COMMENTS FLIGHT 77 Page 2

Dear Kent, Isn't the obvious question, "Well if we assume that paranoid, anti-American French fantasies are true and that it was an F-16 or some other auto-piloted device that went into the Pentagon, whatever happened to Flight 77?" More to the point, the people who are writing credulously as if it really wasn't Flight 77 that piled into the Pentagon demonstrate that they know next to nothing about crash sites, particularly crash sites of planes just loaded with fuel. The answer to the "Where's the Boeing" question is simple: you wouldn't see it in such a situation. In many fueled-up crash sites, there is nothing left which is recognizably an airplane and no one familiar with crash reports would be surprised by this. As for the way that the explosion appears on the pictures and what damage was done to the building, the hard fact is that no one, anywhere, has any idea what impact such an encounter between plane and building would have, since we, thankfully, have almost no experience of such things on this scale before 9/11. So, when all of these whackos write in about what one would expect to see, I am extremely impressed that they seem to think that they know what we would see when not even the experts have any idea what to expect. I'm a pilot and have been reading the crash reports in Aviation Week and Space Technology for about 25 years now, and nothing at the crash site strikes me as particularly anomalous. I go back to the original question: if it wasn't Flight 77, where's Flight 77?

This is all nonsense. The Arab bastards attacked us and caught us napping because of eight years of neglect of our antiterrorism efforts by the ludicrously incompetent Clinton Administration. Whatever one may say about the political motives which lie at the root of Arab dissatisfaction with American policies in their wretched and disgusting homelands, it remains that we cannot tolerate massive violence being visited upon us by these vermin, no matter how just they may feel their cause to be. I will also add that the more contact I have with Arabs both high and low, the more I come to feel that their perspective on almost any issue makes them unnegotiable with anything short of a 5MT device activated at 3,000 ASL. It's sad, but will probably prove to be an ineluctable truth as events unfold.

We will see more of this sort of thing and the tolerance of the American people for drawing fine distinctions will suffer as a consequence. If I were an Arab, I'd be doing my damnedest to get me and my family to some non-Islamic country as soon as possible. There will be jihad, but not by the Arabs, and the Arabs will suffer mightily for their intense convictions, making American suffering seem as nothing.

Re: The following [above], I have only one response. This sounds like the predictable product of a "strategic division of labor", where "operations" are SO compartmentalized, that "red-blooded" soldiers and "operations support specialists" really do not know what their superiors are really up to, and actually believe what they are told without question. As a "military" reporter, it's no secret whos' line he will tow, ANON

P.S. to whom may we attribute the following? Was it really only signed "Allahu Akbar"? Or was the authors' name sent, but suppressed along the way? And if the "Arab bastards" really attacked us, WHY are we not holding the real culprits responsible? (Three days after WTC, Mr. Rumsfeld told us all POINT BLANK, on CNN, that HE was personally responsible for training persons who would, years later, be accused of being "Al-Qaeda" and "Taliban" by our G. Dubya. THESE people (DOD, Military, CIA, et cetera BLEW IT, all the way around.)

Subj:	Photos proving flight 77 hit Pentagon
Date:	3/12/02 6:37:07 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:
To:
CC:
Sent from the Internet

Subj:	Daily So where is the plane - Geoff Metcalf
Date:	3/12/02 6:04:04 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:	s
To:
File:

Looks like big time reporter and talk show host Geoff Metcalf agrees with you. Since your computer is down, you probably were unable to log onto WND yet. I printed it out for you--great article!

If the Pentagon was a fraud, then so was the WTC, the invasion of Afghanistan (Afghanispam), and Iraq which will only bring on WW3.

Joyce said, "They have cameras surrounding the Pentagon, and they had no pictures, now they suddenly have pictures." Give me a break!

Fairfax (VA) firefighters were first on the scene--got any good buddies up there to interview them or perhaps they have been frighten into silence?

