9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I don't see the wrecking ball at all. Can you clarify where it is exactly? By the way, with a stucture that was as unstable as the pentagon after the strike, isn't it normal to tear down areas that might collapse? If there is a wrecking ball there, and I'm not saying there is, there is no saying it was used at the time the pic was taken.

So.....what ever happend to the titanium used in the engines ? As you know kerosine doesn't get hot enough to melt (or vaporize) titanium. So the engines should first of all made a big hole in either the lawn or the Pentagon and the titanium should not have dissapeared. (titanium melts at 1700 C , kerosine gets 1140 C max)

Originally posted by LaBTop I cannot get the impression out of my mind, that some "planners" needed that re-construction of exactly that part of the front slab, to make room for a no-757 debunking post on the Internet later on in the future.

I can’t help but get the impression that these threads are getting more and more ridiculous with trivia, paranoia and pointless conspiracy theories. You cant help but wonder if that is deliberate.

Originally posted by Aspers So.....what ever happend to the titanium used in the engines ? As you know kerosine doesn't get hot enough to melt (or vaporize) titanium. So the engines should first of all made a big hole in either the lawn or the Pentagon and the titanium should not have dissapeared. (titanium melts at 1700 C , kerosine gets 1140 C max)

The turbine vanes are made of a single crystal alloy. This allows them to withstand the high temperatures in the engine. However, as a result, the vanes are somewhat fragile. Assuming the the engines were at maximum thrust before the impact means that they were probably running at around 40,000 RPM. So I would imagine that the engines pretty much tore themselves to pieces in the impact.

Howard the turbine blades are not the whole engine... Where are the engine casings that the turbine blades are housed in? Where are the shafts they attach too? Where are the wing spars? Saying the there is nothing left of the engine cause the turbine blades are brittle, would be like saying the cars engine disintegrated cause the pistons were brittle.

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by johnlear OK. Please know this. I have been a pilot for almost 50 years. No airman has more FAA certificates than I do. I had over 19,000 hours when I retired in 2001, 16,000 in large jets. I have participated in many crash investigations. I have built airplanes, I have flown them, I have instructed in them, I have raced them and I have crashed them. The hypothesis that the wings and tail and fuel from a Boeing 757 disintegrated from the high kinectic energy of impact is pure, unadulterated, unmitigated B.S.

I do not profess to be a pilot, I do not profess to be certified by the FAA in any way shape or form. But, since you're a pilot, with a pile of FAA certs, please explain to us what you think would have happened to the wings. Anyone can pooh pooh about something somebody else posted, but it takes a real man to post something substiantial to counter it (as in some sort of proof other than your statement about your expertise). Surely you have seen the F4 tests when they flew two of them into concrete walls to test just how well a nuclear reactor shell would hold up against such an "accident"? I've been looking for the video online, and finally found it on Sandia Labs website- I recall what was left, do you? Itty bitty teenie weenie bits and peices of metal and little chunks of aluminum. Video 1 Video 2 Video 3 Video 4 (click for larger images, click links for videos) (Gosh darn it, that magic plane just up and disintegrated by running into a wall! What a load of unadulterated BS!!) So, please if you'd be so kind. Tell me how in the heck THIS plane can disintegrate going 320MPH into a wall and the 757 couldn't also break up into small chunks hitting the reinforced concrete/steel/kevlar wall of the Pentagon? [edit on 13-9-2004 by CatHerder]

Well maybe i can raise a point. I am a former Air Force Crew Chief and worked on the RF-4C. First the F-4 was built in the early 60's before composites were wildly used so the aircraft had a lot of steel constuction. With that in mind having a very small impact point on the wall of concrete and not barely making a dent, how can a 757 which is mainly made of alluminum and haveing a much larger point of impact go so far through a reinforced concrete wall. As far as debri when you consider the size of the 2 aircraft and what was left of the F-4 there should have been more debri left by the 757.

Ok here is some things to think over. 1. Out of 4 planes not 1 of the pilots hit the emergency switch on the transponders while they were being hijacked. 2. After taking over the planes the hijackers turned off or disabled the transponders. Flight 77 actually went off radar for a few seconds and Air Traffic Control could not locate it for minutes so it was not tracked the whole flight. 3. Why is the airlines still carrying one of the flights officially as "Cancelled" while the other flights are written up as distroyed.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 3. Why is the airlines still carrying one of the flights officially as "Cancelled" while the other flights are written up as distroyed.

