9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Yes, they're mounted on the wings. That doesn't make them or the wings made out of titanium. They would be a LOT more than 6 tons if they were made entirely out of titanium. Have you ever seen what happens to an engine after a bird goes through it? It's totally destroyed. I have a great picture of the pilots of a 747 standing under an engine that hit a vulture, and the cowling was blown off, and you can see that the engine is totally destroyed. Do you think a titanium engine would have that much damage?

Originally posted by pepsi78 I think we are not being relevant here. On impact where the engines had impacted there is no damage to the walls. They are made out of titanium and should put a hole where the impact has ocur

First off, engines are made to sear off rather then cause wing damage if a severe failure occurs. Secondly, the actual dense parts of the engine are nowhere near as large as the engine itself looks. Much of the engine is empty space, blades that are meant to break if they are fod’ed out, and cowling.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Anok, Flight 93 never reached its target. We don't know if it was going for the White House.

But you're missing my point. Why the pentagoon and not the white house?

Originally posted by defcon5 Wait, you lost me.. Are you saying that the White House is bigger, easier to identify from the air and would have a higher population? I don’t think so. Ever been to DC?

Yes I've been to DC but I didn't see the pentagoon, so sorry I was asuming the white house would be easier to see. But the white house is hardly invisible. And yes the white house would have a higher and more important population than an area under construction in the pentagoon. And I think would have had a more psycological effect on the government and the population than hitting the pentagoon. [edit on 16/11/2005 by ANOK]

That's my point. There was one target NOT hit since Flight 93 went down. It was heading back towards Washington at the time. We don't know that the White House WASN'T a target. We just know that Flight 77 was aimed at the Pentagon.

OK that's true but it's only speculation that flight 93 was gonna hit the white house. But I see your point.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by ANOK And why would they fly right over the white house to hit the pentagoon? Wouldn't the white house have been a better target? Take out the US press (he wasn't there but would they know that?) would have been a middle eastern terrorists wet dream, no? But I guess the white house didn't have a section under repair gauranteeing minimal government employee casualities

You ever seen the Pentagon from the hill top at Arlington, and realize what a huge and easy to pick out structure it is? It is easy to identify from the air, and quite a large place, it defiantly has a unique shape that makes it easy to recognize as opposed to other structures in town. Another reason is that it should have wielded more casualties then the White House; it obviously holds many more high-ranking personnel. The more you guys talk the more I am convinced this was a guy flying VFR and using landmarks in town to find the largest easiest structure to do the most damage. [edit on 11/15/2005 by defcon5]

If indeed there was a plane. The pilot would have to been using VFR (visual flight regulations) instead of IFR (instrument flight regulations). But, I also agree that would be a pretty sharp "dog leg" on approach for a fuel topped off set of wings to do. And still be able to keep up it's air speed to make final approach to it's target. Not much time for final if you look at that sketch. Easy way to loose flight control if you ask me.

Originally posted by SkyChild_5 But, I also agree that would be a pretty sharp "dog leg" on approach for a fuel topped off set of wings to do.

Yeah planes do S-turns to drop altitude in a non-radical fashions when they care about the comfort of their passengers and not scaring or bumping them around too much, but in this instance these guys did not care if they bounced everyone off the roof of the plane on the way down. Looking at the 3 mile diameter map above, I would have to say that this is not such a radical turn that you have to worry about loosing lift or stressing the airframe

Originally posted by SkyChild_5 And still be able to keep up it's air speed to make final approach to it's target. Not much time for final if you look at that sketch. Easy way to loose flight control if you ask me.

The 757 has way overpowered engines for its size, and they would not have to worry about airspeed since they were descending as they did this maneuver, which increases airspeed. I also highly doubt that they where much worried about losing control, even if they did they were over a heavily populated area and still would have done substantial damage.

But I still don't see a 757 hitting the pentagon. Noted in posts above. How would you explain the non exsists of damage on the ground unless that plane was taking a nose dive into the building. To much stuff untouched on the ground for a plane that would have to decend and make a landing at that flight level.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SkyChild_5 But, I also agree that would be a pretty sharp "dog leg" on approach for a fuel topped off set of wings to do.

