9/11 - Did flight AA77 Hit The Pentagon?

[Oxymoron]

[Admin: thread moved from here, and renamed]

Raytheon involved at the Pentagon as well

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t5945.html

Flight 77 shot down in mountains of W. Virginia

I just listened to a radio interview with a controller from Boston Center (google video). He states clearly that three of the flights were tracked continuously on 9/11 - on radar - even after two had turned off their transponders. They were NEVER off radar. Flight 77 disappeared from radar over the mountains of W. Virginia. There is only one explanation for this. Flight 77 was SHOT DOWN over the mountains of West Virginia. This was part of the plan. What struck the Pentagon had only been picked up on radar for 60 miles or so as it approached - as evidenced by Norm Mineta's 9/11 Commission testimony, and reinforced by the air traffic controllers interview ("it popped up on radar").

What hit the Pentagon was in fact an A3 Skywarrior from Raytheon's inventory (check their inventory - they're missing one) - painted like an AA jet - powered by a Thiokol solid fuel rocket motor (thus the white smoke in the still frames released by the government), loaded with explosives (thus the smell of cordite evidenced by the hundreds of Pentagon employees present that morning).

Content from external source

UPDATE: Please read: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/pentagon_performance-pdf.1341/

 

[Mick West]

Raytheon involved at the Pentagon as well

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t5945.html

Flight 77 shot down in mountains of W. Virginia

I just listened to a radio interview with a controller from Boston Center (google video). He states clearly that three of the flights were tracked continuously on 9/11 - on radar - even after two had turned off their transponders. They were NEVER off radar. Flight 77 disappeared from radar over the mountains of W. Virginia. There is only one explanation for this. Flight 77 was SHOT DOWN over the mountains of West Virginia. This was part of the plan. What struck the Pentagon had only been picked up on radar for 60 miles or so as it approached - as evidenced by Norm Mineta's 9/11 Commission testimony, and reinforced by the air traffic controllers interview ("it popped up on radar").

What hit the Pentagon was in fact an A3 Skywarrior from Raytheon's inventory (check their inventory - they're missing one) - painted like an AA jet - powered by a Thiokol solid fuel rocket motor (thus the white smoke in the still frames released by the government), loaded with explosives (thus the smell of cordite evidenced by the hundreds of Pentagon employees present that morning).

Content from external source

Really Oxy, you believe that?

 

[Landru]

Raytheon involved at the Pentagon as well

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t5945.html

Flight 77 shot down in mountains of W. Virginia

I just listened to a radio interview with a controller from Boston Center (google video). He states clearly that three of the flights were tracked continuously on 9/11 - on radar - even after two had turned off their transponders. They were NEVER off radar. Flight 77 disappeared from radar over the mountains of W. Virginia. There is only one explanation for this. Flight 77 was SHOT DOWN over the mountains of West Virginia. This was part of the plan. What struck the Pentagon had only been picked up on radar for 60 miles or so as it approached - as evidenced by Norm Mineta's 9/11 Commission testimony, and reinforced by the air traffic controllers interview ("it popped up on radar").

What hit the Pentagon was in fact an A3 Skywarrior from Raytheon's inventory (check their inventory - they're missing one) - painted like an AA jet - powered by a Thiokol solid fuel rocket motor (thus the white smoke in the still frames released by the government), loaded with explosives (thus the smell of cordite evidenced by the hundreds of Pentagon employees present that morning).

Content from external source

Could you provide some evidence that 1) Flight 77 was shot down and 2) An A-3 crashed into the Pentagon? I don't see anything to debunk (evidence) in your post.

