9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

You're kidding right? That's an El Al cargo plane that crashed in the middle of Amsterdam, if that's the crash I think it is. There was TONS of evidence that there WAS a plane, including the huge tail that remained intact that was sticking up in the middle of the debris field.

Um, it's Zaphod58 thanks, and prove to me it does. Where are the defensive radars? Where are the missile launchers? You aren't going to be able to hide those things from sattelite pictures, they're REALLY obvious. If you put them underground, the radar won't work, because the ground will absorb it, and your response time will be the biggest joke you've ever seen, and a MANPADS system won't have enough of a warhead to stop a 757 travelling at that speed.

no aris that is not all they said and i am not troling. They dont know how to lose. Arguing agaist your own opinion. And now suddenly the engens can do all that. Statement by Zaphod58

Have you ever seen what happens to an engine after a bird goes through it? It's totally destroyed

statement by Zaphod58

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?

statement by defcon5

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.

by defcon5

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

Reinforced concrete This is what 1 engine based on your statements had to go thru. My opinion is that the boeing coud be made out of plastic and to you it would be the same, it wont matter. So again how did a engine based on u'r passed statements does that? [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78] [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

An engine that takes a bird strike WILL be totally destroyed, but structurally intact. It was still hanging on the wing, and you could see it was an engine, but the fan blades, and other parts were destroyed. You're not going to get the engine back in service just by putting cowling back on and starting the engine again. Most of the rings of the Pentagon were damaged by the fuselage going through it. The engine wouldn't have had to punch through intact walls, but damaged ones.

The problem is that the fuselage will not penetrate that deep. When it crashes it's just parts that splaterd all over but it will not go that far so fuselage wont do it. Be honest and look at the picture. And dont say the engine did it all the way based on u'r statement it cant. Only a missle would be able to penetrate that a bunker buster or something similar. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

My opinion and it is only my and no one has to agree with it is that a smaller plane capabile to lauch missles crashed in to it. It may have been a plane but some other type. Number 1 A small part of the engine would do that but a hole engine will not leave distinctive maks on the first impact? If the fuselage made it's way almost at the end and the engine did the rest than the hole on the first impact should be much biger. number 2 fuselage will not create a hole like a tunel because it will splater it is very fragile. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78] [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78] [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78] [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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]

So you are saying that a couple of hundred of feet leeway is sufficient for a totally inexperienced newbie to maneuver in when pulling out of a 500 mph, 2,800 ft/min downward spiral in a 757??? With a rate of descent of 2,800 ft/min, that's 46.7 ft/sec. So those couple of hundred of feet of leeway translate into 4-5 seconds. This inexperienced, barely passable newbie pilot timed his spiral accurately within 5 seconds while going 500 while most importantly maintaining a lock on his target??? "Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes." Now, if you are going to further imply that perhaps it wasn't a uniform descent but rather that the pilot was already coming out of his steep dive when near the bottom of the spiral, that means that if the average rate of descent is 2,800 ft but is steeper at the top, he would be making half (or so) of that spiral at over 3,000 ft/min, more like 4,000 ft/min. Either way you slice it, Zaphod58, it's still baloney. A totally inexperienced pilot, pulling off a controlled 320 degree, 500 mph, 3-4,000 ft/min spiral and accurately hitting his ground target, aiming from miles above with a 757 sounds pretty unbelievable. More to the point than your couple of hundred feet leeway that you bring up to justify the believability of your support is the fact that top gov't officials are on record stating that the pilot had "better flying skills than many investigators first believed" for this "so smooth, complex maneuver". Well now, this Arab failed the first time around, you say. He passed the second time around, you say. He was totally inexperienced yet, because the plane was not 160 tons but rather 80 and because he may have pulled out of his dive a couple of hundred feet above the ground instead of 20, well he certainly could have performed it! Zaphod58, you watch too many cartoons and Hollywood movies. Let's look at some sources: "And each aircraft performed dramatic but carefully executed course corrections, including a stunning last maneuver by flight 77." - Time.com ""At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. - CBS News.com Sounds like everybody's describing that pilot as quite an ace, eh. Let's continue with the sources: "At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane. However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons." - newsday.com That was about one month before 9/11, Zaphod58. To continue: "The Freeway instructors also were skeptical of Hanjour's skills. 'They told me he flew so poorly that they were not willing to give him an endorsement to fly our planes,' Bernard said. Hanjour's two instructors did not return calls and were not home Sunday, but Ann Conner, the mother of one of them, said her 19-year-old son, Benjamin, went aloft twice with Hanjour. They flew the school's routine flight path - half-hour to hour-long segments in oblong loops over the airport - and did not stray into restricted airspace over the Pentagon, flight instructor Bernard said. Hanjour's 'piloting skills were terrible, considering' he was licensed to fly multi-engine planes, Ann Conner said..." - The Washington Post Go ahead and continue about your 40 tons give or take, your 200 feet give or take, go ahead all you want, Zaphod58. Anyone with a critical mind who reads all this will certainly find it quite a stretch that Hanjour pulled off that maneuver with a 757. Never mind "quite a stretch", impossible is more like it.

