Plane shredded to pieces

T he poles struck the wings' leading edge and that is relatively close to the airplanes center of gravity. This would have caused a very small pitch change.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DerekJR321

The poles were clipped near the top, and no one knows if the wing or engine hit them, so you can't say that it should have instantly pitched down. Although a light pole wouldn't have done enough damage to cause it to instantly pitch down.

As has been pointed out, they have a breakaway base. The force of the aircraft hitting them would be more than enough to snap them off at the base.

I'm going based on the Integrated Consultants video that I "think" NIST used? Not 100% on that. But in that video, they claim 5 strikes.



1) First strike to right wing leading edge, just right of engine.
2) Second strike to left wing leading edge, left of engine, towards wing tip.
3) Third strike to right wing leading edge, just right of engine again (same as strike #1).
4) Fourth strike to left wing leading edge, left of engine.
5) Fifth strike to left wing leading edge wing tip.

Now obviously they can't claim this to be 100% correct. But if this is what they are going with, then that is what I have to work with. ONE pole strike could be written off.. but five? Five strikes in quick succession would almost certainly had an effect on the pitch and/or roll of the aircraft. Especially the fifth strike which supposedly hit almost exactly on the left wing tip.

Unfortunately we don't have any visual evidence of the damage that was caused. So no matter what, we're all guessing. But going by other aircraft incidents, pole strikes can cause extreme damage. A Southwest Airlines jet hit a light pole while taxiing and it took a big chunk out of the wing. That's at what? 10-15mph? And that was one strike. I'll reference this video for a possible similar result we could have expected.



I know the above video is a poor example. But you can see the damage the poles caused to the wings. Granted, I'm sure they were anchored in and not on breakaways. But you can get the idea.

I only ask these questions because I am curious. I'm not saying "NO.. NO PLANE WAS THERE". I simply just don't understand how a 757 could be operated at that speed, flying that low and hit 5 light poles and yet leave absolutely NO damage to the lawn where it hit. No gouges, broken off wing, etc etc. The whole thing leaves me with more questions than answers. I am very open minded and like talking about it so I can learn. I'm not one of those "my theory is right and you are wrong" kind of people. I love to hear others opinions, so I hope no one takes this post as anything more than what "my" understanding is as of this moment.

originally posted by: DerekJR321
yet leave absolutely NO damage to the lawn where it hit.

As it never hit the lawn why would it damage it?

a reply to: hellobruce

originally posted by: DerekJR321 yet leave absolutely NO damage to the lawn where it hit. As it never hit the lawn why would it damage it?

That's another amazing thing isn't it? There is an extremely small window of room between ground level and the top of the impact hole (prior to the collapse of the roof) for the fuselage and the engines both to remain above ground without digging in at all and without taking out the upper windows. This would be a hard enough course to follow under control at that low height at that never before reached speed, nevermind having to stay the course after FIVE light pole impacts very shortly to this approach.

originally posted by: TheBolt
That's another amazing thing isn't it?

Not really, it just shows you know nothing about aircraft or ground effect!

This would be a hard enough course to follow under control at that low height

According to who?

nevermind having to stay the course after FIVE light pole impacts very shortly to this approach.

So what caused the damage to the Pentagon if it was not a plane? You seem confused.

a reply to: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheBolt That's another amazing thing isn't it? Not really, it just shows you know nothing about aircraft or ground effect! This would be a hard enough course to follow under control at that low height According to who? nevermind having to stay the course after FIVE light pole impacts very shortly to this approach. So what caused the damage to the Pentagon if it was not a plane? You seem confused.

Just to prove how unwilling you are to actually read and consider something before you give your ready made answers, note that according to your post you told me I know nothing about aircraft or ground effect based on the fact that I said it was amazing the lawn wasn't marked. Now to address your other two "points".

I'm saying that the plane had to hit a space that based on the damage to the building and the aforementioned lack of damage to the lawn had a vertical distance not very much taller than the plane. Any amount of error up or down would cause different damage. All I said was that it would be difficult to maintain the altitude and heading of the plane to hold this height, especially after hitting 5 light poles. I didn't say impossible. I used the words "amazing" and "difficult". That's according to no one who meets your standards I'm sure.
As for what caused the pentagon, again I never said I didn't think flight 77 didn't but even if I don't think it was flight 77 I don't need to be able to answer that.

a reply to: DerekJR321

ONE pole strike could be written off.. but five? Five strikes in quick succession would almost certainly had an effect on the pitch and/or roll of the aircraft. Especially the fifth strike which supposedly hit almost exactly on the left wing tip

Just how fast do you expect a plane to change pitch/roll?
The time between poles and building was little more than 1 second.
Here is video of an F16 hitting trees and surviving.

Her is another vid where the planes pitch/roll doesn't change while plowing through trees.


Lets not forget people break concrete blocks with their arms via inertia.
Planes have a lot of inertia and light poles have thin skins.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The break away bases on these poles are for impacts by cars not planes . At the top of these types of poles there is typically a lot of give , perhaps 2 feet when pushed by hand . It would be like a car hitting the base of a tree compared with the plane hitting near the top . An instant stop compared (yes breakaway or not , cars don't tend to go far ) to small branches giving away and the plane carrying on . Plus depending on height they are usually made of 2/3 pieces slipped together giving weak points for anything that hit them high up , not that they are designed for that .