Our CFR/government controlled mainstream media continues it's media blitz instead of telling us the truth. People in foreign countries through their objective open media's have already awakened and are seriously questioning the corruption and cover-up--what an embarrassment.

Hitler set fire to the Reichstagg, blamed the Communist, became Chancellor, and invaded Poland. Putin a member of the FSB approved setting fire to Moscow buildings in 1999, blamed the Chechens, became president and invaded Chechnya. Our WTCs burned, the Pentagon damaged, with prior knowledge (according to several reporters with evidence), Bin Laden blamed 45 minutes later, and Afghanistan invaded.

This tactic has been used since Nero burnt Rome, and works every time someone wants to start a war!

The Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Cuban Crisis, Gulf of Tokin (Kissinger's pipe dream that never happened) were all used as a pretext for those wars. People just don't remember history. It's time to go after those responsible, and vindicate those who died on 911.

Sallie

cc: friends

ADDITIONAL SOURCES:

I read the French site about the pentagon hit & I was skeptical:

EXPLOSIVE ACCUSATIONS: 9/11 GOVERNMENT FRAUD
Pentagon : Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! - L'Asile utopique
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

I read this site & I am intrigued. http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html

I saw this site, and it's confirmation of Pentagon Attack, and that it did not happen the way we were told.
http://www.fitzweb.com/military/pentagon/index.html

I suggest every copy these pictures to your hard drive, these sites will go down because they project the truth we are not being told. I hope Nuremberg is recording this genocide.

So where is the plane?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26777

Posted: March 11, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

I receive a lot of strange information from a wide variety of sources. Some of it is intriguing. Some of it is flat-out weird. I try (and frequently fail) to temporarily set aside my own personal prejudices to objectively as possible consider the merits of both the intriguing and weird.

Recently, an interesting French website has been asking questions about the crash of American Airlines Flight 77, which reportedly crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11.

The conventional wisdom has been inculcated into us that there were four terrorist hijacked airplanes that tragic day. But there are refutations for each of the official scenarios floating around. The conspiracy theory industry hasn't been this jazzed since the JFK assassination.

However, in the shadow of the creative writing, multi-phased propaganda and bovine excrement, there are several questions that at least should be asked and answered.

The French website has pictures of the Pentagon from Sept. 11. I looked at the pictures shown and, frankly, (despite my visceral reluctance to buy into another conspiracy) can't answer the questions raised. Maybe our readers can? Click on the French link and let us know what you think. I have also viewed the MSNBC footage over two dozen times and I still can't see the plane. Can you?

1. The first satellite image shows the section of the building that was hit by the Boeing. In the image, the second ring of the building is also visible. It is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion.

How can a Boeing 757-200 â€“ weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour â€“ only have damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

2. The next two photographs show the building just after the attack. The aircraft apparently only hit the ground floor. The four upper floors collapsed toward 10:10 am. The building is 78 feet high.

How can a plane 44.7 feet high, over 155 feet long, with a wingspan of almost 125 feet and a cockpit almost 12 feet high, crash into just the ground floor of this building?

4. There are photographs, which show representations of a Boeing 757-200 superimposed on the section of the building that was hit.

5. One journalist asked: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" At a press conference the day after the tragedy, Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher said, "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation. I'm talking about, but not large sections."

The follow-up question asked, "In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing?" Plaugher replied, "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

Wait a minute! Time after time (Oklahoma City bombing, TWA Flight 800, Flight 93 et al.) we are told not to depend on eyewitnesses?

When asked by a journalist: "Where is the jet fuel?" The chief responded, "We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the â€¦ what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft."

Notwithstanding the collective myopia in not being able to see what we are being told, there are more questions.

One pilot wrote, "I flew the Boeing 747 jumbo jet, but not this 757 â€¦ from what I see (or don't see) looking at these pictures, it's hard to pick out aircraft parts:

Whatever inexplicable anomalies exist, the passengers on Flight 77 died that tragic day. Barbara Olson called her husband from Flight 77 and told him about the hijacking in progress. There was most certainly an American Airlines Flight 77 with real people on board, and families in grief.