Yeah planes do S-turns to drop altitude in a non-radical fashions when they care about the comfort of their passengers and not scaring or bumping them around too much, but in this instance these guys did not care if they bounced everyone off the roof of the plane on the way down. Looking at the 3 mile diameter map above, I would have to say that this is not such a radical turn that you have to worry about loosing lift or stressing the airframe

Originally posted by SkyChild_5 And still be able to keep up it's air speed to make final approach to it's target. Not much time for final if you look at that sketch. Easy way to loose flight control if you ask me.

The 757 has way overpowered engines for its size, and they would not have to worry about airspeed since they were descending as they did this maneuver, which increases airspeed. I also highly doubt that they where much worried about losing control, even if they did they were over a heavily populated area and still would have done substantial damage.

[edit on 16-11-2005 by SkyChild_5]

It is imposible First let's take a look at the caracteristics of the engine. You where right they dont weight 6 tons they weight 6 tons each. Titanium has a melting point of 1688 degrees celsius. Here is the hole plane. Here is the small hole before the wall colapsed but after plane impact. Has you can see the wall is intact no damage. Here a scale of the plane In this image you can see clear there is no hole and not even damage where the engine would impact. and another With the engeins hiting at the speed of 400 mph an hour it would just make a hole. This is imposible [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78] [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78] [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by LaBTop Aris, if you want to see them, file a complaint. I don't give you a shimmer of a chance as long as this administration deals the deck. And they play a foul pack of cards.

True, true. If one was to list all the weird coincidences, the obvious holes in official stories, the implausibility of numerous official claims and total BS of many other official claims, alarm bells should be ringing in everyone's head. However, many people find absolutely nothing odd about it all. I think we should spend some time researching and putting together a summary thread with all of 9/11's implausible mysteries, what it is still inexplicable after 4+ years and what is still being hidden. Volumes would be written..... We could start off with that joint paper that professors from Brigham Young University presented this past week, on Nov. 8th, where they demonstrate that the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports are nothing but secretive, unscientific bullshtick. Among other things, the professors claim: - "NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing." (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added.) - In a paper by fire-engineering experts in the UK, we find: The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire... However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the [47] core and [240] perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… [Our] lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The [proposed effect] is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet [by NIST]. (Lane and Lamont, 2005.) - The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states: The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.) The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report: The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.) The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.) How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the "the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted" (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were "adjusted" by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that "the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor." (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.) At any rate, if one wants to critically look at the official explanations, he/she would need hipwaders for all the BS the gov't is floating around.

Ok Pepsi, let's try this one more time. I'll go really slowly for you. A jet engine is made up of several sections. The Compressor, or Fan section. The blades of the fan are made out of hollow titanium, due to the extreme heat and pressure at the speed they are turning. Air is compressed by the blades, and moves into the Combustion Chamber. Combustion Chamber. Fuel is mixed with the compressed air in this chamber, and then a spark fires, causing the fuel to burn. This chamber is usually made out of titanium. Turbine. The hot gases leaving the Combustion Chamber pass across the Turbine. The Turbine is responsible for driving the Compressor and causing it to turn. Exhaust Nozzle. Hot air leaves through the Exhaust Nozzle pushing the jet forward. The only portions made of Titanium are usually the Turbine, Compressor Blades, and Combustion Chamber. NOT the entire engine. The casing, and much of the other portions of the engines are made of composite materials, and the newer fan blades are made out of mono-crystalline blades. Here are a couple links for you. www.geocities.com... en.wikipedia.org... The wings of the aircraft are hollow aluminum with rigid reinforcement. They don't survive crashes. It's that simple. Certainly not against a kevlar reinforced concrete building. IIRC the right engine struck a rather large generator and exploded before impacting the building. After impact it was pushed up, shearing off the wing as designed. The left engine was found either in the building or the inner courtyard. I might have that reversed, but one of the hit the generator and seperated from the aircraft and the other was found in the wreckage.

