9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

pepsi78, it does seem that despite logic, some in here will still digress into meaningless details and wild speculation that defies the laws of physics, just so they can make a totally unbelievable claim seem somehow more believable. - 6 tons of engine, horizontally travelling at 460 mph, impact a stationary generator and go poof and disappear right on the spot. No, wait a minute, now they found it a few blocks away - a 500 mph, 2,800 ft/min spiral that levels off and hits a target from miles above can be executed by an Arab that couldn't, according to flight schools one month before 9/11, properly land even a Cessna. Then you see their tactics: - "The plane would have hardly been full of fuel" - "Planes don't usually carry unnecessary fuel anyway" - "cough cough, BS. Pilots love to add some extra fuel" or - "an inexperienced flunky did a 500 mph, 2,800 ft/min spiral, levelled off a few feet above the ground and hit his target from miles above? You expect me to believe that?" - "who said anything about a few feet? He may have levelled off a couple of hundred of feet before" !!!! Priceless, simply priceless. Yep, irrelevant tactics and obfuscations 100%

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.

These pictures tend to be a bit of a give away: 911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Aris pepsi78, it does seem that despite logic, some in here will still digress into meaningless details and wild speculation that defies the laws of physics, just so they can make a totally unbelievable claim seem somehow more believable.

And this is relevant how exactly? But way to just start throwing things out against other members.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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.

I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You said that the engine didn't hit the wall because it exploded when it hit the generator. Now, when 6 tons, travelling at 460 mph, impact a generator which thus spins to the side, what happens to the 6 tons? The only thing you said was that it explodes on the spot. Now you add that indeed the damaged engine would still move forward. As far as upwards is concerned, you would have to know the precise dimensions of the aircraft which you don't and the exact angle of impact which you don't. It may have very well moved forward and sideways. Furthermore, upward is way too general. Upward, depending on the angle and position of impact, could be 100 feet or 1 foot. So to say that there's no damage to the wall because the engine exploded with the scarce remaining wreckage flung over the wall is not only speculation, it's a real stretch of the laws of physics. Those 6 tons didn't simply explode on the generator, as you try to make it seem. They spun that generator off to the side and kept moving forward. That's what 6 tons moving horizontally at 460 mph will do, even to a generator and CatHerder's thesis admits this. So, again, where's the starboard engine's wreckage? And BTW, even when something explodes from impact (and not only combustion/detonation), most of its mass does not vaporize, my friend, it's still mostly around somewhere, albeit as wreckage. So where is it? edit to correct italics format [edit on 16/11/2005 by Aris]

Originally posted by defcon5 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]

Looks similar? Maybe if I apply the same vivid imagination that you guys are applying, namely, the type that believes that an inexperienced Arab that couldn't land a Cessna managed to pull off that maneuver, well then yes, I guess that looks similar. Yep, the more I look at those pics, the more I believe you guys found the wreckage of two 757 engines

Originally posted by defcon5

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.

Sorry to burst your bubble as well, defcon5, but I hardly brought up the fuel load nor did I make any relevant claims and questions. That was Zaphod58. Furthermore, I didn't even disagree with him. And no, I did not miss your post re: fuel costs. It is besides the point and has been a non-issue all along. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that the point's issue is whether I believe that the plane that hit the Pentagon was almost empty or a little more than almost empty and also whether when one says that planes usually fill up only as much as needed, that they mean they take barely enough fuel to land on fumes, as it were.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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...

Helllllooooo! We're talking about the engines of Flight 77 all this time, if you haven't noticed. Why are you trotting out evidence from another crash? Or are you just rambling and pulling meaningless evidence out of your. So, for like the tenth time, where's the starboard engine's debris?

Originally posted by AgentSmith

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.

These pictures tend to be a bit of a give away: 911research.wtc7.net...

More meaningless evidence from a meaningless crash.....

Well GEE, maybe because the debris going through the WTC and coming out the other side came up when Pepsi said this was the only crash where the debris came out the other side, and when the WTC was brought up, you said "Oh really? Ecidence?"

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Aris pepsi78, it does seem that despite logic, some in here will still digress into meaningless details and wild speculation that defies the laws of physics, just so they can make a totally unbelievable claim seem somehow more believable.

And this is relevant how exactly? But way to just start throwing things out against other members.

Of course it is relevant. It summarizes what the counterarguments and tactics are in here. I even elaborated with examples of such tactics When someone's argument defies physics and simple logic, and when someone resorts to tactics of meaningless digression and obfuscation, it is most constructive to single out such transgressions from the debate.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Well GEE, maybe because the debris going through the WTC and coming out the other side came up when Pepsi said this was the only crash where the debris came out the other side, and when the WTC was brought up, you said "Oh really? Ecidence?"

You are correct and I apologize. Responding to 2-3 people simultaneously within dozens of paragraphs, debating three different points simultaneously while others add new posts, thus evolving the argument faster than you can catch up to them all, and I thought at that moment that you were talking about the Pentagon crash. Apologies to you and AgentSmith. I did however ask for evidence of where the starboard engine went at the Pentagon and no one has satisfactorily answered that yet in a believable manner.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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.