If you are referring to the FAA database, then if you do the control test of checking other known crashes you will see a significant number are still valid even though the aircraft were detroyed several years prior. It's like any science experiment you have the experiment itself and a control to compare results with. Whenever analysing data and finding anomolies, a good researcher has to then search directly unrelated data to the incident to see if any other entries have similar anomolies, which then makes it safe to assume that the computer system is like any computer database - it's full of errors due to the bald monkeys that operate it. I showed this in another thread somewhere so I'm not going ot bother doing a whole list, but here's one for example:

Date: January 04, 2002 Time: 12:07 Location: Birmingham, England Operator: Agco Corp Flight #: ? Route: Birmingham, England - Bangor, MA AC Type: Canadair CL-604 Registration: N90AG cn / ln: 5414 Aboard: 5 (passengers:3 crew:2) Fatalities: 5 (passengers:3 crew:2) Ground: 0 Summary: After taking off, banked to the left, wing contacted ground, a fire erupted and the aircraft broke up. Failure of the crew to de-ice the wings before takeoff. Possible impairment of crew performance by the combined effects of a non-prescription drug, jet-lag and fatigue were also considered factors. www.planecrashinfo.com...

Serial Number 11066C Type Registration Corporation Manufacturer Name MAULE Certificate Issue Date 01/27/2006 Model MX-7-180 Status Valid Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Single-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating Pending Number Change None Dealer No Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 53066332 MFR Year None Fractional Owner NO registry.faa.gov...

As you see computer databases are not maintained accurately enough to enable one to deduce anything like foul play just because the records are not accurate. [edit on 19-3-2006 by AgentSmith]

And it's useful to look at other incidents when we try and see if the terrorists appear to have accomplished more than possible. A lone man for instance:

All Nippon Airways Flight 61 is a flight from Tokyo International Airport (Haneda Airport) in Ota, Tokyo, Japan, to New Chitose Airport in Chitose, Japan, near Sapporo. On July 24, 1999, the Boeing 747 on this route was hijacked by Yuji Nishizawa soon after it took off, at about 11:25 A.M. The jet was flying over the Boso Peninsula in the Chiba Prefecture. It was carrying 503 passengers, including 14 children, as well as 14 crew members at the time. Nishizawa used a knife to force the flight attendant to let him into the cockpit. He then made 34-year old copilot Kazayuki Koga get out of the cockpit. He told Captain Naoyuki Nagashima to land the airplane at the Yokota Air Base in Tokyo. At 12:09 P.M., crew members subdued the man, but the pilot had been fatally stabbed in the neck. A 60-year old female passenger from the Chiba Prefecture, who was on the flight, reported that passengers clapped after the hijacker was subdued. en.wikipedia.org...

One man and over 500 passengers! Still managed to gain access to the cockpit and kill the captain though... Obviously false as the pilot would have hit the transponder and rolled the bird on it's back. Over 500 passengers + crew vs. one man? Ridiculous. This loner successfully hijacked a 707 with 174 passengers on board and got away.

September 19. 1995 an Iranian Boeing jet was hijacked by a flight attendant Rida Garari. It was Kish Air's flight 707 with 174 passengers on board. The hijacker demanded to land in europe, but the plane did not have enough fuel. They eventually landed in Israel and in 1998 he was granted refuge status in Canada. 20 years ago he was working for Iran's Gachsaran oil company. en.wikipedia.org...

Of course it's false because the pilot would have hit the emergancy transponder and rolled the bird on it's back. As well as the fact that there were 174 passengers + crew against one man! Found this video incidently of the 767 in 1996 that was videoed flying just above the water, until the wingtip hit and the plane disintegrated.. Might be useful for some form of study, as it's a similar aircraft to the one that hit the Pentagon and also it is pitched slightly to the left like the Pentagon one. Amazing how it's flying so close to the water and so far considering there is a struggle going on in the cockpit where the hijackers are beating the flight crew.. Ridiculous anyway, we all know that if they tried to hijack it the pilot would just have hit the emergency transponder and rolled the bird on it's back.. 163 passengers too vs. just 3 men. No-one can fly like that when they are getting smashed in the face.. (amazing what happens when the adrenaline is going?) duh... Obviously done by remote control..

The plane began to run out of fuel as it approached the Comoros Islands. The pilot attempted an emergency landing at the airport at Grande Comore. However, the aircraft ran out of fuel before it could land. The captain then attempted to ditch into shallow waters 500 meters off of Le Galawa Beach, near the capital of the Comoros Islands, Moroni. The hijackers beat the flight crew as the plane came closer to the water, causing it to bank left. The left engine and wingtip struck the water, causing the aircraft to break up and crash. Island residents and tourists, including a group of scuba divers, came to the aid of crash survivors. edition.cnn.com...

I especially like this frame, where with little imagination (pitch it forward a bit, have it slightly lower and maybe a little less roll) one can see how a plane can be very low and yet due to the amount it's rolled to port the starboard engine can be high enough to hit the top of a trailer for instance.

Yes Ultima, let's keep comparing the tiny F-4 slamming into the giant concrete wall to the bigger 757 slamming into the much thinner kevlar reinforced concrete. We all know how similar that is.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Yes Ultima, let's keep comparing the tiny F-4 slamming into the giant concrete wall to the bigger 757 slamming into the much thinner kevlar reinforced concrete. We all know how similar that is.

Well i don't see you comming up with a better comparison. But maybe these 2 pics will show a little about what can happen to the wings when a plane hits a building.

Nice pics. Too bad, again, that it's not even close to similar to what happened at the Pentagon. Somehow I doubt that tiny little plane was moving at 500+ mph when it hit that wall.

Great job catherder! You have pointed out the most obvious pieces of evidence that something other than an airliner was photographed. Your rims are several feet to small as well as the motor parts. You have to be aware of this so I have to assume you have an alternate agenda. Mabe not, could just be denial.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I love this picture, note how the wing has folded forward on impact - and some people laughed at the idea

Originally posted by AgentSmith I love this picture, note how the wing has folded forward on impact - and some people laughed at the idea

LOL, yeah but they didn't squeeze through the hole made by the nose did they Also note the damage caused by the starboard wing, and remember this plane was moving slowly... And I notice my question to Howward about engine parts went unanswered again (I have asked many times) and no more mention of the subject, I wonder why? Oh yeah, jet engines are only made of light brittle rotor blades and the rest of you think an engine casing is the part of the airframe that the engine is housed in Can anybody else see these guys don't know what the hell they're talking about, and rely on your lack of aircraft knowledge to try to fool you? Watch this... video.google.com...

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I love this picture, note how the wing has folded forward on impact - and some people laughed at the idea

You are comparing apples and oranges here though. different plane, different speed. Different tragectory. A wing folding inwards in this crash has nothing to do with the plane that hit the Pentagon. [edit on 19-3-2006 by sensfan] [edit on 19-3-2006 by sensfan]

I would like to introduce a few important facts to the Sandia Phantom jetfighter videos and pictures of a jet plus 2 engines impacting a solid concrete block. A few very important details have been left out in the former discussion of these videos. www.iaea.org... Full-scale aircraft impact test. An F-4D PHANTOM aircraft. Impact velocity 774 km/h. Conducted at SANDIA National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, 19 April 1988. Funded by MUTO INSTITUTE OF STRUCTURAL MECHANICS Inc., Tokyo, Japan.. "The Target” – reinforced concrete block 7 m x 7 m x 3.66 m ( thick). Weight: 469 Ton. Aircraft was completely destroyed, target face had superficial damage, with penetration depth of 60 mm in the engine region and 20 mm in the fuselage region. --- Target displacement 1,88 m. --- That means the F-4D Phantom jetfighter impact MOVED 469 tons of solid concrete a distance of 1,88 meter ! Which means that the displacement trajectory of the target block absorbed most of the impact energy. In this link one can find some extra views : www.iaea.org... Side view of the target at the moment of collision. Front view of the target after collision. This is the site where you can download the 2 films described in the above 2 links : www.iaea.org... And this is the most interesting discussion about the impact effects of a large passenger airliner on a reinforced concrete structure. www.safesecurevital.org... The MUTO Institute did not finance the logical second test at Sandia, of a jet impact on a rigid concrete block, probably because they knew already what the predictable outcome would be. They did not want to spend their money on an unwanted test within the circles of nuclear power plants constructors. (Exerpt : At Sandia, a spokesman, John German, said the point of the test was to move the wall, as a way to measure the impact forces. The test was sponsored by the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics Inc., of Tokyo, as a preliminary step in building a computer model of such impacts, but the Japanese decided not to sponsor the next step, Mr. German said.) In fact the impact at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 proofed the never performed, but most important second Sandia test, if you believe a 757 hit the Pentagon. Then a passenger airliner penetrated a reinforced concrete building surface. How strange however, that the fuselage entry point consisted of a 2 windows wide opening, with a still standing collumn in the middle, and both the 2 engine holes beside it, are not to be found. Don't forget also that in fact the most rigid part of the "plane" consists of 2 engines, with the strongest part of the plane inbetween them, being the 2 wing connections to the fuselage and the 2 landing gear boxes with those 2 struts with the 4 wheels each. It looks a bit like this : ------o=O=o------ You can't find anything resembling that strongest o=O=o imprint part of a 757 anywhere in the first pre-collapse pictures of the impacted Pentagon wall on 9/11. And as we know by now, the 2 engines should have made about a 3 times stronger impact as the fuselage, according to the Sandia test results. And according to Howard Roarke, pieces of the front luggage loading-door rim can be seen laying outside the "punchout" hole in the C ring wall. So those parts made it through the front wall and the whole 300 meter through 3 rings, but both the 2 engines plus engine cases did not. Yup. Could be severe cases of the Patriotisimus Americanus "bird" Flu.