 

[Oxymoron]

This is off topic but could you provide some evidence that 1) Flight 77 was shot down and 2) An A-3 crashed into the Pentagon? I don't see anything to debunk (evidence) in your post.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Losing_Flight_77#Air_Traffic_Control_Transcripts

33:16 - WAS OP: Okay, now let me tell you this; I- I'll- We'll be looking, we've also lost American 77.
33:21 - NEADS ID2: American 77? Where was he proposed to head sir?
33:23 - NEADS ID3: American 77's lost - American 7 7.
33:25 - WAS OP: Excuse me?
33:26 - NEADS ID2: Where was he proposed to head sir?
33:28 - WAS OP: Okay, he was going to LA also.
33:30 - NEADS ID3: He was also going to LA.
33:32 - WAS OP: Now-
33:33 - NEADS ID2: From where, sir?
33:34 - WAS OP: Ah, I think he was from Boston also.
33:36 - NEADS ID3: Boston to LA.
33:36 - WAS OP: Now, listen, now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy-
33:43 - NEADS ID2: What guy?
33:44 - WAS OP: American 77.
33:45 - NEADS ID2: Okay.
33:46 - WAS OP: At flight level 350 however they lost radar with him, they lost contact with him, they lost everything, and they don't have any idea where he is or what happened. So what we've done at the surrounding centers here is to tell everyone to look out for limited codes, primary targets, or whatever the case may be.
34:04 - NEADS ID2: Okay.
34:05 - WAS OP: And that was the last time- that was about fifteen minutes ago, since I talked to the Indianapolis Center Operations Manager.
34:09 - NEADS ID2: Type? Type aircraft?
34:13 - NEADS ID2: Do you have a Type aircraft sir?
34:14 - WAS OP: It was a seven-sixty-seven I believe.
34:16 - NEADS ID3: Seven sixty seven.
34:18 - NEADS ID2: Okay, and ****>
34:21 - WAS OP: Somebody else is talking, I'm sorry I can't hear you - in the background.
34:24 - NEADS ID2: Um, all I need is the lat-long, last known position of the seven-sixty-seven.
34:28 - WAS OP: Well, I don't know, that was Bos- that was Indy Center. But they said somewhere- it was- the last time I talked to them they said it was east of York. It was- and I don't even know what state that is.
34:37 - NEADS ID2: Okay sir, well I'm gonna go ahead and just give them a call.
34:39 - WAS OP: Okay.
34:39 - NEADS ID2: Thank you sir. 34:40 - WAS OP: Thanks.
This audio clip only (3.62 MB)
Full DRM1_DAT2_Channel_5_ID_TK.zip (153 MB)

Content from external source

Here we have a really in depth analysis of the pentagon wreckage.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/s..._myth_of_the_Bushes_as_an_all-American_family

it is in fact a "turbojet" component from an US Air Force/Navy vintage type of jet engine technology that was used on just a limited number of fighters, bombers and reconnaissance planes.

There was one credible witness found that saw "a two-engine jet airplane, the engines were under the wings." That is a visual description of a 737, 757, or 767, but it is also a description of an A-3 Skywarrior.

It was very difficult to find the exact FAA certified company that is equipped, tooled or certified to work on the jet engines that were used in the A-3 Skywarrior. However, since the USAF and Raytheon still have some of the A-3s in flying order, we knew that there had to be a plant somewhere that was doing the repairs on what was otherwise a "decommissioned aircraft" such as the A-3.

Content from external source

here is the "mystery part" and no, it is not part of a 757 jet engine and never has been. Oops!

They are all jet engine components (past and present) on the A-3 Skywarrior twin-turbojet airplane and on older versions of the 737. The USAF only has a few of the A-3s left in operation and what was formerly Hughes Aircraft, now Raytheon, has a fleet of them at Van Nuys, Calif. This type of turbojet engine has never been used on a Boeing 757, so the debate on "type of plane" can end there. This is a jet engine component with fan, not an auxiliary power unit (APU) as some have speculated or dropped into the conversation as disinformation.

What has been interesting is the level of "content blocking" that there is on the Internet where specific information regarding certain "jet engine components" such as those shown at the Pentagon have definitely been blocked. Our team had to take steps to go around the content blocks to get at the photos you are seeing regarding these rotor hub components.

That part has a specific UPN (Universal Part Number) and it cannot be found by looking for that UPN. Other measures were needed to find what you are seeing in these photos to circumvent what is apparently intentional content blocking.

​

Someone has gone to considerable lengths to make sure that the actual components that were found at the Pentagon could not be found and it took my team over two years to hammer through such blocks to find three of these photos (Praxair and Evergreen) to verify the component.​

Content from external source

On the other hand, how anyone can take these seriously, is way beyond me. Apparently 'people fall for it'...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/general-gave-ok-for-able-danger/1440

Gen. Hugh Shelton, who was the military’s top commander during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, confirmed that four years before the tragedy he authorized a secret computer data-mining initiative to track down Osama bin Laden and operatives in the fugitive terrorist’s al-Qaida network.