Not much there to affect a plane over such a small distance . There is a LOT of give at the top .

a reply to: samkent

The flight dynamics of an F-16 are in no way similar to a 757. Fighter jets are MADE to be rugged. Airlines are made to stay in the air and carry maximum payload.

Despite the time difference between the pole strikes and impact into the Pentagon, there should have been more "evidence" beyond a few knocked down poles and a slightly damaged taxi. Fuel would have immediately leaked from ruptured tanks, which would have set that whole lawn on fire. Yet there is nothing. And that is why I question it.

A 757, flown by an untrained pilot makes a spectacular high speed turn to hit the Pentagon, flying NOE (nap of the earth), hitting 5 light poles while on a down hill trajectory. And it manages to tuck itself neatly into a tiny hole in the side of the building? You are talking about a million and one things that could have (and probably should have) gone wrong. And yet none did? That is some amazing luck. Even luckier for the Pentagon that he just managed to pull off amazing flying and then end up hitting the ONLY reinforced side of the building. Why the high speed turn to hit THAT side? Why didn't they just nose it down into the building?

Again.. I am not DENYING that a plane hit the building. I am just saying I personally don't know WHAT it was.

EDIT TO ADD

I am aware of the airliner striking the trees (Air France Flight 296). However, by that video (and others that I have seen) you can not claim the pitch or role was not affected. It was flying at a nose up attitude into the tree tops. The first part to make contact was the underside / engines of the aircraft. And it crashed not more than a few seconds later.

Just in case anyone is interested. Here is an excelled video about Flight 296.

How about that exact spot on the Pentagon wasn't his actual target,all he had to do to complete his mission was to fly the plane into ANY part of the pentagon?

a reply to: DerekJR321

He wasn't an untrained pilot though. He wasn't trained on a 757, but he was a commercial qualified pilot who had been working towards his 737 rating at the time.

a reply to: DerekJR321

Fuel would have immediately leaked from ruptured tanks, which would have set that whole lawn on fire. Yet there is nothing. And that is why I question it.

The fuel tanks are behind the main wing spar. Protected from leading edge impacts.

a reply to: Zaphod58

He wasn't an untrained pilot though. He wasn't trained on a 757, but he was a commercial qualified pilot who had been working towards his 737 rating at the time.

This is of course assuming they identified the right person. If you were going to steal someone's identity for this mission a person who was in pilot's training would be a good choice.

I don't even mean this to be a conspiracy on the government either. It's quite possible to believe the official story and that all happened as they said with flight 77 but that whoever perpetrated the attacks wanted to make it look like someone else did it.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: DerekJR321

Fuel would have immediately leaked from ruptured tanks, which would have set that whole lawn on fire. Yet there is nothing. And that is why I question it.

The fuel tanks are behind the main wing spar. Protected from leading edge impacts.

It doesn't take much to puncture the aluminum tanks. 5 strikes would have certainly done the job. The leading edge of a wing is NOT that strong.

In response to Zaphod58:

I am a trained pilot as well. Single engine however. I am sure I could sit behind the controls of a moving 757 and fly it too. But not like that. Flight mistakes are unforgiving. Especially at that speed / altitude and with wing strikes.

a reply to: DerekJR321

And he was a commercial, twin engine trained pilot.

If you watch the animation from the NTSB you can clearly see it wasn't as smooth as it's made out to be. The descending turn is all over the place.

Hitting a light pole isn't going to instantly pitch your nose down and slam you into the ground. I had aircraft that were configured for landing come down early and put the back portion of the airframe down on a landing light pole hard enough to bend it into a 45 degree angle that never knew they hit anything.

a reply to: samkent

The fuel tanks are behind the main wing spar. Protected from leading edge impacts.

So to play this out in sequence, you believe this plane hit a light pole where the wing top was struck with enough force to damage the pole but didn't damage the fuel tanks, and then this happened two and three times to the wings and still there was enough integrity left in the wing to contain the fuel? I'm not arguing or being sarcastic so please don't read it in that tone. I'm running through it to consider it.

a reply to: TheBolt

Three of the five impacts were near the engines, which is the thickest, and strongest portion of the wing. To get to where the fuel tanks are it would have had to cut deeply into the wing, not just damaged the leading edges.

a reply to: TheBolt

and then this happened two and three times to the wings and still there was enough integrity left in the wing to contain the fuel?

Does it really matter if the tanks were ruptured?
The plane had a little over 1 second of flight left.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's true for the right wing which was only struck twice, both close to the engine. The left wing was allegedly struck three times with two of those being closer to the tip.
On the flip side, why would anyone knock the light poles over to make it look like the plane did? Anyone?

a reply to: TheBolt

They reported five strikes:

1) First strike to right wing leading edge, just right of engine.
2) Second strike to left wing leading edge, left of engine, towards wing tip.
3) Third strike to right wing leading edge, just right of engine again (same as strike #1).
4) Fourth strike to left wing leading edge, left of engine.
5) Fifth strike to left wing leading edge wing tip.

One, and three were closer to the engines. Two and five were out closer to the tip. Four was about halfway between engine and wing.