Since you brought up the tail, what happened to that anyway? Did it go the way of the starboard engine and disappear as well?

At the Pentagon? It most likely got caught in the explosion and exploded with the rest of the fuselage. Or could have gone into the building, or if you look at the security camera footage, something goes up over the building, it could be the tail. Most likely though it blew up with the fuselage.

If the tail flew over the Pentagon, they would have found it on the other side but there doesn't seem to be a tail anywhere. So, not only is the starboard engine's wreckage nowhere to be found, not only are the wings' wreckage nowhere to be found, the tail's wreckage is nowhere to be found either, eh. Hmmm, does all this put together sound believable to you? 63 of the 64 supposed passengers' DNA was nicely matched by the gov't despite this explosion that vaporized the wings, the tail, the engines, the fuselage, basically the entire plane?? 63 of 64 passengers' DNA samples were found but an entire 757 has basically disappeared? How does that square with you?

It didn't "vaporize" them, it tore them into pieces that weren't recognizeable as being those parts anymore.

To respond, I will copy/paste what I told CatHerder about this point because it is completely specific: "I have seen pictures of numerous airline crashes that impacted solid objects at highly excessive speeds and they had much, much more debris. In comparison, the Pentagon crash site has next to nothing and not the "a lot of debris" you claim to see. For example, this crash is an Airbus A310-324 that plunged into a field at an 80 degree nose-down steep dive. Now, imagine an aircraft screaming to the ground at an 80 degree nose-down angle. One would think that it is doing well in excess of 400mph at impact, wouldn’t one? I mean it’s doing 200 KIAS going on 250 while climbing to 10,000 ft. One would also think that upon hitting the field which must be much more solid than the Pentagon, it would be pulverized in a similar "Pentagon crash" fashion eh? No identifiable parts except perhaps the nose gear, odd titanium engine parts and the rest is shredded confetti, a la Pentagon, right? Now, Look at that picture of that A310 that did an 80 degree nose-down impact in a field and tell me if you see anything more, much more than you can see at the Pentagon. So, Zaphod58, as you can see in that link, an 80 degree nose-down impact still left all kinds of discernable wreckage, never mind the unrecognizable wreckage that you assert, which doesn't even exist in any pictures of the Pentagon crash anyway. An 80 degree nose down crash leaves all kinds of recognizable wreckage but at the Pentagon you say that nothing would remain other than unrecognizable pieces of metal. Let me even give you the benefit of the doubt and concur that no part would remain recognizable. Where are all these non-recognizable parts? Where is this confetti? You see an airplane-turned-confetti anywhere in the Pentagon crash? Do you see 50 or so tons of unrecognizable parts anywhere? Fifty or so pounds maybe, so to speak, but nowhere near 50 odd tons that should be scattered like confetti eh.

Originally posted by Aris

Originally posted by defcon5 Looks similar to this:

Looks similar? Maybe if I apply the same vivid imagination that you guys are applying, namely, the type that believes that an inexperienced Arab that couldn't land a Cessna managed to pull off that maneuver, well then yes, I guess that looks similar.

I never said it was the exact same part, I said similar. If you were not just scraping to try and continue an argument then perhaps you would realize from the stapler in the picture that this component is smaller then the one on the 757, and therefore so are the holes in the sides of it. I would have to guess that the one in this photo is for a personal jet or a military jet. The structure is similar though, is it not?

Originally posted by Aris Then you see their tactics: - "The plane would have hardly been full of fuel" - "Planes don't usually carry unnecessary fuel anyway" - "cough cough, BS. Pilots love to add some extra fuel"

So what does this prove? Two of these posts where from Zaphod and one from me. I believe that Zaphods experience is more in the military where fuel cost is not an issue and mine is civilian. There is no disparity when you look at it from that view point. Taking posts from two different people and acting like they are conflicting statements made by one person is trolling at a whole new level IMHO.

Originally posted by Aris have seen pictures of numerous airline crashes that impacted solid objects at highly excessive speeds and they had much, much more debris. In comparison, the Pentagon crash site has next to nothing and not the "a lot of debris" you claim to see

Somewhere in this thread is a movie of an F-4 or some fighter hitting a wall at high speed and literally disappearing. I suggest you find that video and check out what we are trying to explain to you. As another example, have you ever seen the old footage from the first failed mercury missions were the rocket literally just disappears into the ground in a fireball? [edit on 11/16/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5 Somewhere in this thread is a movie of an F-4 or some fighter hitting a wall at high speed and literally disappearing. I suggest you find that video and check out what we are trying to explain to you. As another example, have you ever seen the old footage from the first failed mercury missions were the rocket literally just disappears into the ground in a fireball?

That's true but did the F-4 punch through the wall and leave a nice neet round hole, as well as disapearing?

Actually it was about a 20 foot concrete wall designed for use around a Nuclear Reactor, not a kevlar reinforced concrete wall. So I certainly hope it didn't.

It is irelevant. In my opinion it can not go and reach the other side and put a nice round hole and the end too. The engines could not do that the fuselage can not do that. So how does it penetrate a distance that far in to reiforced concrete. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]