What would have a 757 looked like at the pentagon?

Originally posted by kozmo
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!

If you're going to measure the rotor hub as it is then YES it is too small for a Boeing 757. If you're going to measure it, and then add in the diameter of the fan blades, which is how they get the diameter of an engine, then it's NOT too small, and it fits nicely.

As for the hole, the fuselage of a 757 is approximately 14 feet around. The hole initially was somewhere around 18 feet, which is about the right size for a 757. A Tomahawk would have left a MUCH bigger hole, and the explosion would have blown debris off the building in a much more destructive way. Where's the debris blown into the grass from the building? Or blown out by the Interstate? There should be building debris all over the place if an explosive warhead had gone off inside the building. Oh wait! It was that new non-explosive Tomahawk! Right!

But sorry, I forgot that anyone that disagrees with you is obviously a disinfo agent, or has been brainwashed by the gov't.

I guess I'm wrong Supposedly this "plane" blew a hole straight through the blast-proofed, concrete reinforced structure of the first ring of the Pentagon - all the way through - but threw it's debris miles away. Riiiiiiiiigggggght. And then, this hollow-bodied, aluminum cylinder which measures well over 12' in diameter, somehow made the hole only 6' wide right at ground level as it sliced through the blast-proofed, reinforced concrete structure without peeling apart in large pieces. And somehow the wings, the tail section and the engines which clearly did NOT fit through the hole, simply disintigrated into thin air leaving almost trace evidence of even striking the building.

Now keeping in mind, this thin bodied, ALUMINUM cylinder, without the benefit of a bunker-busting DU head, cut a darned near perfect hole, less than half it's diameter through the blast-proofed reinforced concrete structure, even breaching the rear of the ring and caused this hulking, reinforced, bunker type of building to collapse upon itself... Am I getting this right so far? It left the hole right at ground level BUT it didn't leave a single trace on the Pentagram lawn at all - correct? And even though we know that the Pentgram has security cameras on EVERY face of the Pentagram AND there were at least 5 other identified video cameras on PRIVATE property that would have recorded said impact - the only video we have is the Pentagram guard post video? Is that also right? I just want to make sure I'm understanding everything here.

Ok, I guess I'll give in. You guys are right. I must be crazy questioning the official story given that their facts fit together so precisely and neatly and make absolute perfect sense. My bad.

Look at this pics - I'm too lazy to link to them right now, the hole is about 6' in diameter and tomahawks can be fitted with bunker-busting warheads that detonate AFTER the structure has been breached.

The hole was NOT only 6' at ground level. There are many pics that show a larger precollapse hole at ground level, but you never see those, because the no plane people tend to only show the ones that hide the bigger hole.

The controversy over what hit the Pentagon first became prominent in December of 2001, when French authors claimed that the hole in the Pentagon was too small for a 757 to fit through. Thierry Meyssan was apparently the source of the the claim that the hole in the facade was ony 18 feet across -- a claim that ignores photographs that show pre-collapse first-floor puctures extending for a width of at least 96 feet.

911research.wtc7.net...

... the ground-level entry area (where the walls were missing and support columns were missing or severely damaged and severed) was about 90 feet wide. Only the second floor area of the hole was small. Both In Plane Site and the Pentagon Strike web movie disingenuously use selective photos in which the 90-foot ground level hole is hidden behind smoke & water being sprayed by a firetruck, and it isn't even mentioned. But note that not all Pentagon no-757 advocates hide the real proportions of the hole in this way, which makes this misprepresentation even more egregious.

www.oilempire.us...

In the second photo, the impact area has been roughly marked out in red. At its widest, the red section is only 120 feet wide. Now a Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 125 feet. Since we know that the aircraft hit the wall at about 50 degrees, simple trigonometry tells us that it would impact some 125/sin(50) = 164 feet of wall, as shown in the diagram below. The directly impacted area (the red section in the above photo) has also been marked on the diagram. It is between the two arrows labeled by its maximum width of 120 feet. This width includes about twenty feet of damage to the second floor and 100 feet of damage to the ground floor. The diagram shows damage to the ground floor columns. The Boeing 757 has been carefully drawn to scale.

guardian.150m.com...

So what SHOULD have happened? Wait, let me guess. The plane should have hit and bounced off.

[edit on 4/4/2007 by Zaphod58]

You're right, I'm wrong!

Especially that photo of the exit hole in ring E - a perfect 6' circle yet NOTHING there to have caused it. So, help me in my stupor and confusion... what, exactly, was it that caused that perfectly round exit hole in ring E? And I'm going to assume that it was either a.) "Beamed up to Scotty" after penetrating or b.) it disintegrated into dust. Which was it again?

Yeah, the official story makes so much sense. Again, I sure am glad that people are able to take these minute details, one at a time, and use them as evidence to support the entire theory, when no one else has been able to.