GVT) Mystery Solved: If you want to see the plane go here Go to military.com Scroll down to Pentagon Plane Crash and click.

Pop-up window will show frame #1 of 5. Frame #1, is labeled "plane". Notice the 3 orange cones. See the far right cone. Look about 1 inch above the far right cone. The plane is still coming in. The plane is coming in very low but is clear as the snot on your door knob. Notice in subsequent frames that the plane is no longer in that position.

I found an image which I saved from 9-11 which clearly shows Fox-tv reported an explosion at the Pentagon.

Granted the reports were "new" and not the final word, but one assumes there was at least one person at the scene who knew the difference between an explosion and a passenger jet. Nobody mistakes that kind of spectacle even for a moment and no doubt will ever forget what they saw--a lasting image of an incoming passanger jet wrapped with a blanket of emotional, incredulous disbelief. A couple of things: Number one is the lack not only of any visible portion of the jet itself but no evidence for its' so assumed flight path.

Look closely and you see a portion of the fence blown out, the white car on fire but not the SUV sitting right next to it obscured by smoke.

I do not see any evidence of a crashed airliner. This brings up another series of questions as to why there are so few clear damage photos. One would expect such a national tragedy would generate hundreds, if not thousands of photographs, of every single inch of the crime scene. A grid carefully set up to document every single facet of the impact site would have been in place for months.

Videographic analysis coupled with computer animations are a important part of such important investigations.Why are there none? Confiscating every piece of evidence is not a lawful method of gathering proof. If no proof as of now has yet to be presented then this demonstrates quite clearly the truth has also been secreted away. And of course by who.

It would appear that the federal Gov. has become its own self-sustained corporate house of power. But they make very big mistakes. A low flying jetliner would have sheared off light poles, trees and electric lines but this photo although small does not support such a flight path.

There is no clear evidence of wreckage in this photo either. Clearly something is seriously wrong with the "official" explaination of the reason for the Pentagon attack.

The reasons offered by the Gov. of George Bush do not add up to a fact. Cleverly attacking the U. S. Military so your country can be bombed into oblivion is not an act of Terrorism but an act of stupidity beyond comprehension.The so called Terrorists have no defense department or a trillion dollar war machine to back them up. Not even the most dirt-bag fool will pull such a stunt knowing so many innocent undefended, unprotected people will perish without even knowing why.

Did any one in the Media Inc. empire actually ask these poor people if they wanted to follow Bin Laden down the path of destruction? Of course not, because most of them are too desperate for basic life needs to be prepared for all out warfare. The motive for this series of terrorist acts doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

Crashing an airliner into the Pentagon did not help the people of Afghanastan in any way. And why would these people want to attack America when our military helped then covertly of course, to keep out the Soviets? No all of this sounds like quite the opposite.

Oil interests coupled with the Military Billionaire Club decided to bomb their way to the next pot of black gold and to hell with any one who gets in their way. Or should I say "anthraxed" into silence.

I find the information you have linked to very interesting on the pentagon/flight 77 question.

I think that the flight pattern, where the flight turned north, then west, then south and finally resumed it's original course very interesting. Looking at it, I thought our loud, I bet there is a military base near the point the flight turned south. So I pulled out my atlas, and sure enough, there is was, Clarksville!

This was my thinking. If what hit the pentagon was NOT flight 77 then a switch had to have been made. The easiest way to do a switch is to have the plane fly over an airport, and a second plane, with transponder turned off, take off and come up under it. Then they can fly in tandem. At some point the transponder of the initial flight can get turned off, and then when they cross over another military or abandoned airport, the original plane can drop down below the second plane, and land.

On radar it would appear that the flight was one plane since the transponder is turned off.

What other reason could there be for the loop up to the Clarksville air base. What terrorist would want to fly a plane over a military base if they had hijacked it?

This is from my pal Joyce. You may have it, already, but in case not, I think you will like this one.

