9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by defcon5 Uh, hate to say this but *cough, cough* BS… Pilots love fuel. They love to have as much as the airlines will let them carry. They darn near always ask for more fuel before going anywhere. They love to run the APU’s at the gate unless the airlines jumps on them about it, and still make the ground crew put full service gear on the plane as well (which is redundant), especially the air conditioning (at least down here they do). I have never heard a pilot walk into flight ops and say, “that fuel load looks great, lets go with that”, its usually more like, “ I want a 2K uplift on the fuel, get a hold of the fueler please.” They figure that they will burn it at the gate with the APU, on the taxi way, in a hold, etc. So they love to get as much as they can get away with. Fuelers 9 times in 10 end up having to top off the wings, the center tank usually stays full all the time. [edit on 11/15/2005 by defcon5]

Uh, hate to say this but *cough, cough* BS… While pilots may love fuel, airline companies don't love burning it. Adding on more fuel than required results in extra uneccessary operating costs since extra weight lowers fuel efficiency. Say you need 30,000 lbs to reach your destination. Add reserve fuel to that and that's all you'll usually take off with. Reserve fuel, according to the Air Transport Association of America, is calculated as being: Domestic (1) Fly for 1:00 hour at normal cruise altitude at a fuel flow for end of cruise weight at the speed for 99% maximum range. (2) Exercise a missed approach and climbout at the destination airport, fly to and land at an alternate airport 200 nautical miles distant. International (1) Fly for 10% of trip air time at normal cruise altitude at a fuel flow for end of cruise weight at the speed for 99% maximum range. (2) Exercise a missed approach and climbout at the destination airport, fly to an alternate airport 200 nautical miles distant. (3) Hold for :30 at alternate airport at 15,000 feet altitude. (4) Descend and land at alternate airport. source: AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION of America Do pilots want as much fuel as possible? Sure? Does this mean that they can double, or something to that effect to make your point relevant, their reserve fuel? Not likely. Now if your point is that pilots love to take on unnecessary fuel (since you disagreed with me saying they will take what is only necessary), perhaps you and I have a different meaning of "necessary". When I say "necessary", it goes without saying that if they need 30,000 lbs (reserve fuel included), you and the pilots adding on 2,000 lbs for extra precaution/delays does not make it "unnecessary". Like I said, you must have a different meaning for "unnecessary". "Unnecessary" would be carrying 40,000 lbs for a flight that needed only 20,000 lbs, reserve fuel always included. So, in a nutshell, if a flight needs X amount of fuel, it will usually take off with only X amount of fuel (reserve fuel always included). My point is that it will take off with X amount of fuel (necessary) and not X times 2 amount of fuel (unnecessary). Now, you come along and say that I'm speaking BS because pilots love to get away with X plus a fraction! So what did you demonstrate? Nothing besides the fact that you're trying to disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing (or so as to call what I say BS) when what you are saying is basically irrelevant and trivial to the point. At any rate, whether the supposed 757 that made that complex maneuver was 100, 70 or 110 tons, it's still a remarkable maneuver for an inexperienced flunky to pull off with a 757.

He didn't say they double the fuel. The airline says "We need this amount of fuel for the flight." The pilot will look at the taxi delays, the weather, and all the other flight conditions, and say "Ok, but this is going on, so let's add another 3000 pounds of fuel to allow for it." What you posted is the MINIMUM amount of fuel the plane has to carry. They figure out how much fuel it will take to get there on a perfect day, and then the pilot adds to the fuel amount based on conditions, and they sneak a little bit more to allow for delays on the ground. As long as they don't try to go overboard the airline will let them get away with it.

Okay let's just call it circumstantial. Second, how does a plane penetrate so long in to the pentagon how is that posible. With the lite nose of the plane it would be imposible. Lets not forger that at wtc the plane did go in to the buiding but did not come out with the nose on the other side of the building. None of them did exept for the pentagon. I would apreciate an answer. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

The hole created on the inner ring was created by the engine. You're taking a 100 ton object, with a rigid structure (the fuselage) and slamming it into another object at 500 mph. The nose might not have caused much damage, but the rest of the fuselage certainly would. Portions of the planes DID come out the other side of the WTC. An engine was found blocks away laying in the street, among other pieces. [edit on 11/16/2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Aris Uh, hate to say this but *cough, cough* BS… While pilots may love fuel, airline companies don't love burning it. Adding on more fuel than required results in extra uneccessary operating costs since extra weight lowers fuel efficiency. Say you need 30,000 lbs to reach your destination. Add reserve fuel to that and that's all you'll usually take off with. So, in a nutshell, if a flight needs X amount of fuel, it will usually take off with only X amount of fuel (reserve fuel always included). My point is that it will take off with X amount of fuel (necessary) and not X times 2 amount of fuel (unnecessary).

