9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by zerocool 100 ft hole.... haha yeah right, thats a laugh a minute that, the hole was about 10 ft wide if that...

Where the heck did you see anything that talked about a 10' hole in the part of the building that the "aircraft" ENTERED the building? The only thing that resembled a 10' hole in the building is on the last wall of the thrird ring near the center of the Pentagon as some part of the aircraft came out.

Ok engine weight... RR....37,400 lbs RB211....40,000 lbs (not sure which it was) Max take-off weight 220,000 lbs (includes engine weight, fuel, passengers etc...) That plane was not maxed out, so lets say it was 180,000 lbs So 180,000 minus the two engines at 37,400 each leaves 105,200 lbs for the aiframe approx which also of course includes the wings, what do they weigh? Cause that also needs to be subtracted from the fuselage weight, seeing as it was only the fuselage that made that hole. And the fuel that burned up on impact, in that fireball would also not count. Your over 200,000 lbs is very quickly losing weight. Also take into consideration the weight distribution, the engines weight is all confined in a small compact mass, the airframe weight is distributed over a much larger area. Plus the engine casings are far stronger than the fuselage is. So Zaphod your little conclusion of a 3 ton engine verses an airframe of over 200,000 lbs isn't quite right, is it? [edit on 21/2/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by kart69 Where the heck did you see anything that talked about a 10' hole in the part of the building that the "aircraft" ENTERED the building? The only thing that resembled a 10' hole in the building is on the last wall of the thrird ring near the center of the Pentagon as some part of the aircraft came out.

You obviously haven't seen the pre-collapse pictures, this is the hole the supposed 757 made... There are better pics of it, but I'm too lazy to look, I'll leave that up to you. [edit on 21/2/2006 by ANOK]

Someone on this thread asked "why would they cover the grass with sand and gravel for no reason when the grass in front of the building was not damaged. Did you ever think that the grassy area would have a problem with all of the vehicles that would be needed. They would tear the whole place up. Think about if it started raining anytime duing the next days and weeks. Every vehicle would get stuck. If you look at the photo of the gravel being placed down, there is a plastic liner with the gravel/sand laid on top. That is a normal process to protect an area from vehicles. Take a look at how they set up a field for arena cross or monter trucks. All these people that believe in these conspirecy theories seem to think that everyone else is close minded. Its the other way around.... The theorist are the ones that are closed minded. They are completly oblivious to anything that shows examples that can explain what happened. They are dead locked on half backed ideas with croped photos, twisted facts, and just plain ingorance. They take the word as gospel from people with other agendas. These other agendas are things like Selling Books, Subscriptions to news letters, Political bashing, and self fulfullment. Does this seem anything like "Blind Faith" without any real proof. In this case there is SO much evidence and explanations that any halfway intelligent person who actually opens his/her mind and read the information on this forum, and the other usless forums on this subject, will realize that the theories are just crap. Those that are not at least halfway intelligent dont matter anyway. They will never be able to form a useful opinion anyway.

Yeah right Kart, got ya So then if you're so smart and we're so dumn, why don't you explain to us all the anomilies that no one else can? I don't have to go to ANY website to see that the official story doesn't add up, not even close. Jeez I love posts like these, really helpfull... [edit on 21/2/2006 by ANOK]

I believe this incident is the same with Fight 93. The lack of remains from the flight are what opens the floor to all these conspiracy theories. But the speed on impact of these flights has to be taken into account. I really see nothing but small peices surviving the impact and explosion, hence the small bits of remains. In the beginning I was abit of a believer on the subject of the pentagon, but now I am accepting what has happened. I still say the government had knowledge of what was going down and did little to prevent it, but these areas of impact were with the planes as stated, and these lives were lost. The question should not be What hit where, it should be who knew what was going to hit where. The true conspiracy is how much did Bush know.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by kart69 Where the heck did you see anything that talked about a 10' hole in the part of the building that the "aircraft" ENTERED the building? The only thing that resembled a 10' hole in the building is on the last wall of the thrird ring near the center of the Pentagon as some part of the aircraft came out.

You obviously haven't seen the pre-collapse pictures, this is the hole the supposed 757 made...

There are better pics of it, but I'm too lazy to look, I'll leave that up to you. [edit on 21/2/2006 by ANOK]

Based on the photo that you included in your post, The center of impact shows a hole that would be approximately 15' high (or more). Each floor would be at least 10' high (probably more like 12'). The steal beam that is at the top of the hole is well above about half way up the second floor. That makes at least 15' (first floor plus at least 1/2 of the second floor). I would venture to guestimate that the hole that you indicate as center of impact is at least 18' to 20' feet tall. Certainly tall enouph for a 757. The hole just to the left of the of the impact center and somewhat below and to the left of the collaps line seems to be the hole that the left engine would have made. Do you not see that? I am just using the photo that you use as an example with the notations that you are using. [edit on 21-2-2006 by kart69]

Originally posted by ANOK Ok engine weight... RR....37,400 lbs RB211....40,000 lbs (not sure which it was)

So you're claiming that the 757 engine weght is between 37,400 and 40,000? Try thrust rating, not weight my friend. The Trent 900, which is for the A380 is the largest engine ever made by Rolls Royce, and it weighs in at 6300 kilos, which is roughly 13860 pounds, or just under 7 tons. But the smaller RB211-535 used on the 757 is going to weigh that much more? I don't think so.