Okay, I avoided reading more on 'the plane', but then put my mind to this one....it's worth it.

THE CLAIM THAT THE PENTAGON WAS NOT STRUCK BY A PLANE IS DELIBERATE DISINFORMATION

REMEMBER JUMBO JET THAT CRASHED INTO AN APARTMENT BUILDING IN AMSTERDAM. HUGE PLANE, LOADED WITH FUEL, CRASHES INTO CONCRETE BUILDING. LOTS OF SURVIVORS, LOTS OF WRECKAGE BITS OF PLANE ALL OVER THE PLACE. THERE WILL BE FILE PHOTOS SOMEWHERE.

How did a plane with a 125' wingspan manage to miss those big round cable spools which remained directly in from of the impact hole if it came in as low as was apparently captured in the surveillance camera video? And then how did it also manage to sheer of the big tree that was immediately to the right of and just behind the big spools leaving only a 2' - 3' stump? If it passed to the left of the spools, then how did it manage to miss the large trees directly in front of the heliport by the road? If it passed to the right of the spools, why is the gash in the chain-link fence so small?

In the video frame where the tail of the plane shows from behind the traffic post, you cannot see any of the body or wings of the craft. In order for this to occur, it would have to be flying perfectly level and parallel to the ground, with only a few feet of clearance. Yet in order to clear the trees and light poles (one of which was clipped) on the other side of the road, it would have had to have descended along a fairly steep path in order to appear in the position it did in the video clip. Also note that it did not skid across the lawn to it's final impact, as no such marks were left on the lawn, even within feet of the impact site. As any pilot knows, to level off a decent, (to fly parallel to the ground) you must PULL UP THE NOSE OF THE AIRCRAFT! So why is the aircraft not in a nose up attitude in the video frame, which would have resulted in the front portion of the cabin showing above the traffic post? Also look at the angle of the top edge of the tail, it too indicates the jet's attitude is perfectly parallel to the ground. Again, how could someone who flunked out of cessna training school execute the high-speed hair-pin turns and treacherously low final approach that was demonstrated that day?

If you look at the large photos of the yellow foam truck that was first on the scene, you will notice several very large slabs from the building's facing laying hap-hazard on the ground, just in front and to the right of the yellow truck. Would the high-speed impact of a 757 not pulverize these and drive them into the core of the building? The only way these large slabs could be laying intact in front of the building is if they were blown OUT!

One eye witness stated he saw a small commuter jet fly into the side of the Pentagon. Another witness in New York is also adamant she saw a small commuter jet fly make the first strike at the WTC. If you examine the video of the first strike at the WTC, frame by frame, you will note the initial explosion is very small and pin-point focused, blowing out. It then expands frame by frame until it eventually covers half of the building face. You will also notice in your frame by frame analysis that you cannot see the big hulking 757 approaching the WTC (as was the case in the second strike) in this video either??? The explosion just suddenly appears?

SLEUTHS

Date: 3/13/02 11:34:08 PM Pacific Standard Time

Hi Kent!

I caught a little more info on those Pentagon "crash" photos that are the latest buzz at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56670-2002Mar7.html

It states there that these photos cover a span of four one-hundredths of a second (it's not clear wether they mean all of the photos taken together, which I doubt; a difference of 4/100 of a second between each photo; or that each one was exposed for that length of time). This led me to wonder...how long would a Boeing 757-200 that is 51.7 yards long, and travelling at least 250 MPH (minimum required to remain in the air when landing, opposed to 600 MPH in flight) remain within the camera's point of view? Perhaps one of your more analytical sleuths could figure this up?

I intend to TRY and find out more details of the photos themselves, IE: amount of time shown per frame, amount of time BETWEEN each frame, and the entire amount of time represented by all frames taken together. I can't promise any useful info, but I shall give it my best effort. In the meantime, could you possibly pose the above "equation" to a math-inclined friend or sleuth?

