757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

That's the punch out point on the inner ring. This is the entry point. Rough outline of a 757 in yellow.



Where are the outlines of the engines? Wouldn't 2 12000lb engines traveling at 500mph have left a bigger mark?



[edit on 3-19-2007 by nyarlathotep]

Here is a link to a rebuttal on the pieced together investigation that a 757 hit the pentagon. "Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 by "CatHerder", Member, AboveTopSecret.com/forum"

Now the rebuttal that is very good. Enjoy.


www.kasjo.net...

Hows this?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Hows this?

HAHA, very funny. How about discussing the damage that 2 12,000 lb engines traveling at 500mph would do to a concrete building. Look, I am not saying that anything other than a Boeing hit that, but I find it odd that there isn't more damage from this.

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
How about discussing the damage that 2 12,000 lb engines traveling at 500mph would do to a concrete building. Look, I am not saying that anything other than a Boeing hit that, but I find it odd that there isn't more damage from this.

I'd say this illustrates the damage that the engines, wing root spars, and landing gear did as they penetrated the building. This graphic comes from the Pentagon Building Performance report.



I also think that the total absence of a building facade where the main fuselage, wing roots and engines entered the building, and the missing 5 main support colums on the outer wall clearly illustrate the damage.


[edit on 3/19/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 3/19/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
Flight control surfaces have more authority at high speeds, and in my opinion, the faster you go the easier the plane will fly.

Actually the higher the speed the less authority and the reason is during certification (FAR Part 25) they don't want the pilot overstressing the airplane at high speeds.

As to the statement "the faster you go the easier the plane will fly" this is misleading. The airplane flys the same at 200 mph as at 500 mph with the exception that at 500 miles per hour you have to make up your mind where to stop and start your turn way before you do going 200 miles per hour.

The proposal that a hijacker with limited experience in a Boeing 767 hit the WTC on the first try at 500 mph is nonsense. That 2 hijackers hit the WTC, dead center with Boeing 767's, is not nonsense: its total, unadulterated bs.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I also think that the total absence of a building facade where the main fuselage, wing roots and engines entered the building, and the missing 5 main support colums on the outer wall clearly illustrate the damage.

I think seeing as it's now been proved that the official flight path is wrong, and the plane could not have done the damage in that pic due to the angle of impact being wrong, then you're waisting your time time here.

Also if you really look you can see, as you mentioned, that it is only facade that is missing and columns are still intact, which indicates the facade was blown out wards and not destroyed by the impact of wings and engines.

Also your little drawing indicates at least the port engine would have impacted the ground before the plane impacted the wall. So where is the damage to the lawn from that engine and how did the spools survive the hit from the starboard engine?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I also think that the total absence of a building facade where the main fuselage, wing roots and engines entered the building, and the missing 5 main support colums on the outer wall clearly illustrate the damage.

Where is the debris for the wing outboard of the engine? It didn't go through the building. It didn't disintegrate. Its made of very thick spars and there are huge machined parts that support the flaps when extending and retracted, there are actuators plus the fuel is in the wings. Look at where the outboard wing section would have hit. Do you see massive blast damage from explosion of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. I don't.

Where are the pieces of the horizontal and vertical sections of the tail? There is no holes where they went through. There are even several window panes intact right where the tail would have hit. They couldn't have disinegrated they are too well built of heavy extrusions. There is no way heavy vertical spars are going to disintegrate. Where did all of this metal go. Its not lying on the ground in front.

No. There is no evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. None.

If there was, indeed, a Boeing 757 inside the Pentagon when this picture was taken, then it was taken in in pieces and sections during the days and weeks before and lit on fire at 9:31 on 911. Either that or Lance Burton has had a hand in this.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I also think that the total absence of a building facade where the main fuselage, wing roots and engines entered the building, and the missing 5 main support colums on the outer wall clearly illustrate the damage.

I think seeing as it's now been proved that the official flight path is wrong, and the plane could not have done the damage in that pic due to the angle of impact being wrong, then you're waisting your time time here.

The official flight path is a line drawn on a map by engineers who examined the damage to the building, interviewed eyewitnesses to the impact, and found a line of downed light poles.

The official flight path is also corroborated by flight data recorder data that shows the ground track of the aircraft with lat/long data, and magnetic heading data from the inertial navigation system.

I understand that those who want to blame the government are arguing the lat/long data is not accurate and the magnetic heading data has been manipulated by evil forces unknown. However I will continue to base my opinions on this evidence until it's proven wrong.

I wasn't aware that the official flight path had been proven wrong ....unless you're talking about the testimony of Brooks, Lagasse and company. In the case of Brooks and Lagasse, testimony taken almost 5 years after the events took place, and, testimony that is in disagreement with their earlier testimony.

You can believe whomever you choose, but Im sticking with the physical evidence for now, vs. "testimony".

Also if you really look you can see, as you mentioned, that it is only facade that is missing and columns are still intact, which indicates the facade was blown out wards and not destroyed by the impact of wings and engines.

I think you need to look closer. The columns that would have lined-up with the wing roots, engines and fuselage are GONE.

