9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by vandalizor

Originally posted by ANOK So the relatively soft nose of the 757 penatrated concrete, kevlar re-inforced walls, but the engines only left scratches and disintagrated into nothing???

Do you know anything about jet engine construction?

Yes I do, do you? They didn't disintigrate, and if you look at the pictures the damage is pretty extensive. Keep digging though.

So vandalizor where did you get your aircfraft training from, if you know about aircraft you can tell me what happend to the large tungstun counterweight.

How do you know there wasn't one there? Do you think if you don't see a picture it doesn't exist? The problem is the lack of pictures, it is no accident, it helps provoke useless debate like this without any means to an end. A distraction tactic, I'm disappointed to see it works so well. Just because they have not shown a picture does not mean it exists, it's all a ploy to keep you guessing. As people say they easily have the capability to make some evidence up, but they don't - ever wonder why? Because they don't want the 'discussion' to end.

what " large tungsten counterweight " ????? I am sure you will find that they are actually a stack of small tungsten counterweights dependant on exact location , some of the ballast masses on an aircraft are movable -- to compensate for fuel use and different cargo loads I have no direct experience of aircraft -- but in many other areas -- ballast and counterweights are usually made up of smaller plates its far easier to manufacture uniform interchangeable ballast plates of a given dimension , and standard mounting bracket -- than single weights of exact mass for every different application ease of maintenance - a 1000kg ballast mass needs a crane capable of handling the full load , a 1000kg ballast -- built of 50 * 20kg plates can be serviced by hand flexibility - to change trim -- you only need to add or take off a number of plates - if you have one solid mass -- you have to remove the entire mass -- and replace it with a different weight [ yes you have to have EVERY weight you require in storage - cue inventory nightmare ] flexibility redux -- one 50kg ballast plate will fit ANY application that needs 50kg of ballast , if you use common dimensions and a universal mounting system cranes -- always use a stack of plates to build up their counterweight -- for all the reasons described above tractors -- use 25kg weights clipped to a reinforced ballast bar @ the front and rear of the unit --- so that trim can be altered easily by one man with no tools as and when required so you are not looking for ONE large weight -- you are looking for a large number of small plates now do you realise why it is highly unlikely that the ballast will show up in pictures ??

Originally posted by vandalizor With all due respect Cade, I think the photo graphs in the first post of this thread cleary point out the impact points of the engines, including the massive generator knocked towards the pentagon by the starboard engine. [mod edit: fixed quote tags] [edit on 5/20/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

I can't belive the fuselage could penetrate rings A, B & C while at the same time the engines weighing about 6 tons each hardly dent the A ring. I can't believe the aircraft could fly so low above the ground to hit that hole in the PentaGRAMgon. You are free to believe your government, but I'm a hole lot more skeptical here. Sincerely Cade

Originally posted by Cade I can't belive the fuselage could penetrate rings A, B & C while at the same time the engines weighing about 6 tons each hardly dent the A ring.

Elaborate on this please.

Originally posted by Cade I can't belive the fuselage could penetrate rings A, B & C while at the same time the engines weighing about 6 tons each hardly dent the A ring. I can't believe the aircraft could fly so low above the ground to hit that hole in the PentaGRAMgon. You are free to believe your government, but I'm a hole lot more skeptical here. Sincerely Cade

I've posted this like 5 or 6 times already. The engines DO NOT WEIGH 6 tons EACH. They weigh just over 6 tons TOTAL WEIGHT. They are roughly 3.2 tons apiece.

Model: Boeing757-200 Engines: (1)RB211-535C(16,980kg) (2)PW2037i17,343kgj Width: 38.05m Length: 47.32m height: 13.56m Wing Area: 185.25m2 Maximum Take Off Weight: 115,680kg Weight: (1)57,438kg (2)57,411kg Maximum Cruising Speed: Mach 0.80 Maximum Range: 7,222km Required Take Off Distance: (1)2,365m (2)2,310m Required Landing Distance: 1,400m

Originally posted by AgentSmith How do you know there wasn't one there? Do you think if you don't see a picture it doesn't exist? The problem is the lack of pictures, it is no accident, it helps provoke useless debate like this without any means to an end. A distraction tactic, I'm disappointed to see it works so well. Just because they have not shown a picture does not mean it exists, it's all a ploy to keep you guessing. As people say they easily have the capability to make some evidence up, but they don't - ever wonder why? Because they don't want the 'discussion' to end.

Well i have seen most of the pics of the Pentagon site while the firefighters were still spraying water on it and you do not see a chunk of the tail or the counterweights laying around.

Who would you? The counterweights would probably be in the building and the as for the tail, some speculate it was destroyed beyond recognition, others say you can see it go over the building in the CCTV footage. Just because you can't see something in the incredibly limited information you've been given does not mean it does not exists.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Well I have seen most of the pics of the Pentagon site while the firefighters were still spraying water on it and you do not see a chunk of the tail or the counterweights laying around.