To steal a phrase from a popular TV show..."The Truth is Out There" Kent, and my butt is going into overtime to help uncover it. Your work is greatly appreciated, and I would like to thank you for the time you devote to it.

MATH SLEUTHS: HELP

CALCULATION

Date: 3/14/02 2:57:28 PM Pacific Standard Time

It was previously given that the cruising speed of a 757 is approx. 600 mph. According to the FAA report, AA77 was last reported doing 458 kts, which is 527 mph at 8:56 am. Just prior to the strike, the jet passed over the White House then completed a hair-pin 270 degree turn before slamming into the Pentagon. This hair-pin turn would have bled-off a lot of their air-speed, however the dive into the Pentagon with engines at full thrust might have brought the final approach speed back up to around 600 mph / 521kts. So let's run with that as a worse-case scenario. Remember the plane's air-speed was most likely slower than 521 kts. due to the hair-pin turn it just completed.

Assumed AA77 Inbound Velocity: 600 miles/hour = 10 miles/minute = 1 mile or 5280 feet every 6 seconds = 880 feet/sec.

Now NTSA standards which are used in 99% of all North American A/V equipment operates at a rate of 30 interlaced frames per second. That is one complete frame every 30th of a second and one partial or interlaced field scan every 60th of a second, which is essentially slaved to our AC frequency of 60 Hz.

So if you take the plane's velocity of 880 feet/sec. and divide that by the full frame rate of 1/30th of a second, the camera will capture a complete image of the plane every 29.3 feet, given a constant speed of 600 mph. Or if your video equipment can freeze-frame on individual interlace fields it will capture a partial scan (every other scan line) of the plane's travel in 14.6 foot intervals, given a constant rate of speed of 600 mph.

Now according to the surveillance video the plane was crossing the camera's field of view on an inbound trajectory of approximately 35 - 45 degrees, so the apparent velocity of the plane across the camera's field of view will be approximately 1/3 less than that actually travelled by the plane along it's inbound trajectory.

Blue Dot: Camera Position

Red Line: Centerline of Field of View

Yellow Lines: Approx. Field of View Borders

Green Line: Approx. Path of AA77

Red Dot: Tail Position in Photograph

Pink Line: Angle from Camera to Point of Impact

Using the sky view and the surveillance camera views above we determine the approximate angles involved to assist us with determining how far the plane travelled in a single frame or 1/30th of a second. Now assuming the photo was not doctored and assuming this is AA77 (not a small commuter jet) partially hidden behind the traffic post, we will use the length of the 757-300 as our base measurement, which is 155 feet. It can been seen in the video frame that there are approximately 2 plane lengths (310 feet) remaining between the nose and the building face and 3 plane lengths (465 feet) between the tail and the building face.

In the following frame 1/30th of a second later, the tail of the plane has completely disappeared into the building and resulting explosion, so obviously the tail of the plane had to have travelled a minimum of 465 feet in 1/30th of a second. And keep in mind we are not factoring in the extra distance resulting from the tangent the flight path is on perpendicular to the camera angle or the deceleration that would suddenly occur as the plane struck the building. So remember, these figures are very conservative.

Now let's work backwards to see what the minimum approach velocity of AA77 would have to be in order for these two "undoctored", "back-to-back" video frames to be captured exactly as we have been told they were by government officials.

465 feet traveled in 1/30th of a second = 13950 feet/second = 2.64 miles/second = 158.5 miles per minute = 9511.36 mph = 8263.5 kts. = Mach 12.48!!!!

Obviously this means we have been spending a lot more time in holding patterns than previously thought.

So who's still buyin' this? Put up you hands........ Anyone? Anyone???

Date: 3/15/02 7:19:43 AM Pacific Standard Time

According to "official Pentagon sources" the released surveillance camera frames cover 4/100s of a second. Now they do not specify if that is 4/100s of a second per frame (25 frames/sec.) or 4/100's of a second for all four frames (100 frames/sec.)? So let's re-examine the visual data we have to determine what the velocity of AA77 would be under these two additional "officially stated" scenarios.