Also your little drawing indicates at least the port engine would have impacted the ground before the plane impacted the wall. So where is the damage to the lawn from that engine and how did the spools survive the hit from the starboard engine?

The spools were dragged/thrown over 100 feet from where they were before they were hit by the generator that was hit by the starboard engine.

Possibly...just possibly, the port engine was just a little bit higher than I drew it in my "little drawing". I find this more plausible than;

planted airplane parts
planted body parts
planted explosives
staged knocked down light poles
planted govt eyewitnesses
killed or imprisoned passengers from AA 77
killed or imprisoned flight crew from AA77.....

Don't you?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I understand that those who want to blame the government are arguing the lat/long data is not accurate and the magnetic heading data has been manipulated by evil forces unknown. However I will continue to base my opinions on this evidence until it's proven wrong.

The big probelm with what you belieive happened is that you have no FBI or NTSB crime scene report to support it.

I do not blame the government i just want the truth of what happned that day like most of the other truth seekers.

Originally posted by johnlear

Where is the debris for the wing outboard of the engine?

The yellow pointers in this picture point to numerous shreds of aluminum.

It didn't go through the building. It didn't disintegrate. Its made of very thick spars and there are huge machined parts that support the flaps when extending and retracted, there are actuators plus the fuel is in the wings.

Here's a pretty big piece of what appears to be a wing leading edge.

Where are the pieces of the horizontal and vertical sections of the tail?

I've provided this link before. Please visit it if you're interested on a good engineering analysis of the tail assembly fate.

www.earth-citizens.net...

There is no holes where they went through. There are even several window panes intact right where the tail would have hit. They couldn't have disinegrated they are too well built of heavy extrusions. There is no way heavy vertical spars are going to disintegrate. Where did all of this metal go. Its not lying on the ground in front.

Much of it is lying on the ground, as many of the pictures that have been posted on ATS illustrate.

Look at where the outboard wing section would have hit. Do you see massive blast damage from explosion of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. I don't.

Liquid jet fuel does not explode, it burns. In a vapor state it can be explosive, however the fuel was atomized in the crash, not vaporized.

No. There is no evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. None.

There is a massive amount of evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Some just choose to dismiss it as fake, and cling to wild theories based on poor science, engineering principles, and hear-say.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I've provided this link before. Please visit it if you're interested on a good engineering analysis of the tail assembly fate.

www.earth-citizens.net...

Only 1 question. Where are the Tungsten counterwieghts ?

Look at the hole that the 757 made in the pentagon, then look at the one in the Pentagon.

Do they look the same?

People are saying the fuselage of the plane was able to penetrate 3 layers of concrete more than 9 feet think, but the Tail, and wings just disintegrated. I don't buy it.

Mr. Lear is the Tail of the plane as structurally as strong as the fuselage? Wouldn't there be something left of it?



WTC




Pentagon





The mock plane in the last photo is tilted and pointed slight down this in my opinion would have never made it through three layers of the pentagon.

And further more with all the disintegration talk of the wings and tail, but yet the fuselage was strong enough to make it through 3 layers over 9 feet of steel re-enforced concrete, but the nose of the 757 pierced a hole in the last layer and did not disintegrate?

Come on! That nose cone would have disintegrated just like the wing and tail of the plane just like everyone is saying and pointing out.

Originally posted by Realtruth

The mock plane in the last photo is tilted and pointed slight down this in my opinion would have never made it through three layers of the pentagon.

Originally posted by Realtruth

And further more with all the disintegration talk of the wings and tail, but yet the fuselage was strong enough to make it through 3 layers over 9 feet of steel re-enforced concrete, but the nose of the 757 pierced a hole in the last layer and did not disintegrate?

Originally posted by Realtruth

Come on! That nose cone would have disintegrated just like the wing and tail of the plane just like everyone is saying and pointing out.

Since you are obviously an expert on structural engineering, strength of materials, and the dynamics of projectiles....AND are obviously smarter than all the government dupes who tried very unsuccesfully to make a 757 crash at the Pentagon seem beleivable, I guess my time has been truly wasted. Forgive me.

You know.... something I just said made me realize something else. All those feds must be really, really stupid. I mean they got the color of the planted wreckage wrong, they knocked down the wrong light poles, they didn't realize that everyone knows excactly how a modern widebody airliner would react when impacting on a steel and concrete building...Hell they even forgot to put soot marks of the fake airplane scraps (the ones that werent even the right color) and they didn't think anyone would find it strange that the grass wasn't too burnt.

Bet then again, on the other hand, they did succsessfully make 70-80 AA pasengers dissapear without a trace. They succesfully planted all those fake airplane parts without ANYONE seeing them, and they cut down all those lightpoles and placed one on the hood of a taxi without ANYONE seeing them, and they planted the explosives in the building without being detected. Any they found hundreds of accomplices in the FBI, CIA, Army, AirForce, NTSB, FAA, Arlington Police Department, Arlington Fire Department, Pentagon Police, DC Police...all who have kept their secrets......not one single wistleblower with a guilty conscience.

