What would have a 757 looked like at the pentagon?

Now I am no conspiracy theorist but damn the size difference its just there

Originally posted by piacenza
Now I am no conspiracy theorist but damn the size difference its just there

How can you say you are no conspiracy theorist? I hope that is a joke, because you have a new thread every day or so with a new, poor quality YouTube video that shows nothing that cannot be explained by any rational and objective person on this forum.

Ufff tak your time and make your own scale model.
I repeat I am no conspiracy theorist since I obviously don't believe the government conspiracy.
If you are a conspiracy theorist good luck in proving your case.
I read all about your little crazy theories and they are just laughable.
You counter attack with rants instead than with scientific proofs.
Anyway since you criticize I will be waiting for your scaled model.

Originally posted by piacenza
Now I am no conspiracy theorist ...

One more time...

If you believe that drug deals occur and you think you know how they might happen, you are BY DEFINITION A CONSPIRACY THEORIST.

Every DA in the country is a conspiracy theorist. Every detective, cop and judge. Everyone is a conspiracy theorist.

I think we need to be a little more specific on this topic.

The topic its about a scale model point.
Thread gets hijacked immediately.
If the thread does not interest someone just move on.

Sorry, I read and replied to your comment. It was only one sentence. I will now leave the discussion.

Just pause the video the second that the object enters the frame from the right - The tip is too narrow and pointed to be the front of a 757. Given the early CNN report where the reporter claims that it was NOT a plane that hit the Pentagram, the early photos that show ZERO fuselage debris on the lawn and the subsequent photos of the hole left from the vehicle's impact and any human with the ability to employ logic and reason can deduce that it was likely a cruise missile - a Tomahawk to be exact. I'm certain it was painted to resemeble a commercial aircraft.

Couple that with the fact that engineers from Boeing point out that the alleged jet engine piece laying on the ground is NOT from any jet engine that they use. In fact, it's less that HALF the diameter of a 757 jet engine. In fact, it is likely a turbine from a missile at about 3 ft. in diameter as opposed to the 8+ feet for jet aircraft turbines!

Come on people - open your freaking eyes here You're being duped. This was a carefully planned inside job.

Considering that Boeing doesn't make engines, how likely do you think it would be that a Boeing engineer would recognize an engine? Not very.

Using these images and other diagrams of the RB211-535 engine, we can obtain approximate dimensions of the engine's rotary disks for comparison to the item found in the Pentagon rubble. Our best estimate is that the engine's twelve compressor disk hubs (without blades attached) are about 36% the width of the fan. The five turbine disk hubs appear to be slightly smaller at approximately 34% the fan diamter. According to Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory and Jane's, the fan diameter of the RB211-535E4B engine is 74.5 inches (189.2 cm). It then follows that the compressor disk hubs are approximately 27 inches (69 cm) across while the turbine disk hubs are about 25 inches (63.5 cm) in diameter. Both of these dimensions fit within the range of values estimated for the engine component pictured in the wreckage at the Pentagon.

We can take this analysis a step further by also exploring some of the alternate theories that have been put forward by those believing this object comes from a different aircraft. Two of the most common claims we have seen suggest that the plane used in the attack was a Douglas A-3 Skywarrior or a Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk. The A-3 is an airborne jamming aircraft originally ordered by the US Navy during the 1950s. The type is now retired from front-line service though a handful are still used for testing purposes by the defense contractor Raytheon. The Global Hawk is an unmanned aerial vehicle used by the Air Force for reconnaissance missions. Neither of these planes bears more than a superficial resemblance to the 757, but we will accept the possibility that they could be mistaken for a commercial airliner given the confusion on September 11.

Using photos and cut-away drawings of these three engines, we can estimate the diameters of the compressor and turbine rotor hubs just as we did for the RB211. While the compressor and turbine disks on the J57 and JT8D are larger by percentage than those of the RB211, the maximum diameters of all three engines are considerably smaller as summarized in the following table.

Engine Overall Diameter Compressor Hub Diameter
(estimated) Turbine Hub Diameter
(estimated)
PW J57 40.5 in (102.9 cm) 16 in (40.6 cm) 18 in (45.7 cm)
PW JT8D 49.2 in (125 cm) 21.5 in (54.6 cm) 22.5 in (57.1 cm)
RR AE3007H 43.5 in (110.5 cm) 14 in (35.6 cm) 15 in (38.1 cm)

This analysis indicates that all three of these engines are too small to match the engine component photographed at the Pentagon. Some sites also suggest the part might be from the aircraft's auxiliary power unit (APU). An APU is essentially a small jet engine mounted in the tail of an aircraft that provides additional power, particularly during an emergency. However, APUs tend to be much smaller than jet engines, and the component pictured at the Pentagon is too large to match any found in an APU. It has also been suggested that the attack was conducted by a cruise missile like the Tomahawk or Storm Shadow, but these and other weapons are powered by engines no more than 15 inches (38 cm) across. These powerplants are obviously far too small to account for the Pentagon wreckage.