Content from external source

Basically they may just as well have said: 'We searched for 4 years, using highly trained agents and really clever gadgets like on James Bond and everything, but we couldn't find him... people kept screaming out 'He's behind you but, every time we turned around.... there was no one there... it was really frustrating... '

 

[Oxymoron]

Really Oxy, you believe that?

I think it infinitely more believable than the OS, BS

 

[Mick West]

But all that transcript says is that they lost radar contact. This happened because the hijackers turned off the transponder. There was then only primary radar, and they were in an area with limited radar coverage.

 

[Mick West]

And the engine parts have been debunked before:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml


Also an extensive discussions of the wheels
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml

 

[Oxymoron]

And the engine parts have been debunked before:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml


Also an extensive discussions of the wheels
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml

I'll check this out and get back tomorrow.

This does not look like a hole that you could get a 767 in though... Camels... needles.

​

 

[Mick West]

I'll check this out and get back tomorrow.

This does not look like a hole that you could get a 767 in though... Camels... needles.

​

A 767 did not go through that hole, it had broken up by that point. It's the "punch out" hole made by some landing gear and other bits propelled by inertia and explosion, that was simply the last wall that got pierced by a bit of debris. It was a thin brick wall.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html

 

[Mick West]

You might want to check any other things you've heard about flight 77 here:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/American_Airlines_Flight_77

 

[Mick West]

This report gives a very good overview of how the damage was caused, with column by column analysis of the damage.

View attachment pentagon_performance.pdf

 

[Landru]

Mick, This is very illustrative of your "whack a mole" theory of conspiracy argumentation. Oxymoron points out that Flight 77 was shot down and the plane that flew into the pentagon was an A-3. I ask him/her to provide evidence which he does. A transcript of air traffic control discussing Flight 77 and a comparison of the wreckage found versus parts of an A-3. You correctly point out that the transcript doesn't support the plane being shot down and the wreckage does in fact look like a Boeing commercial airliner. He drops the Flight 77 and adds the 767 (should have been 757 but your argument still applies) can't get through this hole here argument. I propose that people look at the links provided and come back with a point to discuss.

 

[Mick West]

Mick, This is very illustrative of your "whack a mole" theory of conspiracy argumentation. Oxymoron points out that Flight 77 was shot down and the plane that flew into the pentagon was an A-3. I ask him/her to provide evidence which he does. A transcript of air traffic control discussing Flight 77 and a comparison of the wreckage found versus parts of an A-3. You correctly point out that the transcript doesn't support the plane being shot down and the wreckage does in fact look like a 767. He drops the Flight 77 and adds the 767 can't get through this hole here argument. I propose that people look at the links provided and come back with a point to discuss.

Yeah, that's why I'm trying to spend more time finding good concise sources, and less time arguing.

 

[TWCobra]

I am pretty sure that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was a 757. Much smaller cross-section than a 767

 

[Billzilla]

I am pretty sure that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was a 757. Much smaller cross-section than a 767

Yes it was a 757. Same fuselage diameter as a 737.

 

[Oxymoron]

Mick, This is very illustrative of your "whack a mole" theory of conspiracy argumentation. Oxymoron points out that Flight 77 was shot down and the plane that flew into the pentagon was an A-3. I ask him/her to provide evidence which he does. A transcript of air traffic control discussing Flight 77 and a comparison of the wreckage found versus parts of an A-3. You correctly point out that the transcript doesn't support the plane being shot down and the wreckage does in fact look like a Boeing commercial airliner. He drops the Flight 77 and adds the 767 (should have been 757 but your argument still applies) can't get through this hole here argument. I propose that people look at the links provided and come back with a point to discuss.

Are you perchance making a personal attack against me under cover of your 'whack a mole' theory... lol... there certainly are plenty of moles, holes, slithering snakes and maggot infested corpses rotting in the quagmire of lies and skeletons which comprise the OS. Sorry I could not wrap the whole thing up to your standards in a few words and a link.

So cheer up, there are plenty of moles left to whack.... unless you choose to leave the ones that you have no answers for, as is often the case.

I do not know that much about this particular incident (flight 77)... just read what others were saying on this site re the subject and thought it was very interesting about the Raytheon execs being on all the alleged hijacked planes and I just added something I found about the exit small hole which I mistakenly thought was meant to portray an entry point... wow, I'm human, not some deranged computer... I am not the author or originator of the idea, I was merely contributing a little bit to the discussion because I like to explore original alternative ideas and theories as I feel politics governs official science.

 

[MikeC]

The technical term for "whack a mole" is Gish Gallop - or for a more succinct view of it see here.

To complain that it is somehow a personal attack is to be disingenuous - it is a debating technique that relies upon information overload and the inability to people to properly analyse every singe one of a large number of assertions.

Typically the person making the assertions does not bother with the same level of evidence that s/he demands of the "debunkers", and then claims "victory" if any one assertion has not been completely debunked to the n'th degree.

To use this technique is insulting to your audience, and any criticism of you for using it is, IMO, entirely appropriate.

It is not concerned with facts and information - it is solely concerned with scoring "points" - short sound bytes that "prove" the case, often without any relevance to the subject at all - "but you haven't shown that little green men were not piloting the planes - therefore chemtrails exist" or similar specious reasoning - not always - but often.

So yeah - I think there is a personal criticism there - and it is entirely justified.

 

[PCWilliams]

[Admin: thread moved from here, and renamed]

Raytheon involved at the Pentagon as well

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t5945.html

Flight 77 shot down in mountains of W. Virginia

I just listened to a radio interview with a controller from Boston Center (google video). He states clearly that three of the flights were tracked continuously on 9/11 - on radar - even after two had turned off their transponders. They were NEVER off radar. Flight 77 disappeared from radar over the mountains of W. Virginia. There is only one explanation for this. Flight 77 was SHOT DOWN over the mountains of West Virginia. This was part of the plan. What struck the Pentagon had only been picked up on radar for 60 miles or so as it approached - as evidenced by Norm Mineta's 9/11 Commission testimony, and reinforced by the air traffic controllers interview ("it popped up on radar").

What hit the Pentagon was in fact an A3 Skywarrior from Raytheon's inventory (check their inventory - they're missing one) - painted like an AA jet - powered by a Thiokol solid fuel rocket motor (thus the white smoke in the still frames released by the government), loaded with explosives (thus the smell of cordite evidenced by the hundreds of Pentagon employees present that morning).

Content from external source

The aircraft on 9/11 were worked by several facilities and by dozens of controllers. Any single controller from any one of the facilities involved in the events of 9/11 cannot have first hand knowledge of every action taken by every aircraft and every other controller involved in the events of 9/11. The Boston controller cannot know first hand whether any or all of the aircraft where continuously monitored via radar. He can only know what he saw first hand and what he read in the official documents.

I was controlling at Washington Center on 9/11. I can only know what was in front of me on my radar. I cannot know what happened at Boston Center, Boston TRACON/Approach, New York Center, New York TRACON, Cleveland Center, Dulles Approach, Washington Approach, etc.

I can tell you i did download about 40 gigs of data from The 911Dataset Project. I listened to hours of audio, looked at reams of radar data and read the sworn statements of all the air traffic controllers involved in those days events. As an air traffic controller looking at the data, i can tell you radar was lost on all the aircraft at some point ... especially when the aircraft descended below the coverage range of the radar.

The air traffic controller that worked flight 77 into the pentagon is a friend of mine on facebook. She would be very interested to know she didn't see what she saw.

I'd love to have a conversation with this Boston controller.

 

[Fred259]

[

QUOTE=PCWilliams;22892]The aircraft on 9/11 were worked by several facilities and by dozens of controllers. Any single controller from any one of the facilities involved in the events of 9/11 cannot have first hand knowledge of every action taken by every aircraft and every other controller involved in the events of 9/11. The Boston controller cannot know first hand whether any or all of the aircraft where continuously monitored via radar. He can only know what he saw first hand and what he read in the official documents.

I was controlling at Washington Center on 9/11. I can only know what was in front of me on my radar. I cannot know what happened at Boston Center, Boston TRACON/Approach, New York Center, New York TRACON, Cleveland Center, Dulles Approach, Washington Approach, etc.

I can tell you i did download about 40 gigs of data from The 911Dataset Project. I listened to hours of audio, looked at reams of radar data and read the sworn statements of all the air traffic controllers involved in those days events. As an air traffic controller looking at the data, i can tell you radar was lost on all the aircraft at some point ... especially when the aircraft descended below the coverage range of the radar.

The air traffic controller that worked flight 77 into the pentagon is a friend of mine on facebook. She would be very interested to know she didn't see what she saw.

I'd love to have a conversation with this Boston controller.

Hi PC... Your post is most interesting.


Im interested that you say you lost contact with these aircraft on 9/11.

When you say this we take it you mean secondary radar, but surely you still had primary radar or was that lost as well?


Regarding Boston Centre.

​

This guy is Pete Zalewski. He we understand was the duty controller at Boston Centre on 9/11.


He was also the duty controller at Boston Centre on 31 October 1999 when at 06.49Z EgyptAir 990 was lost 62 nm S of Nantucket while routing towards N Atlantic Track Zulu. FL330


The aircraft a B767 lost 14,000feet in 36 seconds and eventually crashed into the sea. All attempts to contact the crew were unsuccessful including passing traffic and selcal. I think they also had a problem with ELT for some reason. The crash was yup you guessed it... the First Officer decided to commit suicide however others suggest that the right side elevator power control unit may have malfunctioned.


I just wanted to share that....a problem shared is sometimes a problem solved. !

 

[Oxymoron]

The technical term for "whack a mole" is Gish Gallop - or for a more succinct view of it see here.

The technical term for a Gish Gallop is whinging BS.

In reality you are bemoaning the fact there is a plethora of evidence which points to a false flag operation... it is known as a 'Convergence of Evidence'

I shall not overuse the term but whenever you bemoan 'whack a mole' or 'gish gallop' know this; you are using contrived terminology, designed to be disingenuous and to counter the fact that the Official Story has so many gaping holes, barefaced lies and nonsensical 'Alice in Wonderland' logic that the only way it can have any traction at all is by constantly repeating the lies from mockingbird source as often as possible and hoping that people are either too brainwashed or too invested to challenge it.

Typically the person making the assertions does not bother with the same level of evidence that s/he demands of the "debunkers", and then claims "victory" if any one assertion has not been completely debunked to the n'th degree.

To use this technique is insulting to your audience, and any criticism of you for using it is, IMO, entirely appropriate.

As usual, your post adds nothing to the debate other than to attempt another ad hominem attack

It is not concerned with facts and information - it is solely concerned with scoring "points" - short sound bytes that "prove" the case, often without any relevance to the subject at all - "but you haven't shown that little green men were not piloting the planes - therefore chemtrails exist" or similar specious reasoning - not always - but often.

So yeah - I think there is a personal criticism there - and it is entirely justified.

Blah blah blah, "little green men, chemtrails", what are you talking about? ... your whole post is a nonsensical personal attack... whinging... no attempt to add substantive, useful or interesting content, merely stifle independent thought in any way possible, stifle objective thinking, requests for information etc etc.... suppress, suppress, suppress.

Frankly, you do not have a leg to stand on!

 

[Oxymoron]

And the engine parts have been debunked before:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml


Also an extensive discussions of the wheels
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0290.shtml

Interesting and informative post Mick, thanks.

I cannot find a picture of the combustor case that looks like that, only the diagram.

Here is the RB211-535, which does not have the holes in it. It is a bit confusing and the information is not really easily accessible.

 

[HappyMonday]

The technical term for a Gish Gallop is whinging BS.

...'whack a mole' or 'gish gallop' know this; you are using contrived terminology, designed to be disingenuous

Designed by who?

 

[Oxymoron]

Designed by who?

Eugenie Carol Scott (born October 24, 1945, was the originator of the term but others quickly, (I'm not about to research their names etc), cottoned on to it's use in suppressing arguments where Convergence of Evidence was used.

 

[HappyMonday]

Eugenie Carol Scott (born October 24, 1945, was the originator of the term but others quickly, (I'm not about to research their names etc), cottoned on to it's use in suppressing arguments where Convergence of Evidence was used.

In order to identify the persons who 'cottoned on' to the use of the term you describe,perhaps we could start a new thread in either people or quotes debunked.

 

[Jazzy]

I cannot find a picture of the combustor case that looks like that, only the diagram.

That's because the design was modified in the early 2000s.

The original casing was as shown, and the engines in the crash were the first variant. The rotor blade count is unique for that engine. 106.

So the aircraft crashing into the Pentagon wasn't a Skywarrior: it was a Boeing 757.

Frankly, you do not have a leg to stand on!

That more or less sums up your position.

By the way, "it's" is short for "it is", not "belonging to it".

​

 

[Fred259]

That's because the design was modified in the early 2000s.

The original casing was as shown, and the engines in the crash were the first variant. The rotor blade count is unique for that engine. 106.

So the aircraft crashing into the Pentagon wasn't a Skywarrior: it was a Boeing 757.


That more or less sums up your position.

By the way, "it's" is short for "it is", not "belonging to it".

One moment Jazzy, just because they show you a picture of the disc do you jump to the conclusion that the 757 hit the building?


The disc is just scrap, from the scrapyard..... look at the shaft where is the remainder of engine, where are the other spools?


We need to clear up the misconception about the A3 Skywarrior later.




Also www.aerrospaceweb.org is a disinformation site. I have already alerted Mick...

 

[Jazzy]

One moment Jazzy, just because they show you a picture of the disc do you jump to the conclusion that the 757 hit the building?

Dozens of eyewitnesses, evidence of a massive kerosine explosion, many small but visible pieces of a 757 on the lawn, an almost complete body count AND those pictures, and a believable computer simulation sort of swung it for me. I must be easy, eh?

The disc is just scrap, from the scrapyard..... look at the shaft where is the remainder of engine, where are the other spools?

I'm sorry, there was I thinking that this engine had just hit a reinforced concrete building at 500 mph while turning at 20,000 rpm.

We need to clear up the misconception about the A3 Skywarrior later.

No we don't. It's done already.

Also www.aerrospaceweb.org is a disinformation site. I have already alerted Mick...

Don't mean a thing. A liar may speak the truth.

 

[PCWilliams]

[




Hi PC... Your post is most interesting.


Im interested that you say you lost contact with these aircraft on 9/11.

When you say this we take it you mean secondary radar, but surely you still had primary radar or was that lost as well?


Regarding Boston Centre.

All of the aircraft involved on 9/11 lost radar at some point - including no primary radar. At times the loss was intermittent (at the higher altitudes) and other times it was for extended periods (lower altitudes/below coverage). Listening to the audio from Cleveland center talking to flight 93, the controller is asking other aircraft if they see a Boeing 757 because he (the ATC) is uncertain of the aircraft's movement.

Controllers working high altitude radars (18,000 feet and above) filter out all primary targets on their radars because it's not needed due to all aircraft at those altitudes being required to be in contact with ATC and a functioning transponder is expected. Aircraft below 18,000 feet needn't be in contact with ATC and many don't have transponders.

Once the aircraft on 9/11 turned off their transponders, the controllers would have had to remove the filters blocking the display of primary targets on their radars. This allowed ATC (in theory) to track the hijacked aircraft via raw radar. But aside from the usual inaccuracies of tracking via raw radar, once you remove the primary target filter, every primary target from the ground up to the moon is displayed on your radar. In congested areas this is the equivalent of suddenly staring at a beehive of dots on your radar. Distinguishing one aircraft from another could quickly become difficult or impossible.

Under normal circumstances (ATC is in contact with a cooperative pilot) we can radar identify a primary-only aircraft by having the pilot make a series of turns in conjunction with their self-reported position. We put together the pilot's reported location with a visual witnessing of the turns on our radar and we can declare an aircraft "radar contact" even when they don't have a transponder. (PRIMARY RADAR IDENTIFICATION METHODS)

Under the conditions of 9/11 the ATCers didn't have the cooperation of the pilots so nobody knew if they changed their altitude or changed their heading (all the aircraft on 9/11 did both). This would cause confusion.

As i'm typing this i'm trying to remember if i heard any of the ATCers involved declare "Radar contact lost" on the audio tapes. This would be standard procedure "used by ATC to inform a pilot that radar data used to determine the aircraft's position is no longer being received, or is no longer reliable and radar service is no longer being provided" (source). But that would be standard procedure in a normal situation. In a hijack/emergency situation i don't think it would have been a good idea to publicly broadcast to the hijackers that we no longer knew their whereabouts.

One last point …

In your post you said, "you say you lost contact with these aircraft on 9/11." I must emphasize my information and interpretation of the events of that day is from my reading of transcripts, sworn ATC statements, listening to the audio and reviewing the radar printouts that i got from the 9/11 site mentioned earlier. No one controller has first hand knowledge of what any other controller experienced that day. In my facility alone we have 44 radar screens. I'm working one of those screens. I cannot know for sure what is happening on the other 43 radar screens in my facility, i cannot sign a sworn statement of witness to what happens on those 43 other radars. The same is true for the Boston ATCer, he cannot say he knows more than he could have known first hand. He was probably misunderstood. I'm sure he's done what i've done - reviewed the information and applied his own ATC experience to form an opinion.

Okay, i'm done.

 

[Oxymoron]

That's because the design was modified in the early 2000s.

The original casing was as shown, and the engines in the crash were the first variant. The rotor blade count is unique for that engine. 106.

Ok, do you have a picture of the relevant engine?

So the aircraft crashing into the Pentagon wasn't a Skywarrior: it was a Boeing 757.

That is something we are looking at... you have made a decision... others are still undecided and awaiting your evidence.

By the way, "it's" is short for "it is", not "belonging to it".

​

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jazzy]

Ok, do you have a picture of the relevant engine?

Not now. But I have seen it, and scanned the parts catalog. Do you?

That is something we are looking at... you have made a decision... others are still undecided and awaiting your evidence.

It isn't my evidence. It's in the public domain. Let your fingers do the walking.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're as inaccurate as you wish to be, I guess.

 

[Oxymoron]

Not now. But I have seen it, and scanned the parts catalog. Do you?


It isn't my evidence. It's in the public domain. Let your fingers do the walking.

I have tried to find it, that was the best I could come up with and it does not match.

There are claims that the Pentagon Jet Engine is Identified? - A 727 JT8D

http://rense.com/general63/ident.htm

[SIZE=+1]
Measurements:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Fan tip diameter: 39.9 - 49.2 in[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Length, flange to flange: 120.0 - 154.1 in[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]From: http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_comm_jt8d.asp[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Make That A 737Jet Engine...[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]From J. Kaplowitz[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]3-2-5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Try 737.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]http://www.onlinejournal.com/[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] (pdf) [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]They are all jet engine components (past and present) on the A-3 Skywarrior twin-turbojet airplane and on older versions of the 737[/SIZE]

the FEMA pictures outside the Pentagon is definitely not a 757 component....Somebody has gone through the internet and done content blocking to where if you actually know the part number and you are actually looking for a diagram picture, you know like an auto-cad drawing or looking for a photograph of this particular item to prove that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon. We had to get the help of some people out of Russia and France and Germany and Japan to go around content blocks on the U.S

Content from external source

Here is a frame of the craft silhouette just before impact

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/307126.shtml

Disclaimer
[SIZE=+1]The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester[/SIZE]

Content from external source

 

[Landru]

I have tried to find it, that was the best I could come up with and it does not match.

There are claims that the Pentagon Jet Engine is Identified? - A 727 JT8D

http://rense.com/general63/ident.htm

[SIZE=+1]
Measurements:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Fan tip diameter: 39.9 - 49.2 in[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Length, flange to flange: 120.0 - 154.1 in[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]From: http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_comm_jt8d.asp[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Make That A 737Jet Engine...[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]From J. Kaplowitz[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]3-2-5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Try 737.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]http://www.onlinejournal.com/[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] (pdf) [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]They are all jet engine components (past and present) on the A-3 Skywarrior twin-turbojet airplane and on older versions of the 737[/SIZE]

the FEMA pictures outside the Pentagon is definitely not a 757 component....Somebody has gone through the internet and done content blocking to where if you actually know the part number and you are actually looking for a diagram picture, you know like an auto-cad drawing or looking for a photograph of this particular item to prove that it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon. We had to get the help of some people out of Russia and France and Germany and Japan to go around content blocks on the U.S

Content from external source

Here is a frame of the craft silhouette just before impact

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/307126.shtml

Disclaimer
[SIZE=+1]The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester[/SIZE]

Content from external source

The website www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml has all the images plus a jpg of the Boeing 757 parts catalog which shows engine. In addition, the site claims that the JT8D was not used on the A-3.