Originally posted by sensfan You are comparing apples and oranges here though. different plane, different speed. Different tragectory. A wing folding inwards in this crash has nothing to do with the plane that hit the Pentagon.

In that case nothing about this picture is of any relevance, so it may as well not be posted. Perhaps you could equally bring it up with the ULTIMA1 who posted them originally and ANOK who seems to think that elements of it may be valid. No good just pointing out that it's useless when someone tries to use it as Pro-757 evidence and turn a blind eye when it's No-757 evidence. I also wonder why people are ignoring the general glaring errors in the FAA database which so many try and use as evidence of a cover-up? And why are people ignoring the aircraft that have been hijacked even with a lone man armed with a knife? Are we not going to argue how those cases are impossible too as the pilot would roll the bird over or something, you know do one of the things that they would have done on one of the 9/11 flights to stop it? Why is it everytime evidence is brought up that makes suggestions in favour of a 757 it's just ignored and swept under the carpet? Give it a few more pages and someone else will bring up the FAA database again and the 'impossibility' of 4/5 men hijacking a piddly plane yet again. Are you hoping that those that show you how those two ideas are flawed will just give up so you can cast your web of illusion and pat each other on the back for a job well done 'enlightening the people'?

looking at the picture posted by ultima1 - i just have to cooment - and ask why the conspiracists are ignoring the fact that part of the fuselage can be seen INTACT and INSIDE the building ??? despite having gone though 2 courses of brick work - the integrity of the fuselage has remained . [ or at least a section of it has ] planes do not " fall apart " the instant they hit ANYTHING solid , thanks for confirming that a " flimsy aluminium can " - is indeed capable of puncturing masonry PS - can you give us a cite for this crah - i would like to see just howm much of the nose crimples - and what the spped @ impact was - and what the exavt construction of that building as you know - evidence - so we can make an informed comparison

Originally posted by Kellter Wow Cathearder, Outstanding research and your post is laid out perferct. You've convinced me a 757 hit the Pentagon, now you just have to convince me that someone who learned how to fly by Microsoft Flight Simulator managed to pull off such a precise hit. I believe the pilot did spend time in a professional flight simulator but theres two problems with that. 1. His instructor didn't have high marks for him. 2. He couldn't practice the approach to the Pentagon on the professional software as it would have really raised some flags.

Apologies for going way off topic and replying to the first post in the thread, but this argument is the one that has always bothered me the most. I'm sure most of the conspiracy theories are just like this one, i.e. uninformed people speaking as experts on subjects they know nothing about. I am a pilot, and therefore I'm qualified to talk about this. Flying an airplane into a skyscraper is easier than parallel parking, even if you've never been behind the controls before. Microsoft Flight Simulator would be more than enough training. Taking flying lessons was actually overkill in my opinion... those guys were qualified after a few hours with the simulator on their PC. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. The "Professional software" that the poster is talking about would be preferable to Microsoft if you were trying to learn about advanced navigation, ATC communications, etc... but if you just wanted to learn how to find and crash into the Pentagon, you'd actually be better off with Microsoft Flight Simulator. The graphics are better and there's more detail in the cities. In short, flying an airplane is not difficult. It's easier than driving a car. Taking off and landing are difficult... communications are difficult, instrument navigation is difficult... but steering a jet into an enormous building is cake. With simulator time and a few hours in a cessna, those guys were overqualified. Logistically, the 9/11 events are frighteningly easy to accomplish. It requires only the will to do such a thing. I think people instinctively feel that such a devastating event must be extremely difficult to perform, but the frightening truth is that it really isn't. By using common sense, it's very easy to debunk all the common 9/11 conspiracy theories. Well-done research pieces like the one on this site are helpful too, for people who have been led astray. Honestly, the 9/11 stuff is one of the weakest conspiracy theories around... even the Staged Moon-Landing theory holds a lot more water i.m.o.