9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Uh, Wrong. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. NORAD DOES NOT automatically send fighters to intercept planes that go off course. Even if they DID in this case, by the time they could GET THERE, the plane would have hit the Pentagon long before. NORAD ONLY scrambled fighters at the FAA request, and that took a long time before getting to them.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Boeing 757 pictures: 757 Another 757 Yet another 757 Here's another one One more Notice how tall the nose gear is in all of these pictures, then compare it to your "757" picture. It's too short the last picture you posted. 767 It looks morel ike this in your picture.

Would you like a magnifying glass for those hairs you are splitting? What is such a big deal about that bottom picture? How can you tell all this from that tiny picture and why is it important to you? I can say this. Mr. Russell Pickering was way more knwledgeable about the Pentagon than you appear to be. So I will have to go with Mr. Pickering on this very unimportant, irrelevant, and trivial piece of info you have brought up.

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp Would you like a magnifying glass for those hairs you are splitting? What is such a big deal about that bottom picture? How can you tell all this from that tiny picture and why is it important to you? I can say this. Mr. Russell Pickering was way more knwledgeable about the Pentagon than you appear to be. So I will have to go with Mr. Pickering on this very unimportant, irrelevant, and trivial piece of info you have brought up.

Just look at the angle of the bottom of the fuselage, its remains almost a straight line on the757, but is a large curve on the 767 in the other Picture. If Mr. Pickering cannot tell the difference between these planes, then how great a source can he be? magnifying glass? Huh....No..

Well it has something to do with disinformation being spread by an "expert" who told you that what you're looking at is something it obviously isn't. This so called "expert" on the Pentagon Incident can't even tell a 757 from any other plane. Sounds like someone that made up their mind that it wasn't a 757 before doing their "research" [edit on 1/12/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Well it has something to do with disinformation being spread by an "expert" who told you that what you're looking at is something it obviously isn't.

This so called "expert" on the Pentagon Incident can't even tell a 757 from any other plane. Sounds like someone that made up their mind that it wasn't a 757 before doing their "research" [edit on 1/12/2006 by Zaphod58]

Oh my god. Talk about reaching. Now you are just fabricating information and hoping it flies. You are calling it "disinfo". How so? A frickin' plane misidentified (according to you) qualifies as "disinfo". All this gathered from a small image of just the nose end of the plane. Amazing. Was all that little build-up about the plane supposed to result in a crescendo of discrediting? Please. You want to talk about disinformation. Start with Catherder's original post. So far this expert is right. Because all you've proved is... "Gee wiz, um that ain't a 757 because I thinks the landing gear is too short." -So what's your point? "Um, gee well, it means everything you are presenting is 'disinformation'." Why don't you come with some actual proof about support this SILLY argument of yours. Like the original image with the type of plane it is attached. Until then. You just seem silly.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp Would you like a magnifying glass for those hairs you are splitting? What is such a big deal about that bottom picture? How can you tell all this from that tiny picture and why is it important to you? I can say this. Mr. Russell Pickering was way more knwledgeable about the Pentagon than you appear to be. So I will have to go with Mr. Pickering on this very unimportant, irrelevant, and trivial piece of info you have brought up.

Just look at the angle of the bottom of the fuselage, its remains almost a straight line on the757, but is a large curve on the 767 in the other Picture. If Mr. Pickering cannot tell the difference between these planes, then how great a source can he be? magnifying glass? Huh....No..

I am starting to notice a pattern here. You guys are too funny ___________ at work. (You fill in the blanks)

Well I am just too sorry that your great aircraft expert cannot tell the difference between to different aircraft, that throws his whole “expert” label into question in my mind.

Originally posted by defcon5 Well I am just too sorry that your great aircraft expert cannot tell the difference between to different aircraft, that throws his whole “expert” label into question in my mind.

See. I have been watching this thread for a while. It would behoove to NOT do what you ARE doing. It makes things more obvious. First. I said Russell Pickering was an expert on the Pentagon, not aircraft. I would have to assume, since he was so detailed and UNBIASED in the presenting of his info, that his information is correct. His site, was actually niether a pro-757 site nor a no-757 site. He simply presented all the info and his take on it. It honestly leaned in neither direction. I notice you guys do a lot of attacking on here. Is that par for the course with you guys? Is that how things at ATS are done?

If you're gonna present information for either side, or even for neither side of the argument, at least make sure you either know what you're talking about, or verify your information is correct, even small things like identifying a plane. I've had times when I posted something that was the tiniest bit off, and the "other side" jumped all over it and ripped into me. So now I expect the same standard from either side of an argument.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 If you're gonna present information for either side, or even for neither side of the argument, at least make sure you either know what you're talking about, or verify your information is correct, even small things like identifying a plane. I've had times when I posted something that was the tiniest bit off, and the "other side" jumped all over it and ripped into me. So now I expect the same standard from either side of an argument.

