9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by ANOK I might be wrong but I thought clocks in government building, especialy buildings like the pentagoon, were conected electricly to a standard so they all read the same?

Yeah, Slave and Master clocks. Like public schools. But I feel this clock should have been on time with the rest of the world, being it was in the office of a military person. It is widely believed that the "time" of the the whole event holds a lot of the key answers.

That was what I thought, gov clocks slaved to a master like your computer clock. I didn't mean just in the pentagoon. For example the white 'trash' house and the pentagoon etc. clocks would be slaved to a master somewhere (?) and should read the same time. So the clock angle IS important however much the 'official' story supporters want to call it irrelivant details. So many 2+2's here but I guess some people can't add. Their masters must be so proud of their work.

That was what I thought, gov clocks slaved to a master like your computer clock. I didn't mean just in the pentagoon. For example the white 'trash' house and the pentagoon etc. clocks would be slaved to a master somewhere (?) and should read the same time.

Most of the clocks I've seen i government offices are cheap battery powered (though sometimes plug in) clocks that aren't connected to anything other than the wall. I've seen the time on clocks in various offices vary quite a bit.

Hats off to you maan.............CatHerder. this clearly shows that u r keen observer and u have great qualities of arranging related data and making out sense.........ur article has shown the true side of the incidence and that proved that u r the man............ ROCK ON !!!!!!!!!!

yeah! catherder, u r da man. we r like wow with all ur like wow. wow, what a fabulous noncontribution to this already encyclopedic thread. say, new guy, why do think they won't release the videos from surveillance cams? isn't justice supposed to be 'swift'? is not 'time of the essence' in legal matters? what happened to the engines? why did they not have their own punch through holes? forward momentum of the wings and engines would have to be REVERSED by the impact of the fusleage. how did the wings manage to 'hold on' to the fuselage under these EXTREME stresses? you see, they would have to act as though 'hinged' to the fuselage in order to fold back, and somehow enter a hole that is smaller than they are. yeah, catherder. ur 'the man'.

I love how every one of the "believers" just completely avoid the question of "Where did the two jet engines go?" I have heard idiotic ocmments like "that's what they carried off in the box." WTF? You mean to tell me that eight men carried of more than 6 tons of steel away in one box! That's amazing. I guess that due to the ultralight weight of these amazing new engines they just bounced off of the side of the building without doing any damage at all. I also love the breakaway dissapearing wings that were engineered specifically for this missile, uh sorry, jet. You people need to start thinking for yourselves and stop buying the lies from this administration.

And have you ever seen the inside of an engine, or what happens to one after a crash? They're not 6 tons anymore. Lots of pieces of engine breakaway, explode, etc.

Especially when they are running at maximum RPM when they hit a solid object. No frozen chicken needed. The blades are fairly fragile and will shatter.

There should still be signs of the engine casing IMO. I don't know about that particular engine but the ones I worked on, (T-56 Turbo-props NEC 6418), where pretty damned heavy. Not lightweight and fragile as you like to think.

High bypass turbofans are like 80% air. The biggest part of the engine in the fan section, with a tiny engine deep in the center of it. The first time I saw an open CFM-56 that the KC-135R uses I was amazed at how tiny it was. It was less than 6 feet long and 3 feet high. And that's a pretty huge engine to look at with everything closed up.

A Licensed Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic:

Regarding Sarah Roberts "report"...I call it a bunch of 'nonsense'. For you see, I wanna know where the chunks of >>TWO

The AE3007 and JT8D don't look anything alike. IF it's a JT8D then what was it? There's nothing out there that only has one engine that uses a JT8, and there aren't many flying that still even USE a JT8. And it CERTAINLY wasn't an A-3 as claimed if that's a JT8. The A-3 used the JT3D/J57. Did you look at the size of that "engine" compared to the person and the car next to it? The JT8D is NOT that big. Good lord that thing is huge! Look at these pics of 727s, 737s, and DC-9s. All use the JT8D. Compare the tiny little engines (with the exception of the 737, however most of that is exhaust cowling to extend past the wing and empty.) Boeing 727 Pan Am 727 Boeing 737 737 Douglas DC-9 DC-9 Notice how SMALL all of thsoe JT8Ds are? Now for the AE3007 AE2007 And at the same time, possibly explain how it is that the object in the video that was released was figured out to be travelling at about 500mph, but the top speed of the Global Hawk is less than 400mph. [edit on 1/23/2006 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 High bypass turbofans are like 80% air. The biggest part of the engine in the fan section, with a tiny engine deep in the center of it. The first time I saw an open CFM-56 that the KC-135R uses I was amazed at how tiny it was. It was less than 6 feet long and 3 feet high. And that's a pretty huge engine to look at with everything closed up.