The weight of the Trent 900 engine itself is roughly 6300 kg, with a length of 5.3 metres, a diameter of circa 3 metres and with all externals roughly four metres in diameter. Each Trent 900 offers take-off thrust of between 330 and 375 kN (74000-84000 pounds), depending on the variant. The twin-deck 555-seat Airbus A380 will be equipped with four Trent 900 engines, and thus will be able to take off with a thrust of up to 1500 kN, or 336,000 pounds.

www.easa.eu.int...

The Rolls-Royce Trent 900, the largest aero engine the company has ever built, will be unveiled along with the new Airbus A380 at a special ceremony in Toulouse on Tuesday (18 January).

With a fan diameter of 116 inches, the Trent 900 is physically the largest engine ever built by Rolls-Royce. It is also the world’s cleanest large turbofan engine, measured by emissions per pound of thrust.

www.azom.com...

Engine EIS Power Applications Seats* Range (nm)* -535C 1983 37,000lb 166kN Boeing 757-200 200 3040 -535 E4 1984 40,100lb 178kN Boeing 757-200 Boeing 757-300 Tupolev Tu-204 200 3900 -535E4B 1989 43,100lb 192kN Boeing 757-200 Boeing 757-300 Tupolev Tu-204 243 3395

www.rolls-royce.com...

This is essentially a scaled down version of the -524. Its thrust range spans from 37,000 to 43,100 pounds-force (165 to 192 kN). It powers Boeing 757 and the Russian Tupolev Tu-204 airliner. It is 180-minute ETOPS rated. The later series shares common features with the later series -524 such as wide-chord fan and FADEC. The 535E-4 was proposed by Boeing for re-engining the B-52H Stratofortress, replacing the aircraft's eight TF33s with four of the turbofans.

www.answers.com... I'm waiting for some information on the dry weight of the engine, but I saw somewhere that it was 3.2 tons. I'd be really impressed if they hung two 40,000+ pound engines on those wings.

Originally posted by ANOK Yeah right Kart, got ya

So then if you're so smart and we're so dumn

Yeah you're right Zaphod, what was I thinking? 40,000 lb would be 20 tons...lol I still believe the engines should have made some damage though... I find the amount of damage done by the aircrafts nose compared to what the engine and wings did a bit off. But that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by kart69 No problem.......... First of all. Your post explains quite allot. It proves my theory. Your spelling of ANOMALIES could be forgiven, but your spelling of DUMB is just (well you know).

Big deal my speeeling is off tonight, I'm tired and my back hurts so give me a break If you have read any of my past posts you'll see my spealing and grammar is usualy pretty good. But anyway this thread is not about me or my spieling....You know Einstein couldn't spell either, so what's your point? If you could explain to any half intelligent person the anomalies then we wouldn't still be having so many debates on ATS about 9-11 would we? If you have all the answers then how about starting a new thread, then we could put it to rest, or not....

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by kart69 No problem.......... First of all. Your post explains quite allot. It proves my theory. Your spelling of ANOMALIES could be forgiven, but your spelling of DUMB is just (well you know).

Big deal my speeeling is off tonight, I'm tired and my back hurts so give me a break

If you have read any of my past posts you'll see my spealing and grammar is usualy pretty good. But anyway this thread is not about me or my spieling....You know Einstein couldn't spell either, so what's your point? If you could explain to any half intelligent person the anomalies then we wouldn't still be having so many debates on ATS about 9-11 would we? If you have all the answers then how about starting a new thread, then we could put it to rest, or not....

I guess you missed the part of my post where I asked you to give me a list of anomalies. I also added to my post, so you might want to take another look. There is no way I will start another thread. There are too many threads about this BULL as it is................. I dont think I have read all of your other posts. I can only assume that you spell better that I have seen. I only read the first 10 pages when I needed to post my feelings.

Originally posted by kart69 I guess you missed the part of my post where I asked you to give me a list of anomalies. I also added to my post, so you might want to take another look.

I don't have to give you a list of anything, you're the one claiming to be able to answer all the questions. Maybe if you read the whole post instead of selected pieces you'd figure out the questions that need answering? [edit on 21/2/2006 by ANOK]