Bullpucky! You forget one thing in your thesis and that is that fuel does not cost the same from station to station. Out of here, they usually fly full, because the fuel is ported to Tampa. It is trucked down to stations such as Sarasota and thus costs more. Therefore, you cannot tell me that they only fly with what they need plus reserve from destination to destination. Here they are usually topped off. They might fill up in TPA and fly all day with unnecessary gas load since its less expensive per gallon there, and then just add smaller amounts along the way as they burn it. Of course weight/load allowing for the gas. [edit on 11/16/2005 by defcon5]

But the engine was found in the ruble near the first impact, the second had splited apart you said it your self. So now you are arguing with your self, first you say that the engine would not make greate damage to the wall than chage your story that it would. You got your friend puting up pictures on how delicate the engine is and how a bird can afect it. Are you sure? Here are quotes from you guys

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.

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

[edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78] [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78 But the engine was found in the ruble near the first impact, the second had splited apart you said it your self. So now you are arguing with your self, first you say that the engine iwould not make greate damage

to the wall than chage your story that it would. You got your friend puting up pictures how delicate the engine is and how a bird can afect it. Are you sure?

Your thinking about these engines like they are one solid piece, and they are not. Pieces of them will disintegrate; other pieces that are denser will carry through the structure. Pure physics man. [edit on 11/16/2005 by defcon5]

The first impact? What first impact? At the WTC? It came out the other side of the building and landed like two blocks away. We weren't arguing that the engines are going to be completely destroyed, because they aren't. We were arguing that they weren't made completely out of titanium as you claimed. The center portions of the engine (compressor hub, combustion chamber, etc) ARE going to survive impact, and DID cause damage. It didn't leave a nice seperate impact hole like you wanted it to, but it did go into the building with the rest of the wreckage, and it did cause damage to the building. What we were saying before was that if an engine was solid titanium as you claimed it was how was it possible to cause so much damage with something like a bird strike. [edit on 11/16/2005 by Zaphod58]

In u'r own words

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

why are you arguing with u'r self? if the engines are so delicate in your opinion how can they create a hole on the other side? If birds can damage them and you put up a grate numbers of pictures than i cant see how it would penetrate. Triky viky i would say [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Um, again, we were arguing against your claim that they were solid titanium, and incredibly tough. As Defcon5 said, parts of the engine are going to be tougher than others, and will survive things that most parts won't. And the wall it went through wasn't reinforced. It was an ordinary wall, and able to take a lot less impact force than the outer wall. [edit on 11/16/2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by pepsi78 In u'r own words

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

why are you arguing with u'r self? if the engines are so delicate in your opinion how can they create a hole on the other side? If birds can damage them and you put up a grate numbers of pictures than i cant see how it would penetrate.

Pepsi at this point you’re just trolling as far as I can tell. The point is that part of them is easily destroyed, but the core of the engine which is much smaller would not be and would penetrate the building. It would not leave a great big hole like you keep stating it would. Why do I get the feeling I am repeating myself? Maybe its because I am:

Originally posted by defcon5 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 defcon5 Your thinking about these engines like they are one solid piece, and they are not. Pieces of them will disintegrate; other pieces that are denser will carry through the structure. Pure physics man.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Pepsi, no matter how heavy they are, you are NOT going to get a nice cartoon looking impact of the perfect shape of an airplane when it impacts.

True. You are going to get a hole that's larger than the fuselage and the engines. At the Pentagon, we have a cartoon looking impact of the perfect shape of the fuselage (something you yourself admit to being inconceivable) and no holes for the engines. On page 1, CatHerder says, "The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building." Say what??? A 13 ft in diameter fuselage, upon impacting a reinforced wall at 460 mph, will leave a 13 ft hole??? What is this science? Sunday morning funnies science? And where's the hole from at least one, if not both engines? Wasn't the starboard wing tilted up a few feet? Shouldn't there be an at least 11-12 ft diameter hole on the starboard side, close or at the 2nd floor? And in pre-collapse photos, the portside wall damage looks unbelievable as well. Logically speaking, there should be one giant hole in the Pentagon's wall that is larger than the fuselage and engines' intact diameter combined.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 The wings are going to disintigrate and leave very little debris.

When you say "leave very little debris" do you mean as in quantity? If so, that would entail vaporizing. Please demonstrate how the wings could possibly and instantly vaporize. Or do you mean perhaps, when you say "leave very little debris", you mean little as in size? If so, most of the total volume of wing material should still be scattered on the crash site, albeit in small pieces. Please demonstrate where the two wings are, even if in itty bitty confetti pieces.

Simply look up a page with plane crash pictures, and you will see what happens to wings on impact. They tend to leave almost nothing. You will get some recognizeable pieces, but most of the wings will dissapear. When I said "cartoon like impact" I was talking about how everyone is looking for the perfect shape of an airplane with two wings to either side, the tail going up, etc. There was no engine hole on the right side, because the engine seperated before impact. When it hit the generator outside the building it pushed the wing up, and the engine seperated and exploded. The left engine probably seperated at impact as well, as that's what they are designed to do, and could have entered the building through the hole created by the fuselage.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 One of the engines impacted a very large generator, and exploded. The other one went through the wall.

