcements visible and the durability of the windows in the renovated section vs. the unrenovated. I agree it was done for a truck bomb scenario according to their original plans. Even the MASCAL exercise was not based on terrorism and was into the center courtyard. That was probably just their proximity to the airport.

I don't have "top secret" sources. These are just contacts I have developed over a couple of years that I talk with. No big deal except their request for privacy is something I honor. Trust me when I say I have discovered no smoking gun. I have talked to almost everybody of significance there. I won't list them or overuse the information because like you say it is not properly documented for evidence. And no I can't prove anything about them just like you can't prove they planted explosives during the renovation or modified the trailer at night.

The realism would have been just as real without the details. Fly over, explosion, fake witnesses and planted debris is all they needed. Every detail becomes a risk. Those were completely non-essential details. They went straight into the towers why not the Pentagon? The poles were a matter of 12 feet and the flap track about 10 inches.

I understand your witness angle. But the poles were still there and have to be accounted for. I have personally participated in mass casualty drills for 11 years and we never took down a light pole. Make up, crushed car/bus in a private lot and some fake smoke is about it. They would not rip down expensive public utilities. They could have brought in used poles that had been damaged in real accidents if they wanted to.

Yes, if you heard the plane and then took yourself out of visual range for safety you would not see what happened and make a connection of one to the other. The problem is the witnesses were mostly out of harms way looking at it from a distance. Have you seen that video of the smoke when it is in its very first stages from the highway? There is no flyover plane in it. If I get to see this other video I am aware of then I will be able to tell if anything flew over because it was taken immediately after the impact. That will still be a while yet.

The trailer was more than a little moved. Ten feet of it was ripped off and vanished. I don't know for sure if that is what caused the damage to the wall but it fits logic and physics pretty well.

If the pics are fake, the damage is fake, the witnesses are fake and the video is fake, then we should all just walk away because nothing will ever be known with any certainty. We're wasting time.

But if gravity, physics, logic, human nature, cause and effect and probability were all in effect, then we have a chance.

Russell

Agent Smiff - June 15, 2006 02:19 PM (GMT)
thought I'd throw a few thoughts in here as well - as I still have one foot in the "no plane " camp anyway...

QUOTE
In 1998 they started a process to reinforce the wall. If it was all going to be pyrotechnics why would they do this?


Possibly because they want to test the reinforcements. It's the only part of the building that's been reinforced - heck before we finish the rest of it (at huge cost) why not hit it with a missile (or something) and see just how great this reinforcement is - the thing here is what would be the point of nailing it with a plane - why not use a cruise missible - some bunker busting bomb perhaps to see how good the reinforcing really is...

QUOTE
who are they and how many of them are there and how many will they have to recruit to carry out the plan? Where will they find all of these specialists and normal workers, crooked rescuers, fake witnesses etc.? Multiply your answer by four events


wooo - back up there - lets not multiply out answer by four - lets just stick to the Pentagon...

(note these are rough guesses as to numbers)

Okie - people needed to fire a cruise missile - 1
people needed to make missile look a little like a comercial plane - 3
people to plant wreckage inside building and rig it so that it's blown into the air and is scattered in small bit about the place - 5
planted witnesses - 10

so not that many people really - rescue workers are all genuine and everyone else is MILITARY - this means they can be ORDERED to STFU. Unlike civilians who would have to be paid off threatened or whatever...


QUOTE
Now we climb the poles and place explosives at the height we decide the plane comes in and another in the base. Should they be timed and synchronized or should we have them manually detonated? Also, we have to make at least four of them fall forwards in the direction of the flight path. We want to hit the taxi just right since we can't kill one of our planted witnesses. Why don't we just skip the poles? It's only 12 feet - we'll just say the plane came in steeper. No, it has to look real. OK.


Hang on there - we have a specially altered cruise missile mocked up to look a little like a 757 (it's moving at 500mph it's not got to look exact or nothing) - we'll just reinforce it's "wings" so it takes care of most of the poles - and if any are outside the wingspan we'll rig those - that'll only be a couple.

Dammit that generators in the way - o no worries our mocked reinforced wings will damage that nicely and we can scoop it up and out of the way before any pesky real investigators get photos of it. You know those wings will even flatten a bit of that fence for added realism.

QUOTE
Does anybody have time to paint the fuselage pieces I got on special? That reminds me, who is fast enough to zip around and place them all without detection. A 500 yard radius should be good to fool them.


We don't need those - Agent X has got us a landing gear with one set of wheels on it and a side of fuselage that we "reinforced" into the building already - it's all rigged so that bits of it get blown all over the place - yes it's painted up already with teh right lineage - I know that means that most of the wreckage has bits of logo on it but they'll never notice that only 2% of the plane is painted and almost no decent sized bits of unpainted wreckage are around - Oh and those engines are HUGE so we can only get one of them into the building but as long as there's engine bits (that plastic explosive is powerful stuff!) we can con the people into thinking there's 2.

Eh - o well come up with some story about the lack of landing gear - who's gonna ask anyway? we only need 1 landing gear as long as there's some parts consistant with a 757 - you know pieces that are undeniably from any old 757 how can they argue? - we've got the investigation angle covered already - there won't be one - relax.

As long as there's no video evidence of the crash we're home free - they'll be so concerned with WTC they'll buy a plane here no question - it's all how you spin it, they'll see planes at WTC we'll tell them one crashed here of course they'll believe us - hell they still believe the "magic bullet" don't they...
....

So I'm not saying it was definitely faked - but I still don't quite buy the 757 crash story either - something about it doesn't add up.

The lack of wreckage - the debris - the lightpoles - the eyewitnesses that don't really end up being that reliable - it could have been faked - there is still no absolute proof that it was a 757 that hit.

When will we see the Sheraton tapes - the hotel employees are reported as being shhocked watching the footage - are they all still around? how heavily were they leaned on??

It equally COULD have been a 757 - if they check the serial numbers on the landing gear they can match those exactly to a particular airplane - why wasn't that done?

Who processed the black boxes? why was that info unrecoverable?

If it was flight 77 it sure as hell wasn't Hani Hanjour flying it - and the plane was autopiloted probably after knocking out all the people on board with some kind of gas - will we ever know?




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree