9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

........continued Lets start with an image that in NO way,shape or form, be admisable in a court of law as proof.I will quote CatHerder,,,, Below, another photo of a tire with the same pattern as ones used on a 757, found in the Pentagon wreckage. Your kidding right?Same pattern,,,,WHAT PATTERN If anyone can see a pattern,then they are a true to life super hero with super hero vision.I will give you the 'tire',but no way can anyone say they can see a pattern. Now lets goto the engine proof: I will quote what CatHerder put and will let it be known that he did get this info off the net.So he did not make this quote up,but will also let it be known it is not the WHOLE interview.

CatHerder said What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel. There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.)

Things left out: AFP contacted Honeywell�s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent high-resolution photos for their examination. �There�s no way that�s an APU wheel,� an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: �That turbine disc�there�s no way in the world that came out of an APU.� American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, manufacturers of the 757�s turbofan jet engines to try and identify the piece. �If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine,� Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP. John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.�

So somone else found the photos, and the diagram, and now you need them to do what exactly, match every part of the debris to the schematics of the plane? i would think that the people who built the damned thing would have difficulty doing that. But really, no one should bother telling you anything, because you apparently are too lazy to even click on the source link provided.

Thank you Nygdan I couldn't have said it better myself. I think he needs someone to hold his hand and walk him through it. I mean if he can't even click on the links provided, he won't get very far.

Nygdan, when someone proposes a theory, should others not scrutinize it to see if it holds up with the evidence? Is it burdomesome to ask the person proposing the theory to explicitly point out things rather than make generalizations? If someone shows me a car wreck and says, there's a piece of the transmission, can I not ask "which part of the transmission"? Or should I just accept, "yep, that's a piece of the transmission. I have no idea which part. It looks like it could fit there or there?" When someone says, "there uis a piece of the engine" does it not imply that they are thinking of which part of the engine it is? Otherwise, how do they know it's part of the engine? If that part of the engine is an important piece of "evidence" is it not also important to ascertain exactly where the piece came from? Wouldn't it be easy for the theory proponent to point of exactly where it came from? If the proponent can't point that out, how can you know that it really is an engine part? One more thing. The burden of proof is on the one proposing the theory. Others try to disprove it. They do not have to have an alternate theory. If they do show problem with the theory, then they theory must change. That's is what we have to do regardless of what theory is proposed. that's why all the pieces of evidence matter, because if something doesn'tfit the evidence, there is something wrong with the theory. You cannot pick and choose which evidence you want to use.

The problem SkiBum annd Nygdan is that I would like you to point out exactly which parts correspond to parts in the schematic. I should not assume what you mean or "do the work myself." For the record you guys should spell out exactly what you mean. the burden of proof is on you because it is your (or CatHerders' which you agree with) theory. (If I propose a theory, the roles switch). If you point out exactly what you propose (this part is such and such, and is so big, etc.) then I can take that and test it. Again a courtroom example: PROSECUTOR: Exhibit A shows a piece of the murder weapon, a revolver. JUDGE: Which piece? PROSECUTOR: IT's not my job to teach you all the parts of a revolver! See, for the theory to be testable you have to be more specific.

Questions for Nygdan: How do you know if the witnesses are mistaken (and which ones)? If you had only witness accounts (no physical, photo, or vide evidence) how would you know who to believe? Does it matter how the survivors were identified? As with DNA evidence, do the collection, transportation, storage, and identifcation methods matter? (because if they do, that means we need to look at all that before we say "they were identified". Otherwise we just go on faith. And if you say it doesn't matter...you'll have to explain to my why) Does the Pentagon have any air defenses? If it did would it matter? Can you show me where the supposed APU part fits in an APU for a 757? If not, how do you know it's an APU part? Does the fact that the DoD said that neither they, the FBI, or the Justice department released the pentagon surveillance video? Should the video be used for "evidence" of anything, either way? These are good questions that don't argue for one side or another. [edit on 14-9-2004 by piboy]