Are you for real? Haven't we actually spent more than 5 posts on this already? Trust me. I know what I am talking about. I've been watching people flounder on this thread for months. I am here to help present "correct information". And so far. That is a 757. And your "opinion" has been noted. So now, let's move on.

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp I am here to help present "correct information".

Well you’re off to a grand start with two blatant errors in your first post. That’s without even looking at it very closely. I still cannot figure out what the last photo was supposed to show…

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp I am here to help present "correct information".

Well you’re off to a grand start with two blatant errors in your first post. That’s without even looking at it very closely. I still cannot figure out what the last photo was supposed to show…

Yup, the top of the page says it all. Where are these two "blatant errors" my delusional friend? Hahaha. You guys are in self destruct mode now. Am I supposed to battle it out with you guys, til you get me so riled up I get myself banned? Is that the program? Look, chief. You haven't proven anything. ANYTHING. You're only point was this picture, which you HAVEN'T H.........A............V..........E..........N.........'T *PROVEN* to be wrong. This is so stupid I can't believe I am even debating this with you. Where is 'blatant error' #2? See. Fabrication. You are providing disinfo, sir. Badly I might add. You're the one who went on about PW2000's and GE CF6-50's. Which have nothing to do with Flt 77, tail number # N644AA. Which was equipped with 2 Rolls Royce RB211's. See, the FAA registration sheet.

CF6-50 The CF6-50 series are high-bypass turbofan engines rated between 46,000 to 54,000 lbf (205 to 240 kN) of thrust. The CF6-50 was developed into the LM2500 industrial and marine turboshaft engines. It was launched in 1969 to power the long range McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30, and was derived from the earlier CF6-6. In late 1969, the CF6-50 was selected to power the then new Airbus A300. Air France became the launch customer for the A300 by ordering six aircraft in 1971. In 1975, KLM was the first airline to order the Boeing 747 powered by the CF6-50. This led further developments to the CF6 family such as the CF6-80.

Nope, no 757 in there.

Pratt & Whitney's PW2000 series engines is a high-bypass turbofan aero engine with a thrust range from 37,000 to 43,000 lbf (165 to 190 kN) built by Pratt & Whitney . It is designed for the Boeing 757. As a 757 powerplant, the engine competes with the Rolls-Royce RB211-535. An improved version launched in 1994, offers better reliability, durability and reduced total maintenance cost, along with excellent environmental performance.

Yup 757's use them. But Flt 77, tail # N644AA *didn't*. You know what's comedy. Is you calling me out on "blatant errors" when this whole thread is based on "blatant errors". Like "This part belongs to an APU". It doesn't. And "Look, here's the other Pentagon engine". It wasn't.

Originally posted by Merc_the_Perp I am starting to notice a pattern here.

So am I. It's called trolling. [edit on 13-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

Look, your first mistake was posting that a site full of mechy’s told you what this disk was, then you posting it without bothering to check what planes those engines go on. Mistaking one plane for another was just an added bonus. Don’t come back with the garbage about how they said “I think”, that is just you trying to cover up your screw up. As far as it being a Rolls Royce engine, prove it. The only airline I ever saw that faithfully used RR engines was BA (British Air). US carriers usually use US engines, such as PW and GE. That is besides the fact that engines are changed out on a regular basis. I am wondering how you seem to have the latest maintenance records on that particular aircraft, hm? That is generally not public record…

Originally posted by Jackson Steward 1.That picture of an L 1011 purporting to demonstrate aircraft structure doesn't demonstrate anything. We have no idea how that plane was being dismantled and the fact that they tore the top off it means nothing.

I believe that you are referring to the picture posted by catherder in the beginning of this thread. I also believe that it was catherder’s intention to demonstrate that the green paint observed on the debris inside the pentagon was consistent with green paint used in other Boeing aircraft.

Originally posted by Jackson Steward 2.The pic with the caption that starts "The next photo..." the nice round hole in the nice brick wall? That one and the next one of the same hole can be scaled by using the "No Parking" sign on the wall. You think you could get a 757 in there? Also: What's that a picture of? If you look at the debris and the structural damage there, the pipes and all that, it's all blown OUTWARD making this look more like an exit wound, you know?

That is because that is exactly what it was. The location where moving debris punched out a hole into the inner service derive of the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Jackson Steward 3.Next, when you look at the headon pic of the 757 to see the diameter of the fuselage, check out the diameter of those monster engines flanking it. If that fuselage made a hole the size of the one described and it's largely hollow and filled with air, what kind of hole are those engines going to make? They are huge chunks of largely titanium and they are connected through the fuselage by a wing spar.