When you talk about the 16 foot hole in this article being the same size as a Boeing 757 you are in no way taking into account the wingspan or the 2 6 ton engines strapped to the wings. There is no damage to the windows or the building to the right or left of the hole which is obvious in the pictures taken before the collapse. How could an entire commerical airliner disappear through a 16 foot diameter hole? Where are the wings, which would have been clipped off when the plane struck the building? Where are the 2 6-ton 9 foot diameter engines from a 757? It is ridiculous to say that they penetrated inside the building because there is no damage but the 16 foot hole. It is also ridiculous to say that most of the plane burnt up, especially the engines. The engines on a Boeing 757 are made out of a titanium alloy. The melting point of titanium is somewhere around 1700 degrees Celcius. An a pure oxygen environment, which the earth certainly is not, jet fuel will burn at no more than 1500 degrees Celcius. Better estimates of both the fires in the WTC and the Pentagon were probably around 250 to 300 Celcius in the fires. This is obviously another question in the WTC. The steel in those building was rated to 2000 degrees C and once again the maximum that these fires could be burning at is less than 1500 degrees. I'm not saying that the government had something to do with it, but I think there are a lot of things about the situation that do not make sense and should most certainly be addressed. What really concerns me is the lack of any kind of attempt to provide an in-depth explanation of the events of that day by the US government. If anyone is interested, check out Loose Change - The Alex Jones Conspiracy on Google Video. I'm not a big believer in his conspiracy theory necessarily, but it prevents some fairly well-researched compelling evidence, plus it is pretty entertaining even if you don't buy into it.

Originally posted by rmwhitak Where are the wings, which would have been clipped off when the plane struck the building?

They were smashed into thousands of tiny little pieces. If you look carefully at the photographs, you can see them all over the place.

Originally posted by rmwhitak Where are the 2 6-ton 9 foot diameter engines from a 757? It is ridiculous to say that they penetrated inside the building because there is no damage but the 16 foot hole. It is also ridiculous to say that most of the plane burnt up, especially the engines.

Again, they were smashed into tiny little pieces. Remember that the engines were running at full throttle when they the plane hit.

Originally posted by rmwhitak The engines on a Boeing 757 are made out of a titanium alloy. The melting point of titanium is somewhere around 1700 degrees Celcius.

Do you have any idea just how fragile the titanium vanes of a modern jet engine are?

Howward, do you know there is more to a jet engine that the fan blades? Do you know the compressor blades are housed in a casing/combustion chamber? A casing that is far stronger than the rotar blades? Where are those casings? What about the shaft the blades are attached to? There's more to a jet engine than rotar blades...

Just for the sake of accuracy here, and I'm not gonna argue about what should have happened etc the 757-200 engines are NOT 6 tons, and 9 feet. They're 3.5 and 6. If we're gonna argue, let's at least get the facts straight, especially when it's so easy to do basic research and find out.

Model: Boeing757-200 Engines: (1)RB211-535C(16,980kg) (2)PW2037（17,343kg）

www.narita-airport.or.jp...

While the front fan of the RB211-535 has a 74.5-inch diameter, compression discs inside the engine are much smaller. Schwarz said the inner discs are between 29 and 41 inches in diameter. “It could well be” an inner compression disc, Schwarz said. The discs from the inner stages are made of titanium, he added.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk... Again, I'm not arguing anything about what SHOULD have happened with the engines, just setting the record straight on some basic facts that anyone willing to do 2 minutes of research could have found. (It literally took me MAYBE 2 minutes to find the weight and diameter of the engine. First link on both searches.)

I just find it hard to believe that a plane of that size travelling at that speed only made the small hole. Even though the walls and windows were reinforced. A 2 inch thick piece of reinforced glass is no match for a 757 with a full fule load travelling in excess of 350mph... A plane travelling at that speed, that low would make it very hard to make out any distinguishing features. Also any witness that says the plane flew over their head would surely have been blown at least a good couple of hundred metres just from the backward thrust of the engines. Not to mention any burns they would have received by the heat. Those engines running at full throttle can rip up runways and blow cars hundreds of feet away. I am surprised that the damage under the planes approach is very small. It should have made a much bigger swath of damage as it approached the Pentagon at that speed. I gotta admit though...I'm pretty much still on the fence with this argument.

Sorry but I didnt want to read 141 pages to find out but What exactly is being measured in this picture? ok what I mean is... there are lines going through wall? like arent the lines outlining the point of entry? So confused. I'm with piboy all the way on this one. If he even checks this thread anymore [edit on 22-2-2006 by xchox] [edit on 22-2-2006 by xchox]

Originally posted by supergrover I just find it hard to believe that a plane of that size travelling at that speed only made the small hole. Even though the walls and windows were reinforced. A 2 inch thick piece of reinforced glass is no match for a 757 with a full fule load travelling in excess of 350mph... A plane travelling at that speed, that low would make it very hard to make out any distinguishing features. Also any witness that says the plane flew over their head would surely have been blown at least a good couple of hundred metres just from the backward thrust of the engines. Not to mention any burns they would have received by the heat. Those engines running at full throttle can rip up runways and blow cars hundreds of feet away. I am surprised that the damage under the planes approach is very small. It should have made a much bigger swath of damage as it approached the Pentagon at that speed. I gotta admit though...I'm pretty much still on the fence with this argument.

First, the walls were reinforced to withstand a massive truck bomb being inches from them. We're talking tons of explosives. Second, engines DO NOT blow cars hundreds of feet, unless they catch them just right, and are able to lift them. I've been behind engines running at power, and nothing happened to me. Yeah there's a lot of heat, but not nearly as much as you think there is. It blends with the air and dissipates a lot faster than you realize. Not saying it's not hot, but it's not super hot like people think.