 

[MikeC]

Interesting and informative post Mick, thanks.

I cannot find a picture of the combustor case that looks like that, only the diagram.

Here is the RB211-535, which does not have the holes in it. It is a bit confusing and the information is not really easily accessible.

That diagram is on of many on this page - perhaps your misconceptions will be cleared up by it.

 

[Jazzy]

www.aerrospaceweb.org is a disinformation site. I have already alerted Mick...

That isn't the first time science appears to be "disinformation", by any means. It is the final stage of the debunking process, this rubbing up against science.

It's like patriotism - a last resort.

As a matter of interest, the best discussions as to the origin of components and fragments are to be found on specialist websites, airlines, the air industry, pilots and engineers, where the people know what they're looking at. To them it's no mystery at all.

You would never find it in Rense...

 

[HappyMonday]

One moment Jazzy,


Also www.aerrospaceweb.org is a disinformation site. I have already alerted Mick...

Please provide information supporting this claim for those following this thread.

 

[Jazzy]

Here is a frame of the craft silhouette just before impact

​

 

[Mat]

What I have never got is why there is no conclusive image evidence of the plane near the pentagon. That just seems odd, now I know odd aint conclusion, but still, it confirms the conspiracy rather than dis-confirms it.

 

[Jazzy]

What I have never got is why there is no conclusive image evidence of the plane near the pentagon. That just seems odd, now I know odd aint conclusion, but still, it confirms the conspiracy rather than dis-confirms it.

It seems unlikely that anything doing 800 ft/sec (that's a mile in less than seven seconds) could be spotted by anyone when it's only feet above the ground. No matter what size it is.

Let alone dragging up a camera to snap it.

 

[MikeC]

The website www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml has all the images plus a jpg of the Boeing 757 parts catalog which shows engine. In addition, the site claims that the JT8D was not used on the A-3.

Wikipedia also claims the JT8D was not used on the A3.

So does the A3 Association.

Both of them claim the J57 was the engine on the a/c. The J57 is a turbo JET - ie it does not have a fan bypass.

The JT8D is a turbo FAN - ie it has a fan bypass that sends some air around the core of the engine so that air is not available for combustion. The JT8D is a "low bypass ration" engine - about 1/2 the air is bypassed, giving a "bypass ratio" of about 1:1

It (the JT8D) was developed from the J52 engine, as used in the A6 Intruder, and also some A-4's, and the AGM-24 Houndog missile..

Here's some comparative pictures:

J57:

JT8D

J52

 

[Oxymoron]

That isn't the first time science appears to be "disinformation", by any means. It is the final stage of the debunking process, this rubbing up against science.

It's like patriotism - a last resort.

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit?

As a matter of interest, the best discussions as to the origin of components and fragments are to be found on specialist websites, airlines, the air industry, pilots and engineers, where the people know what they're looking at. To them it's no mystery at all.

You would never find it in Rense...

Got any links? That would be good.

The Aerospacewebsite simply shows information which could be interpreted to back up the OS or a number of other options. There is no conclusive proof.

If there were conclusive proof that it was a RB211-535 engine, do you not think TPTB would have splashed it all over the media for the last 11 years?

Why are Raytheon so quiet or Rolls Royce for that matter, they are old engines, not secret... why have they been removed from the internet?

That was a very interesting flight simulation that you posted. I was impressed by the pilot's flying skill, i.e flying a couple of feet above the ground at 350 to 600mph for such a long distance without crashing into the ground or catching a wing into the ground... Very skillful, expert flying.

Below is also interesting... like the trajectory of the left engine and how the wings folded in so nicely.