No actually, the engines are mostly hollow and filled with air also. The exterior shroud is much larger than the engine core. The disks are steel alloys, and the fan blades are titanium. The blades are relatively fragile also. When the engine is going at maximum rpm and it hit something, those blades are going to disintegrate into a million pieces. That is why in the picture, the disk doesn’t have any blades still attached to it. Also, the engines are designed to detach from the wings in a crash.

Originally posted by Jackson Steward You have not one but three connected masses striking an area not more than 40 feet long. That's a LOT of kinetic energy focused in a very small area. In the pics mentioned above, wouldn't there be damage on at least one side of that hole?

Are you asking about the punchout?

Originally posted by Jackson Steward 4.I saw a pic of the wall at the Pentagon and it looked like there might have been three impacts, but the area on either side of the center one and the flanking ones was pristine. Where'd that spar go?

Can you repost with the pic?

Originally posted by Jackson Steward 5.Lastly...I gotta tell ya...flying a 757 at that speed over that terrain in those conditions and putting it inside a vertical space that's what, forty feet high? Sweetheart...that's a hell of a bit of flying...low enough to hit a generator in the yard, still high enough not to hit the ground AT ALL... Try that on your Flight Simulator and get back to me! And this from a guy who's never been in the cockpit before?!! Whhooooeeeee!!

Flight Simulator is not the same thing as reality. Since, as you say, you’ve never been in a cockpit before, what qualifies you to make this assessment?

Wait a minute, why would they hit the west wing of the pentagon? It was under renovations (by a few funded pedestrians), why would they do a 180 with a 747 just to hit that spot with such precision. They could have hit the east wing which had Donald Rumsfeld and other top heads. Yet these people can outsmart our military and AA guns and can’t figure out where is the best part of the building to hit? Other sections of the pentagon such as the east wing, has more then 1 thousand people at one time. Oh yea, and there is a Air force base 3 miles away from the pentagon that had at least 3 quadrants of fighter jets that were told to stand down. Why won't they release all the videos? What about the Antiaircraft surrounding the pentagon? They are programmed to destroy anything within airspace that does not have a US Military Friendly transponder. And Wtf is with the trade center collapse? Your telling me that maybe 1000 gallons of fuel can melt the steel structure at the top of the buildings can bring it down at a freefall? And why was it that the only molting steel that was found was in the very base of both the buildings? How does this make since when the impacts happened near the top. Even with the pancake theory, Wtf happened the 47 MASSIVE steel columns that constituted the core of the building? They were the unique feature of the buildings when built. Yet, the 9/11 Commission report denied the existence of the columns.. Wtf is with that? They are claiming that the buildings are completely hollow and made of elevator shafts and stair wells... such a desperate lie. The first building that went down only had fires on 2 stories, yet that was enough to bring the buildings down. And why didn't bush respond as commander and chief and spring into action when he learned of the attacks? Instead he sat there in the classroom. Why would anyone not assume he would or could be a target? Yet he remains to do a broadcast from the school. Why did the members of the bush administration keep referring to the 9/11 attack as an opportunity? One document which is the National security strategy of the USA published by the Bush administration in September 2002, this document asserts as the guiding policy of the US, the right to use military force against any country it believes to be, or believes at some point it may become a threat to American interest. Can we say Bush administration = World domination? Well, there are many unanswered questions. Hopefully within time someone will step forward and bring out the truth. *SNIP* Mod Edit: Removed Previously Removed Text. Mod Note: Never, ever, change a Staff Member's edit. [edit on 14/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Uh, Wrong. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. NORAD DOES NOT automatically send fighters to intercept planes that go off course. Even if they DID in this case, by the time they could GET THERE, the plane would have hit the Pentagon long before. NORAD ONLY scrambled fighters at the FAA request, and that took a long time before getting to them.

God Blesss Beaucracy!

Originally posted by Xain What about the Antiaircraft surrounding the pentagon? They are programmed to destroy anything within airspace that does not have a US Military Friendly transponder.

Right. So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a commercial plane approaching the Pentagon will be shot down. Is this correct? How close can a commercial plane get before this “program” is triggered? 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, 1 mile? A plane traveling 400 mph covers a mile in about 9 seconds.

Originally posted by HowardRoark A plane traveling 400 mph covers a mile in about 9 seconds.

May be true, but they also had some 28 minutes or so from the time the plane did a 180 at the West Virginia/Ohio border. Add to that that the transponders had also been shut off on that plane and there had already been two attacks from planes behaving similarly. I don't know who exactly was working down at the FAA or NORAD or whoever, but somebody sucked.

Knowing people that work in the military and in positions of high responsibility, yes the red tape does suck. And things really can take longer than they should. The biggest problem is you're not dealing with rules in a book like most people think, you're dealing with human beings.