Pentagon's claim assuming video ran at 25 frames/second: 465 feet traveled in 1/25th of a second = 11625 feet/sec. = 2.20 miles/sec. = 132.1 miles/min. = 7926.14 mph = 6886.30 kts. = Mach 10.43 (I suppose this will become the official excuse of why the interceptor's at Andrew's AFB couldn't catch it)

Pentagon's claim assuming video ran at 100 frames/second: 465 feet traveled in 1/100th of a second = 46500 feet/sec. = 8.8 miles/sec. = 528.4 miles/min. = 31704.54 mph = 27545.21 kts. = Mach 41.7 (At this speed it should have burned up in the atmosphere long before it hit the Pentagon)

Now if we assume the plane was not travelling in excess of Mach 1, (761.6 mph) but at it's rated speed of approximately 600 mph and the camera was operating at the standard 30 frames/sec. which would result in an image of the plane being captured every 29.3 feet travelled, then it becomes undeniably apparent that a minimum of 16 frames (1/2 of a second) of the video have been cut or edited from between the point the plane is last seen behind the traffic post and the next frame where the impact in complete and the explosion is already well under way. I personally suspect closer to 1- 2 seconds of the video have been removed. Obviously, our government and military are no longer trustworthy... or have become insanely inept. The fact that Pentagon and government officials would publically state that commercial airliners can fly at speeds in access of Mach 10, would suggest that all of our top brass and political leaders are in desperate need of padded cells and extensive electroshock therapy.

GEOMETRY

Date: 3/14/02 9:24:57 PM Pacific Standard Time

Kent: I have been bothered by this event since it took place. From the first it felt all wrong.

As a pilot, I knew that the angle of attack just didn't work.

Then there was the missing debris, and the incredibly small hole in the Pentagon wall before it collapsed due to fire.

Kent, the hole isn't even bid enough to drive a truck through.

Please review the attached PDF. I offer some alternative concepts and look at the geometry of how the "aircraft would have had to approach.

It was stated by some witnesses (and shown in some photographs), that during it's final approach into the Pentagon, flight-77 clipped off the top of one of the light posts, which landed on the front wind-screen of a Capital Cab. Which light post would that be?

View of flight path along head on approach, which would seem most likely due to small impact hole.

View taken along a possible flight path skewed slightly more to the right.How would flight-77 avoid the tall tree on the right?

A little further right again. Again, trees are still in the way. I believe the cab that was struck by the clipped pole was located just below where this shot was taken.

View of possible flight path taken at an angle extremely far to the right of the impact hole, which would have resulted in the aircraft impacting the wall at an angle of about 40 - 45 degrees. Is that the reported clipped off light pole, (red circle)? If this is the flight path, how did such a large plane leave such a small hole in the chain-link fence (yellow box) along the wall and just to the right of the impact hole? If such a high-angle approach was taken, why would there not be more wreckage deflected off the wall? For you pool players out there, is the angle of inflection not the angle of deflection? The security cam photo shows no wreckage being deflected off the wall towards it. It appears to be pretty much a square impact. Something doesn't add up here?

Flight Of The Bumble Planes I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.

Kent, If the theory here is true, do you think that Ted Olsen's wife Barbara would have been sacrificed? Did she get a "new face" and a new life? Do you think that he will end his term as Soliciter General and "disappear" to be with her? It gets deeper and deeper. However, it will get "SO" deep and then the "move" will happen. Martial law and total governance. The only hope is that the net stay up and sites like yours continue. I noticed on one of your links the tertiary spin by the spin pros.

EDITOR: Not new, we saw the same weirdness in the disappearance of Flight 990, around Halloween '99

John Bowman, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a contractor, was in his office in Corridor Two near the main entrance to the south parking lot. "Everything was calm,' Bowman said. "Most people knew it was a bomb. Everyone evacuated smartly. We have a good sprinkling of military people who have been shot at."