I am Really Pissed !!! There was the thread of the 757 not hitting the pentagon we were arguing very good (a good 16 pages) Various times argued that the Point was being highjaked (pardon the pun) to other themes and not the central one A 757 DID or DID not CRASH onthe PENTAGON. I stay away from ATS for 3 days ( I have a life you know) and now there is this NEW thread, basically ignoring the good point in the other one and putting the "official" version, I really feel ashamed that the inteligent people who moderate ATS are willing to let CH take his hipotesis to this corner and make things heat up.....I hop ein the futeure you just say , continue the debate in the previous thread... RANT OFF Any ways here I go for more info sorry but reread some of my arguments on the "other thread" Ill continue with the direction on this one for the sakes of not making more repeating points.... Damned your points are so right I arged that an object moving at 857 km/h (515mph) is imposible to see clearly from less that 150 feet and that happens with Indi cars, they tried to rebute me sayin that the races are entertaining because you can see the cars,,,DOHHHH, if you see to the front of were you are sitting and a car pasas at 220mph (less than half the speed of the alleged 757) you just see a BLURR, thats why you use binoculars and turn your head as cars pass...DOHHHH. This Guy CH thinks he can identify AA planes in exactly .0023 of a second (the time it takes an object to travel 200 feet at 500+ miles an hour. Now Ill add more inconsistencies on CH SUPER analisis, Ill use his same images to make some questions here. IMAGE: this image poses a great info in the contradictions: Ok the airplane acted like a liquid, THE WHY IT MADE that damage? If you RESPOND Because is made of metal then Ill tell you, ok so the wing did not penetrate the building right (BECAUSE WE HAVE AN IMPACT AREA IN THE PHOTO AND THE IS NO HOLE THERE.) So its fair to say the wing with beetween 2000 and 3000 gal of Fuel hitting this wall wid not explode OUTWARD and left debris (like the flaps that are made of composite?) or better yet explain why if there are "Scars ont the building" the parts of the wing disapeared and entered the building AFTER making that dent? ALSO consider that the center spar of the 757 is Amazingly Sturdy (look at photo) and the wing root is massive, heavy and tick, it is imposible to me to consider that the hole in the pentagon is that small and the so called engine nacelles not only disapeared, the engines themselves did too also NO PART OF THE TITANIUM FAN BLADES??? ah yes the titanium melted, SUre Do you know the heat Ttanium has to endure to be melted.....? I am concentrating on this part only and the photo you showed as evidence PLEASE DO NOT REFER TO THE GENERATOR because that is another BIG hole in your Hipothesis, (that Ill cover later) Pic of the 757 Wing being assembled P.D> Great posts Pyboy AND John Lear I hang a lot with Pilots and also have traveled a lot of times in the JUMP SEAT, and ALWAYS when we talk about this "incident" they laugh like carzy for its inconsistencies. If you want you can Pm me [edit on 14-9-2004 by kix]

Originally posted by piboy Yowch, CatHerder, take it easy! Forget who said you said... let's back up... the picture you posted... Why, if the wing went across that window, is there still a window there? Why isn't it broken? Or knocked out? Or melted? The wing obviously is gone, so I am trying to understand how the wing can hit that, not damaged that window, and the wing disappear? Please help.

This should help about the windows: www.azom.com... "Viracon were the manufacturers of the blast resistant windows used in the Pentagon. These windows had only recently been installed in the region affected by the airplane impact and have been credited with saving potentially thousands of lives."

PITIFUL... "CH" has proven his/her POINT beyond much of anything that even comes close to logic... But ALAS, as S.O. Points out, it is NOT wrapped up in a pretty flash animation filled with BUNK so it must NOT be beleived... Sad Day for ATS indeed... m...

I argue that we cannot definitely prove what happened one way or another without a real investigation, which would mean having access to all the physical evidence, all the surveillance tapes (pentagon and other buildings nearby), sworn affidavits from eye-witnesses with the opportunity for cross-examination. Otherwise we are spinning our wheels. I think the "evidence" is both consistent with the 757 AND a Global Hawk. No one has proven it to me either way. The 757 people think they just have to show a minimum of information to show that it could have been a 757, and the conspiracy people show a minimum of intformation to show that it could have been something else. Everyone thinks the other side is stupid. We have suspect evidence, with unknown origins, possibly tainted, and unverifiable (I can't talk to the photographers and witnesses). We have summaries from news outlets and explanations from government agencies. There already are established ways of investigating incidents, the courts do them all the time. I don't think we can really get to the bottom of it by passing around photos and studies. There are never just two sides to the story, but I think that people want so bad for their side to be right, real evidence and real investigation doesn't matter. It just like politics. If we are going to deny ignorance, let's approach this thing like we would any other crime.

Originally posted by piboy I argue that we cannot definitely prove what happened one way or another without a real investigation, which would mean having access to all the physical evidence, all the surveillance tapes (pentagon and other buildings nearby), sworn affidavits from eye-witnesses with the opportunity for cross-examination. Otherwise we are spinning our wheels.

And you think we're going to get access to this stuff? No, so what's your point then?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord I still remember speaking to my brother (who was on the highway at the time) calling me that evening, haunted by the memory of a brief glimpse of faces in the windows of the 757. Especially when he discovered his friend was on the flight later that day. This is a sad moment for ATS. I feel like I now see faces.