Aris i agree, no one would be able to pull that turn the plane would just crash. All indications will point to something smaller that had mounted someting on hi explosive misles maybe [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 An engine that takes a bird strike WILL be totally destroyed, but structurally intact.

That's a bit of a stretch, as a jet engine mechanic for 6 yrs I saw the effects of bird strikes and I didn't see one that totaly destroyed an engine. Maybe a major strike like a flock of large birds might. And don't forget most of the weight and strength is in the engine casing, not the compression blades and stuff. That's what should have stayed somewhat intact. I'm not talking about the airframe you see hanging off the wing but the actual engine case. For example a compressor engine caseing... [edit on 16/11/2005 by ANOK]

And I saw a few that has most of the turbine blades punched out or have to be replaced, several other parts that were filled with blood and have to be replaced, and basically have to be completely rebuilt other than the major portions, like the cumbustion chamber, and turbine. I have a good pic of one that was wiped out by a vulture, but nowhere to post it right now, or I'd put it up.

pepsi78 Here check this I made it much simpler for you… Light Blue = Aircraft aluminum, and would be destroyed or ripped into small pieces. Yellow = Blades are meant to be destroyed by impact. Red = Mounting, compressor, main shaft, etc… these could possibly survive. Green = Cowling, defiantly would be history. Now of course this is simplified there are many small components on the inside of the cowling, which may survive. Some of the compressor fans may not, but generally red are tougher parts. NOW lets see how much area that there is between the cowling and the compressors on a 757 engine that is MOSTLY blades. www.physics911.net..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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.

So what do they do, instantly vaporize?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Zaphod58, but no discernable engines, engine parts or wreckage have ever been positively identified. CatHerder's claim that a "small turbine engine outside is an APU that 757s equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines have", aside from not being a claim for engines 1 or 2, is also a baseless, unsubstantiated claim with no supporting evidence. I researched and thoroughly debunked this on page 106: "According to Karl Schwarz, a technical editor at Flug Revue, a German magazine about aviation equipment, it could be the solid disc found behind the front fan of any turbofan jet engine. Furthermore, according to American Free Press, Martin Johnson, head of communications at Rolls Royce in Derby, England, declined to identify the disc or to assist in this issue’s resolution (referral to Honeywell for eg)." So all you've got is one solid disc. Where are the engines? Where's their wreckage? Where are the turbines, the compressor blades and combustion chambers? Shouldn't they be somewhere, at least twisted and broken up? Well where are they? Seen any evidence of any of that? No? Oops.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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]

The fan blades didn't disappear, though, did they? They broke up and went somewhere, right? So where are Flight 77's damaged and broken engine parts?

Originally posted by Aris So what do they do, instantly vaporize? The fan blades didn't disappear, though, did they? They broke up and went somewhere, right?

At that speed, light metal like that would be turned into confetti. It would be in tiny pieces mixed in with all the rubble from the building. Isn't this part of the compressor assembly? Looks similar to this: [edit on 11/16/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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.