Freaking Amazing.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Bet then again, on the other hand, they did succsessfully make 70-80 AA pasengers dissapear without a trace. They succesfully planted all those fake airplane parts without ANYONE seeing them, and they cut down all those lightpoles and placed one on the hood of a taxi without ANYONE seeing them, and they planted the explosives in the building without being detected. Any they found hundreds of accomplices in the FBI, CIA, Army, AirForce, NTSB, FAA, Arlington Police Department, Arlington Fire Department, Pentagon Police, DC Police...all who have kept their secrets......not one single wistleblower with a guilty conscience.

Freaking Amazing.

Well i am someone who does have a background in aviatoin, and law enforcement. It does not take much to see that their are a lot of things wrong with the official story.

How did the nose of a 757 which is fragile composite go through a Kevlar reinforced concrete wall ?

Wings will usually shear off when they hit an obstical not disinagrate.

Thier have been whistleblowers but the military has threatened and punished people who speak out against 911.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 It does not take much to see that their are a lot of things wrong with the official story.

There are many questions to be answered, but nothing that cannot be explained.

How did the nose of a 757 which is fragile composite go through a Kevlar reinforced concrete wall ?

a) Who says it's the nose?

Perhaps it was the side wall or roof of the cockpit

b) Whatever it is...maybe it went through a window?

Kevlar reinforced concrete, bullet proof glass, both resistant to small arms fire and small projectile penetration from explosions, but apparently not resistant to large masses traveling at 500 mph.

Also, the windows would be attached to the window frames with what? kevlar/titanium screws?

Wings will usually shear off when they hit an obstical not disinagrate.

Usually. And when they do sheer off, travelling at 500 mph they will eventually hit something while still travelling at a good fraction of the original velocity, and if that "something" is hard they WILL disintegrate.

Thier have been whistleblowers but the military has threatened and punished people who speak out against 911.

Oh really? Why don't we hear about them?

Originally posted by Realtruth

Mr. Lear is the Tail of the plane as structurally as strong as the fuselage? Wouldn't there be something left of it?

Allow me to respectfully sum this up.

This supposedly hit the Pentagon:



And this is all thats left?

Yes John,

This is why im am suspicious about this issue, I have no background in physics and I assume the craft would crumble to an extent but there is no matter / debris to warrant 255,000 pounds (115,660 kilograms) of stuff.

For anyones reference

materials information

Lightweight materials contribute to the overall efficiency of the 757 models. Improved aluminum alloys, primarily in the wing skins, save 610 pounds (276 kilograms). Advanced composites such as graphite/epoxy are used in control surfaces (including rudder, elevators and ailerons), aerodynamic fairings, engine cowlings and landing gear doors for a weight savings of 1,100 pounds (500 kilograms). Another 650 pounds (295 kilograms) of weight savings is attributable to carbon brakes, which have the added advantage of longer service life than conventional steel brakes.

quick specifications

757-200 Technical Characteristics
757-200
Passengers
Typical 2-class configuration
Typical 1-class configuration
200
228
Cargo 1,670 cu ft (43.3 cu m)
Engines
maximum thrust Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4
40,200 lb (179 kN)

Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B
43,500 lb (193.5 kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2037
36,600 lb (162.8 kN)

Pratt & Whitney PW2040
40,100 lb (178.4 kN)
Maximum Fuel Capacity 11,489 gal (43,490 l)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 255,000 lb (115,680 kg)
Maximum Range 3,900 nautical miles (7,222 km)
Cruise Speed Mach 0.80
Basic Dimensions
Wing span
Overall Length
Tail Height
Interior Cabin Width
Body Exterior Width
124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
155 ft 3 in (47.32 m)
44 ft 6 in (13.6 m)
11 ft 7 in (3.5 m)
12 ft 4 in (3.7 m)

www.boeing.com

and detailed characteristics are here

[edit on 19-3-2007 by Selmer2]

My top two questions regarding this are:

* Why aren't the other CCTV tapes released?

* What happened to the tail.

One thing that probably isn't foremost in peoples minds is that from the first micro-second the aircraft contacted the building, it started decelerating. The nose would slow down, the rest would drive right in behind it (think of squashing a coke can on the tarmac). Same idea.

The tail, by the time it gets close to hitting the building, will be going slower than the nose was when it hit.

Considering the energies we are talking about, the deceleration might be insignificant, but it is a point worth remembering.

Id wish I had a week off and could use like 60 hours work to completely destroy the 757 hit the pentagon but I dont, so Ill just point one part and try to debunk it..

Here is an easy one:



Here is the alleged part that most here including the LONG GONE Cat herder said it came from the wreckage (BTW, the feds not even admit this part is from the wreckage offically).

See the rivets? do you see the separation and the pattern?
whach it closelly and count them and see them....

Now courtesy of airliners net we have this close up of an American airlines 757-200 with...a completelly diferent patterns of rivets, separations and BTW a line where 2 rows are present (the ones holding diferent fuselage sectiosn so they are doubled for extra strength)... note that thsi AA 757 is just 2 aircarft away from the assy line at Boeing fronm the flight 77.

www.airliners.net...

NOW TRY TO FIT THIS INTO YOUR DREAM THAT A 757 WAS EVEN THERE...

P.D. while you are at it check the shinny metal and the reflections on the fuselage...