Really. So an engine, travelling at 460 mph, hits a large generator and explodes. The 460 mph of forward momentum that this 6 ton engine has is all gone when it hits a generator and then, what......it goes poof on the spot??? 6 tons travelling at 460 mph will turn into confetti around the generator instead of partly breaking up and continuing forward for a few feet? Apparently that generator was spun sideways. It's not like it moved a few feet forward until it completely stopped/exploded the supposed engine. If anything, it got pushed aside, right? Yet you claim that the engine went poof and was then gone from existence once it hit that generator. Leaving aside basic laws of physics (where you claim that 6 tons going 460 mph, upon hitting a large generator simply explode on the spot), where are the 6 tons of engine parts? Shouldn't most of them be around somewhere?

I didn't say that, so please don't put words in my mouth. The momentum of the engine would have changed to a more upward trajectory, and when it exploded it would have lost most of it's 6 ton weight, and blown into smaller pieces. There would have been a few large pieces, ie compressor hub, combustion chamber, but a large portion of the engine would have broken apart, and gone more upward and forward.

Originally posted by defcon5 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.

The engine shearing off, insted of exploding on the spot as Zaphod58 claims sounds much more plausible. However, 6 tons going 460 mph still means that despite some breakup, most of the 6 tons will still be moving forward. So where did they go? Where are the engine parts?

What do you think is going to happen on impact with a generator that size? It's going to shear, as designed, and take so much damage that it's going to blow apart. There was at least one engine found in the rubble, I never heard anything about the other one, but I wasn't following this super closely until I came here this year. [edit on 11/16/2005 by Zaphod58]

Where are the wings, and the engine holes in this picture, there should be more since its supposedly from a 747, with 4 engines, bigger wings, etc… Look there are even intact windows right around the impact area... [edit on 11/16/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5 Where are the wings, and the engine holes in this picture, there should be more since its supposedly from a 747, with 4 engines, bigger wings, etc… Look there are even intact windows right around the impact area... [edit on 11/16/2005 by defcon5]

You will never find the things you have stated above that you are looking for. Why? Cause again, There Was No Plane! Just part of the ultimate plan. Explosion my friend. Just explosion. [edit on 16-11-2005 by SkyChild_5]

Did anybody ever had a close look at those 2 huge traffic boards this plane passed -exactly fitting- inbetween, under a 53 degrees impact angle aiming at the building? The "pilot" of that plane had a titbit too much luck that day for my taste. The plane's wings had already clipped a few lamppoles, before traversing diagonally fitting inbetween those boards, so the meticulous readers of this thread know how low it was when it crossed the space inbetween these boards, missing them with a few meters to spare. Have a good look at the satellite pictures with the superimposed flightpath, and you see what I mean. All final flightpath patterns have the imprint of a build-in GPS controlled remote controll mechanism, pre-set on that EXACT spot under that EXACT angle. With those EXACT last 1500 meters flightpath. Any other setting of the GPS'ed last 1000 m flightpath would have resulted in too many, big obstacles in its final approach, or would have forced the plane into making a few impossible corrections in those last few hundred meters, at that speed. Don't loose yourself in myriads of technical titbits regarding engine and airplane specifics, stick to the obvious anomalies. Such as : 1. - The radar avoiding approach patterns of all 4 airplanes (yes, also flight 93 was lost for about 13 minutes due to a radar anomaly in that region, see The 9/11 Commission Report) which were only known to FAA and the Airforce connected officials. 2. - If that plane was steered by a hijacker, why did he not nose dive in the roof of the building at the front entrance without making that idiot turn (he thus seemed to have been confident that he still would not be attacked, from air or ground); or why did he aim at the most difficult place to hit, the first floor; or why did he level off so far in front of the building already, why not dive under a relatively small angle into the facade, he would have had no obstacles at all on the last few hundred meters; or why did he not divebomb the plane into the center courtyard, where he could expect to meet the least heavy walls on its way in. 3. - Why did the plane not get pushed up by the ground effects of the terrain in the last 200 meters, a human hand would have been too slow to correct that effect. A digital brain however can easily manage that, see the movements of a Tomahawk style missile, steered by GPS and ground radar. Any idea how much compressed air bounces back off the soil from a so fast moving airplane at that belly scratching height above it? 4. - Why was that exit hole in the C-ring so damn perfect circular? Were one or more secondary devices used in the ONI room, to leave no room for mistakes? And why were there more sooth stained doors and windows much further back in that ally behind the C-ring wall, far out of reach of any possible fire source from the impact path through the 3 rings? In my humble opinion, Catherder has done an excellent job in this thread by presenting the fact that a big commercial looking airliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11, however he intended to do no more than that, 100% conclusively, at this very moment. He did not touch possible other scenario's including this airliner, he just proved without doubt it was an airliner, and not a military jet, or lone missile, or Global Hawk, or truckbomb, or planted explosives. He did not intend to proof anything like a combination of one of those with that airliner. Such as a Pentagon defensive infrared heatseeking rocket hurling just after the right hand engine of the far too fast and low incoming airliner, and impacting the engine when it hit the transformer trailer a microsecond later. That was the greyish curly smoketrail on one of the five frames of the security gate camera, and that is why the initial explosion cloud on one of the frames was way too white. (Now that is a bit farstretched for y'all, ain't it?). Zaphod53 expects the Pentagon didn't have a defensive shield, well, it does and did.