Wrongo, Zaphod58. Let's be precise, shall we. You are making wild, speculative claims. Problem #1: It is alleged that the starboard engine hit a generator. Even if so, you still have not demonstrated how 6 tons travelling at 460 mph can defy physics and go poof on the spot, disappearing instead of moving forward broken up. Problem #2: The portside engine has never been identified, much less "found in the rubble of the building" as you speculate.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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.

Is there any relevance to you and defcon beating irrelevant details to death? I said that planes will take off with the minimum amount of fuel necessary. This obviously includes reserve fuel, unless you are trying to make it seem that I said they calculate it so as to land on fumes defcon5 calls what I said BS because "pilots love to add on an extra coupla thousand lbs". So what does that do, Zaphod58, does it refute my claim that "planes will take off with the minimum fuel required" for their journey? Boys, when someone says that planes take on only as much fuel as necessary to get to their destination, it means they do just that instead of filling 'er up with unnecessary fuel. 2,000 extra lbs for safety is not what I was talking about. I was talking about filling up half the tanks instead of two thirds, let's say, when half will do. When you fly from NY to Boston, you won't fill the tanks so as to be able to reach LA. That was my point. Minimum fuel = exact calculations plus a little leeway. My point, which is that they don't just fill em up unnecessarily, still stands. The only thing you and defcon5 are showing on this point, is that you don't have a valid rebuttal anywhere and are simply resorting to tactics such as "no they don't! They don't take on just minimum fuel, they like to add a little extra", just so you can make yourselves believe that you refuted what I said by saying something different when in fact, we are, for all intents and purposes, saying the same thing. Such debating is childish, my friends.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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]

Really. Evidence, please.

Originally posted by defcon5 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]

Jesus H. Christ, guys. Stop losing your perspective. This point started when Zaphod58 said that Flight 77 would probably be running close to empty when it impacted. At the very least, he said, it would hardly be full of fuel. I never disagreed with this, I only complemented what he said by adding that planes usually take on a calculated fuel load instead of mindlessly topping up. So, who gives a crap whether a pilot adds on an extra couple of thousand of lbs or whether gas is cheaper so they take the opportunity to top up in such a circumstance. Zaphod58's point was that it was probably closer to empty than full, given the high speed flight and distance. I didn't disagree and simply clarified that it probably wasn't full to begin with, since they usually don't top them up anyway. So, please tell me why the heck you two are even pointlessly digressing on this? To me it seems that it is simply a tactic to discredit what I said, which you have hardly done anyway.

Originally posted by Aris Is there any relevance to you and defcon beating irrelevant details to death?

I think that we are just answering questions posed to us. Where the whole fuel thing started was something I believe that you brought up, was it not?

Originally posted by Aris Boys, when someone says that planes take on only as much fuel as necessary to get to their destination, it means they do just that instead of filling 'er up with unnecessary fuel. 2,000 extra lbs for safety is not what I was talking about. I was talking about filling up half the tanks instead of two thirds, let's say, when half will do. When you fly from NY to Boston, you won't fill the tanks so as to be able to reach LA. That was my point. Minimum fuel = exact calculations plus a little leeway. My point, which is that they don't just fill em up unnecessarily, still stands. The only thing you and defcon5 are showing on this point, is that you don't have a valid rebuttal anywhere and are simply resorting to tactics such as "no they don't! They don't take on just minimum fuel, they like to add a little extra", just so you can make yourselves believe that you refuted what I said by saying something different when in fact, we are, for all intents and purposes, saying the same thing.

I am guessing that you missed my post about the cost of fuel at different stations. I think I might know just a tad about it since I used to do some fueling down here.

Originally posted by Aris

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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]

Really. Evidence, please.

One of the few, if only, official documents detailing the remains of the aircraft is FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It documents some aircraft parts that passed entirely through the buildings, landing some distance away. FEMA reported the following parts were recovered from Flight 175: * Part of the fuselage on the roof of Building 5 * A piece of landing gear on a building three blocks north of the WTC * An engine on Church Street three blocks north of the WTC 911research.wtc7.net...