I do not mean to offend you, but I am curious. You say your brother saw faces in the plane? Out of curiousity, where was he and how was it that he was able to see faces in the plane that was going so fast? I am not trying to bash. How did he describe the people? How did he describe the plane? I can hardly see faces in the parked plane in the next gate, let alone surprised by a plane traveling several hundred miles per hour some feet above me. Can you provide the name of his friend?

intrepid, if the only way for us to prove it one way or another is to have access to the real evidence, then that means we can never prove anything if we never get that access. So everyone ought to be saying, "yep, that theory looks right, but too bad it can't be proven." for any theory

It's amazing, really amazing. I can't believe, especially after all that information given just here, that some people don't acknowlege an aircraft did strike the pentagon. I've never, ever seen an eye witness account disputed, at least not seriously. PLUS, I believe some staff members here, can't remember at the moment, have family members that witnessed the plane. But, I know some people have claimed staff members are secret agents, so the explanation would be that we're in on it, to which I'd urge those folks not to reproduce. Anyway, there are certainly conspiracies out there but this isn't one of them folks.

Excellent information! It's time that conspiracy sites focus on the truth! The only real problem I've ever had with the official story though is the FBI agents confiscating the film mere hours after the attack. If we could find an explanation for that we'd be in perfect shape! [edit on 9/14/2004 by lockheed]

In the other thread I spoke about the "oficial" version shortcomings, I dont Adhere to MY thruth, If anyone proves me beyond doubt that AA 757 flight 77 was there Ill believe it and say ok I was a fool I did not have the info you showed me etc etc.... Dissmissing ANYONE on ANY of the posible hypothesis is exactly what this forum is NOT about (please tell me otherwise and without a fuzz Ill leave, because it conflicts with my beliefs), Sometimes the most wacky, improbable things happen and some cry thats a set up, a conspiracy and in the end Its not, then sometimes something perfectly "normal" happens and someone notes some cracks on the facts and hell breaks loose because of the implications.... Also in that window the left column is broken to the OUTSIDE...so in my opinion if the wing impacted that area (the one with the wall bricks still attached) that column must be torn INSIDE, the proof that its outside means either the "wing" was very fragile or we SHOULD have REMAINS OUTSIDE . so there you have it there is reasonable doubt in all this and the fact the goverment is keeping this info only fuels speculation and missinformation. Also in My opinion the Arcraft debris OUTSIDE are not from an AA 757 and ist not the saize, the paint and most impostant that part shuld have never been ended there because its on the front part of the alleged 757.

"In the conclusion to the seven-month study, the engineering team observed that the direct impact of the crash destroyed approximately 50 columns on the first floor and six second-floor columns along the exterior walls. The subsequent fire ignited by the aircraft fuel and fed by the aircraft components and building contents, caused moderate damage to the reinforced concrete frame in relatively small areas on the first and second floors, which later collapsed." www.bdcmag.com...

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord Yes. He's still haunted by it.

So haunted is one of my friends, a firefighter & EMT, who was on the scene within hours of the impact. Yeah, he pulled body parts out. Luggage, personal effects..... for days. So haunted am I, as well. The window I used to look out daily only months before 9/11 took a direct hit that day. It's only a minor consolation that none of my former coworkers died that day. Wedge 1 was done and all the PENREN contractors were moved out. Why was there still a window? Why did so much of the building withstand the impact? You want the real answers to that? I can give 'em to you, but judging by the response in this thread, I'd be wasting my proverbial breath. Sickening. -B. PENREN civilian contractor 1999-2000

Great article on the questions of the unbroken windows: www.dupont.com...

Originally posted by Bob88 I've never, ever seen an eye witness account disputed, at least not seriously.

Are you kidding me? Here's something that may interest you: "...numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent � a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony. These studies show further that the ability to identify a stranger is diminished by stress (and what crime situation is not intensely stressful?), that cross-racial identifications are especially unreliable, and that contrary to what one might think, those witnesses who claim to be "certain" of their identifications are no better at it than everyone else, just more confident. The Ruling of the New York Court of Appeals Granted, there is one mechanism by which we attempt to separate reliable from unreliable eyewitness testimony: cross-examination. When an eyewitness for the prosecution testifies that she recognizes the defendant as the perpetrator of a crime, the defense attorney can cross-examine her by inquiring about the lighting, the duration of the encounter, the stress she experienced, and all manner of other factors that might undermine the reliability of the identification. However, jurors typically believe an eyewitness who sticks to his or her story despite cross-examination, in no small part because most jurors are not aware of the studies tending to cast doubt on such testimony. Accordingly, over the last two decades, defense attorneys have increasingly sought to introduce expert testimony about the limitations of eyewitness identifications. " writ.news.findlaw.com...

LL1, windows remain intact, but the wings burn up? Is that what happened?