I know what an engine looks like out of the air frame, I was an 'I' level mech. I didn't work on them in the airframe, they were on engine stands. I worked test cells, helo rotar heads, APU's, I've been around enough to know something isn't adding up. Size has nothing to do with it, the engine casing is still the strongest part of the engine whether it's 6x3 or 60x30. And that casing is strong, they don't just disintagrate. The may break apart with enough force at the joints but IMO you would still have reasonably large pieces lying around. There were thin aluminum unmarked pieces of the airframe on the grass, you're saying it was normal for that to happen? But not pieces of far stronger and heavier engine casings. With two engines AND the APU, their should be recognisable pieces of engine casing AT LEAST IMO.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Oh, and while you're at it, maybe you can explain how a Global Hawk with a top speed of under 400 mph was travelling at 500mph at impact? I'd like to know that one.

How do we know what speed it was at impact? I though it was just a guess? I've heard everything from 350 to 500, so do we have definitive proof of it's speed at contact? Also the top speed quoted is usualy in level flight at sea level, this splane was in a dive, no? So it could possibly have been doing over 400?

500mph was based on the object in the video that was released. I believe it was figured to be travelling at 504mph. The aerodynamics for a Global Hawk are all wrong for it to anywhere NEAR that fast, even in a dive, unless is was going nearly vertical.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 500mph was based on the object in the video that was released. I believe it was figured to be travelling at 504mph. The aerodynamics for a Global Hawk are all wrong for it to anywhere NEAR that fast, even in a dive, unless is was going nearly vertical.

Not sure if it's the same for the Hawk but you know quoted speeds for miltary aircraft is often bellow true max speed. And you are an expert on airframes? Show me something that shows a Global Hawk airframe would break up over 400 mph. Also if 400 IS the top speed do you really think they would run a plane at that speed when it's airframe is close to failure? The airframe should be able to handle well above the aircrafts top speed, otherwise, as happens in the F-14 it's airframe would sustain damage everytime they flew it at it's max. What a design screw up that would be [edit on 23/1/2006 by ANOK]

Just LOOK at the Global Hawk. Anyone that knows aerodynamics can tell that it's designed for slow flight and loitering over an area. That's why it has big straight long wings. It's designed to fly for over 40 hours without refueling. You don't get long endurance and high speed in the same design. The U-2 is a similar design, and it has 15 knots between stalling and breaking up. The shape of the plane tells you the mission it's designed to do. A big straight flat wing like the Hawk has means slow loitering flight. ANY design with a wing like that won't get a high top speed without breaking up. So you're saying that the can sustain well ABOVE their top speed? Then why is that their top speed? Wouldn't the speed they can withstand be their top speed? Also, how many times do you see them going their top speed? Even when they DO fly their ultimate top speed, it's only for limited times. [edit on 1/23/2006 by Zaphod58]

But we're talking about 100 MPH, that's nothing. The airframe HAS to withstand higher speeds than stated top speed. Top speed doesn't mean the fastest possible it will go but the fastest it will safely go, and there is always headroom. And how long was it at 500 mph? Not long right? It didn't sustain that speed for very long at all, it was still excelerating when it hit. Anyway that calculation might not even be right, you are too quick to just believe what the official story is telling us. And how do we know they didn't build a special version, or of course just modify a different A/C altogether and remote fly it. This is quite possible, no? But the point is we don't have to prove what hit, only that a 757 didn't. And I don't think a 757 did. [edit on 23/1/2006 by ANOK]

The other thing to remember about top speed is that it's usually figured out under perfect conditions, altitude, and aircraft weight. The actual aircraft aren't going to fly that fast, especially when they're carrying a full load of fuel and weapons.

Man you are reaching so hard. Why would the Hawk, if it was one, be fully fuelled and loaded down with weapons? What ever way you spin it, it could have been a Hawk or other remote A/C, couldn't it? I'm not saying it was just that the possibility is there and to disagree that it's possible, using stupid nonsence that might fool a person who knows nothing about A/C is just ignorant IMO. At least admit it could have been, can you do that? Or do you not care other than winning an argument? I know the nature of people, Americans especially, is too win at any cost. You all can't stand to lose. So you all grab at anything you can to prevent apearing the loser. That's why you pick at the most lame parts of the argument, so you feel like you're winning. But guess what bud, you're not. At least 70% of this boards members think it was an inside job. Most ppl can see the BS for what it is. Wake up people, the truth is slapping you in the face but you are in denial that you feel any pain.