Originally posted by defcon5 Aris: www.pentagonresearch.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> You know what your right! 270 degrees in 3.5 miles, yeah, only a fighter plane with a Top Gun elite pilot could pull off a turn that tight!

...while making a 2,800 ft/min, 500 mph controlled dive that bottoms out a few feet off the ground and still manages to not deviate more than 500 ft horizontally and 40 ft vertically from its target? Yeah, you'd need to be a damn good pilot to pull that off with a 757. Sorry but to think that newbie pilot, flunky Ahmad The Terrorist pulled it off, and with a 757 no less.....well, I'll say it again: only in Hollywood movies.

And you know how high he leveled out, and how far off course he went how? If you're looking at a radar screen set for 50 mile resolution you're not going to notice if he's a couple hundred feet to the left or right, and with no transponder ATC isn't going to know how high off the ground he is. I'd really like to know where people get that he was flying a few feet off the ground all the way up until impact. He was flying low enough to clip light poles, but that certainly isn't a few feet, and the light poles he clipped were in the parking lot at the Pentagon, at which point he would have been in the terminal manuvers to make impact. He easily could have levelled off at 100 feet or higher and dove down shortly before impacting the building. [edit on 11/16/2005 by Zaphod58]

If the engines are so tough perhaps you can explain damage like this from them hitting a flesh and blood bird?

Date: 10 December 1995 Aircraft: B-747 Airport: John F. Kennedy (NY) Phase of Flight: Approach (7500’ AGL) Effect on Flight: Not reported Damage: Engines, cowling, wing, fuselage Wildlife Species: Snow geese Comments from Report: As the aircraft broke through a cloudbank at 7500 feet, it was struck by a flock of snow geese, which sounded like sandbags hitting. The impact destroyed one engine, damaged several fan blades on another and extensively damaged the airframe. Repairs cost approximately $6 million.

Details From Strike Report Date: Operator: Aircraft: Airport: Phase of Flight: Effect on Flight: Damage: Wildlife Species: 27 August 2000 KLM B-747 Los Angeles Intl. (CA) Climb (500’ AGL) Emergency landing Engine Western gull Comments from Report: At least one Western gull was ingested just after take-off. Bystanders on a beach heard a giant backfire and saw the jet spewing 8- 10-ft flames. Three pieces of the engine fell to the ground, one 5-ft piece landed on a beach where people were having a cookout. No one was injured. The pilot dumped 83 tons of fuel over the ocean for over an hour and then made an emergency landing. The flight had 449 people who were not able to get another flight to Amsterdam until the next day. The costs reported do not include room and board. Time out of service was 72 hours and cost of repairs was $400,000.

Damaged engine blades: Other damage: A good one showing exactly how small these planes really are with the gear up, and this is WAY bigger then a 757: Nothing to do with the thread, I just love this picture. Someone had some explaining to do on this one… … Ramp crew unloaded it in the wrong order… [edit on 11/16/2005 by defcon5]

Not to mention, maybe you can explain how it was that we had four B-1s sitting out here with severe damage to their engines from having ICE break off the intake and go down the engine. Three of them had to have an engine removed and a bunch of fan blades replaced, and one had to have the entire engine replaced. From ICE on climb out. [edit on 11/16/2005 by Zaphod58]

No matter if the engines are not all titanium i will asume that. Do you honestly belive that that 6 tons 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet long will just bounce off the wall at a velocity of 400 mph an hour. Not only that it has 6 tons but it is traveling at 400 an hour with titanium propelors spining at god knows what rotation per second. I can not agree with you .

Read what was said Pepsi. One engine struck a huge generator outside the Pentagon, and seperated from the wing as designed. It never impacted the wall. The other engine impacted the wall and was found in the rubble of the building.

Okay wich engine impacted the wall left or right?

If I recall correctly the right engine impacted the generator and seperated, and the left engine impacted the wall. But I'm going by memory, so I'm not 100% positive about that.