Again, video cameras? Flight data recorder showing a different trajectory that the one "Officially" explained? Lack of wreckage and disproportionate damage? "Official Witnesses" claiming to have seen a plane crash when their vantage points were clearly obstructed by freeway bridges and trees? Purported studies demonstrating the structural damages and resultant collapse of the building DEVOID the blast-proofed reinforced concrete skin of the building? Yeah man, I'm nuts for questioning the official story

There is a good analysis of the engine found at the pentagon found at this site:

www.physics911.net...

Scroll down about 3/4. The article makes a good case for why the engine found is not the engine from a 757.

And there's a good one for why it IS a 757 engine at the aerospace web page that I linked to earlier.

just more truther propaganda . it's alway's the same , new proof and
drawings from some unknown armchair engineer .
nothing new , no proof of anything except a jet hit the pentagon .
it didn't fly over , it didnt land somewhere and those people aren't in some prison camp . this stuff just get's lamer and lamer . hey , how about a new
dylan avery doc and we could call it " lamer and lamerer ". because that's all this bull$hit is . and don't you people ever stop to think that the family's of these people have suffered enough without you trying to cash in on all
the doc's being made selling bs ? you people use the guise of truth to make a quick buck selling these lies .

but , as usual , just m2c .

[edit on 4-4-2007 by gen.disaray]

[edit on 4-4-2007 by gen.disaray]

IMO from what I saw right in the frame before the pentagon hit. It didnt look like a plane it looked more like a missle. but I am no expert thats just my 2 cents. I also find it odd that the PENTAGON of all places has just ONE crappy low-rate walmart camera watching that side.

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.

Don't even have to read the rest of your post after that monumental whopper. There ought to be some sort of prize for a reply of this caliber.

And if that hijacker couldn't even fly a Cessna, why didn't he just plunge the 757 straight down, into the building with the biggest footprint in the world????

What's he doing flying better than any ace commercial pilot is able to do, bar none? Hitting the one face of the building that's just been re-enforced for plane impacts?

The most basic element of the Pentagon story is ridiculous on its face. Enough said.

Well first of all, it wasn't even a Boeing engineer that said it wasn't from a 757 engine. It was a Rolls Royce SPOKESPERSON that never even actually worked on an engine. When asked if he knew anything about engines, he said no he didn't, he was just a spokesperson.

There have been several well done pages analyzing the engine hub, and many of them find that it fits nicely to the RB211-535 that the 757 carried.

Oh wait, they're disinfo pages. I forgot. The only ones that matter are the ones that show it wasn't a 757.

What up, y'all,

Ok. Lets say it was a missle of some kind, or anything but a 757 that hit the Pentagon:

Then where is the 757 and all the people on board, that supposedly flew into the side of
the Pentagon on 9/11?


-MadSigntist

if they want to put an end to this theory why don't they just release ALL the video from gas stations and everywhere else? if I saw video that I beleive beyond a reasonable doubt to be authentic, then I'd rest my case, but until then I think it's the biggest conspiracy ever schemed up.

Originally posted by tyranny22

Wrong. The 44 feet height is from the ground, to the top of the tail, WITH THE LANDING GEAR EXTENDED. With gear up, it's not 44 feet.

Originally posted by tyranny22
if they want to put an end to this theory why don't they just release ALL the video from gas stations and everywhere else? if I saw video that I beleive beyond a reasonable doubt to be authentic, then I'd rest my case, but until then I think it's the biggest conspiracy ever schemed up.

Because cases like this polarize the people. It makes everyone get into everyone elses faces with possible scenario's, speculation, heresay, and pseudo-science.

Why would the government want to release the video's, when the lack of information has done a better job at setting the American citizenry at eachothers throats, than any disinformation their propaganda machines could punch out.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by tyranny22

Wrong. The 44 feet height is from the ground, to the top of the tail, WITH THE LANDING GEAR EXTENDED. With gear up, it's not 44 feet.

LMAO.
ok, well imagine the picture above +/- 7 feet. there's not a big difference there. now, I'd revamp the whole picture if we were talking about ... say, 10 feet. but the landing gear isn't even 7 feet tall. so, squint your eyes and turn your head slightly and you'll be able to see that the video from the pentagon is indeed a 757 crashing into the 77 foot wall.

Originally posted by tyranny22
LMAO.
ok, well imagine the picture above +/- 7 feet. there's not a big difference there. now, I'd revamp the whole picture if we were talking about ... say, 10 feet. but the landing gear isn't even 7 feet tall. so, squint your eyes and turn your head slightly and you'll be able to see that the video from the pentagon is indeed a 757 crashing into the 77 foot wall.

Well it was pretty far away, making the plane look small.

Apparently, it wasnt a plane at all, but in fact, a missle of some description. you cannot just fob off this idea that it could have been a plane, however, the debris would have possibly scattered so far or have been so large that every reporter in that area would have noticed it. plus i think that Bush is the terrorist here and nobody else. there have been documentaries that show the possiblilty of him directly funding terrorism, so the terrorist attack could have easily been by a missle brought on the black market.