Whatever piece this is, it appears to be only the central hub of a compressor or turbine stage. Normally, each of these rotating stages would be fitted with several curved blades mounted along its circumference. These blades were apparently knocked off the rotor hub found in the wreckage due to the force of the impact. The loss of these blades is unfortunate since different manufacturers often adopt unique shapes for their fan, compressor, and turbine blades that would make the source of the component much easier to identify. Nonetheless, we have been able to locate the following picture of the intermediate pressure compressor section of the RB211 that appears to match several characteristics of the Pentagon debris. Note that this photo appears to be from the RB211-524 which is an uprated relative of the RB211-535 used on the Boeing 747 and 767. This engine model contains seven intermediate pressure compressor stages compared to the six of the RB211-535. However, the compressor disks used on both engines are believed to be nearly identical.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Engine diameter is measured WITH FAN BLADES ATTACHED. So of COURSE it's going to be smaller than the diameter of an RB211-535. The fan blades would have been ripped off during the crash.

There's also a slight flaw in this video. The wall of the Pentagon is approximately 77ft high. A 757 WITH WHEELS DOWN is 44 feet tall. How, how does an airplane that's 33 feet smaller than the height of the wall, with its wheels down, suddenly become as tall as the wall when it's skimming the ground with the wheels up?

Pentagon:

Length of Each Outer Wall (ft.)
921
Height of Building (ft.)
77' 3.5"

pentagon.afis.osd.mil...

757:

Wing span 38.05m (124ft 10in), length 47.32m (155ft 3in), height 13.56m (44ft 6in). Wing area 185.3m2 (1994sq ft).

www.airliners.net...

So with all due respect, this is NOT how a 757 should have looked at the Pentagon. It would not have been the size of the wall.

[edit on 4/4/2007 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 4/4/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by kozmo
Just pause the video the second that the object enters the frame from the right - The tip is too narrow and pointed to be the front of a 757. Given the early CNN report where the reporter claims that it was NOT a plane that hit the Pentagram, the early photos that show ZERO fuselage debris on the lawn and the subsequent photos of the hole left from the vehicle's impact and any human with the ability to employ logic and reason can deduce that it was likely a cruise missile - a Tomahawk to be exact. I'm certain it was painted to resemeble a commercial aircraft.

The CNN reporter already counter that he meant that there was evidence of the plane, but they were in small pieces.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
...when it's skimming the ground with the wheels up?

Photographic evidence clearly shows that there was no "skimming". Just tho0ught I would throw that out there.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Considering that Boeing doesn't make engines, how likely do you think it would be that a Boeing engineer would recognize an engine? Not very.

I've sold engineering and manufacturing software for 20 years - to the likes of Ford, GM, NASA, McDonnell Douglas etc... I know how collaborative engineering works! Simply because Boeing doesn't make aircraft engines wouldn't mean a Boeing engineer wouldn't recognize it - considering that the Boeing Engineer would be responsible for designing the aircraft to house the engine AND WOULD HAVE THE ENGINE DESIGN as a result!

Come on, you are disingneuous at best. Also, copying and pasting propaganda from disinfo sites (Unless you're a disinfo agent???) won't help your cause either. The rotor, sans blades, is too small for a 757 - period! Care to address the other inconsistencies as well or are we going to simply argue about some obviously planted part post bombing?

How about the video of an obvious missile entering the frame? It is about 1/5th the size of what a 757 would look like. Lack of pieces on the lawn post crash? CNN reporter standing in front of the burning Pentagon stating that a PLANE DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON? The hole that was left by the Tomahawk missile as opposed to a gaping hole that SHOULD have been left by a commercial jet liner? The inconsistencies of the flight trajectory as evidenced by "Witness" accounts versus the actual black box? Come on man Give me a break!

Originally posted by kozmo


How about the video of an obvious missile entering the frame? It is about 1/5th the size of what a 757 would look like. Lack of pieces on the lawn post crash? CNN reporter standing in front of the burning Pentagon stating that a PLANE DID NOT HIT THE PENTAGON? The hole that was left by the Tomahawk missile as opposed to a gaping hole that SHOULD have been left by a commercial jet liner? The inconsistencies of the flight trajectory as evidenced by "Witness" accounts versus the actual black box? Come on man

Give me a break!

Dude, the CNN reporter has already commented about people using his words that meant no plane, when he actually means it was in pieces that could not be recognize that it was a plane like a large tail or wing that you expect to see.

At first he said there were no visible debris to identify an airplane.
Later on he changed the story saying there were huge parts of the aircraft its probably the most ridiculous witness of 911

Originally posted by piacenza
At first he said there were no visible debris to identify an airplane.
Later on he changed the story saying there were huge parts of the aircraft its probably the most ridiculous witness of 911

Yeah, CTers use his words to point out that there is no plane, but when he later on corrects is, you say he is BS.

People just use his words that interpreted that there was no plane.

What I said is he clearly stated he saw no evidence that no plane hit the pentagon later on a few years later goes on saying that he clearly saw Huge parts of an airplane.
Why do I even bother answering?

Lets go back to the reporter's discussion about the plane.

transcripts.cnn.com...

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Remember that all of that talking was right there in one day.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by deltaboy]

You know, the debris from the airplane doesn't have to be at the crash site.

There are plenty of aviation crashes where the remnants of aircraft end up miles away from the point of impact. Such as the Florida Everglade's crash.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by Zaphod58
...when it's skimming the ground with the wheels up?

Photographic evidence clearly shows that there was no "skimming". Just tho0ught I would throw that out there.

I know there wasn't, but in the video that shows what it supposedly SHOULD have looked like, the plane is barely off the ground, so that's what I was talking about.