ah , so you have reviewed all the pictures you have seen and decided to fixate on the issue of " I cannot see xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in any picture available to me " , ergo this `prooves` your " theory " that a plane did not strike the pentagon the problems with your logic are manifold I doubt you have seen - and been able to identify pictures of EVERY single piece of debris @ the pentagon -- thus you cannot honestly say that item xxxxxxxxx is absent your previous posts in this thread indicate that you are unaware just what you are actually looking for -- ie the correct weight , size and shape of a counterweight -- thus you may be staring at several of them unaware of what is shown . your assertion that no counterweight picture = proof that no Boeing passenger jet hit the pentagon is classic ` moving the goal posts ` and demanding new and different evidence that you suspect or hope does not exist -- why are you attempting to dismiss all the evidence of a Boeing @ the pentagon with one hand wave of " wot no counterweight ?" just to play silly buggers -- I can play this game too : missile ?? - there are no picks of a missile seeker head or rocket venturi - ergo - no missile hit the pentagon f-16 , a-3 , a-7 or any other military aircraft ???? -- there are no pictures of an ejector seat , cockpit canopy , pitot tube , refueling boom or any other identifiable parts of a jet fighter or strike bomber --- ergo it couldn’t have been any of these types repeat ad nauseum see ?????? lastly - military jets , missiles etc all have counterweights and ballast masses of various dimensions -- so where are the pics of these counterweights ??? you cannot have it both ways -- if you ant you obsess over no counterweight -- then just what did hit the pentagon ???

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by vandalizor I think what many conspiracy people fail to realize or understand is one simple truth.

there is no simple truth. this is what no-conspiracy people 'fail' to realise. (i put that in brackets because i think half of the people who even discuss this topic are 'in on it' ala cointelpro/majestic mind control) katrina was a manufactured storm, and a trial run for bigger disasters yet to come. sherman skolnick has sent supreme court judges to JAIL. he is no lightweight, and NOT a 'theorist'. he is a voracious researcher who has been watching and attacking(and wounding) the beast of the illuminati cabal(although HE doesn't call it that) for DECADES. if you can read that marc rich story, and merely hand waive it off as fiction, then you have no business making popish remarks about what can and cannot be true in the 'real world'. because this is a 'big thread', and i must 'stay on topic': the 'new' pentagon footage shows nothing new, and has been edited, and there is no reason that it could not have been shown in september of 2001. the 'it's evidence in a trial' excuse is just about as lame as they come. the fact is, is that the government is HIDING ALL THE RELEVENT EVIDENCE of 911. that ALONE 'indicates' complicity.

I disagree, I happen to subscribe to Occams Razor, so when I am presented with 2 or more competing theories, I tend to choose the less complex one with the least amount of assumptions. Mr. Skolnick's testimony has resulted in 40 lawyers, 20 local judges, and exactly 1 federal appeals court judge jailed for bribary and misconduct. All in the state of Illinois. His research and testimony has never resulted in a Supreme Court Judge ever being tried, let alone jailed. Please don't exagerate other peoples credentials, I will check. I think him and his alledged "meteorolgist" people are completely out of their tree with the hurricane theory, but it is entertaining. Conspiracy theorists can't be choosers I guess. I did not dismiss the article as "fiction", it may infact be partly, if not wholely true. When people start making assumptions without proof, that's where they lose me. When they make statements like "an apperatis for laundering CIA Drug money" like it's a known fact, when they have no proof, I start to question the authenticity of the whole argument. If you are going to make a statement like that, you should have to back it up. Maybe it's a known fact to the people in the "know" but that doesn't cut it in court. They hit you with statements like "our undisputed appeals record" and they quote official court documents, but the quotes amount to nothing more than who the case is between or what it is about. This is only proof that they filed a case, nothing more. Prison inmates file cases in court everyday, what's that prove? How about as proof, you show us the ruling on the case? I never said our government was full of boy scouts. There are crooks there, yes. They tend to execute self preservation and self wealth accumulation more than executing the will of the people. If this thread was corruption in government, I would be there right beside you screaming for justice. Our government is too inept to execute a clandestine operation of this scale and magnitude and ensuing cover up. Our politicians biggest skill is self preservation, that alone would preclude them from signing on to something like this. This thread is about whether or not a plane hit the pentagon and to a lesser extent, the events of 9/11. Of that I am convinced that one did, and our government had nothing to due with it, other than failing to protect some 3000 Americans. If there is a coverup, my guess is they are trying to hide the extent of their failure to protect Americans, that would be more plausable, but still without proof... [edit on 22-5-2006 by vandalizor] [edit on 22-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 So vandalizor where did you get your aircfraft training from, if you know about aircraft you can tell me what happend to the large tungstun counterweight.

I spent 10 years in the military, I also study jets as a hobby, only because I think they are cool. You don't have to be an aircraft expert to see some simple logic... When 155,000 lbs (77.5 tons) of aluminum, steel, rubber and jet fuel is going 500 MPH, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to explain what happens when it hits a stationary building... That's how a soft-nose aircraft punched through the pentagon... That much mass moving that fast is all it takes. It's like the rail gun that can fire a plastic slug through the armored steel hull of a navy ship, granted the slug was going much faster than our jet, but it also didn't have the mass our jet has and it had to penetrate the armored hull of a warship. The DOD thought about using this technology about 10 years ago, but it was deamed impractical due to the size of the rail gun. The point I am making is the end result is plastic pentrating armored steel. It's all just a matter of math, I am no physics expert, but 155,000 pounds of mass going 500MPH should go through just about anything, soft nose or not.

Originally posted by vandalizor You don't have to be an aircraft expert to see some simple logic...

So how do you explain lack of damage from the engines that hit the wall at the same speed the nose did? Hard, heavy engine...no damage. Soft, hollow, light aluminum nose..punches through re-inforced concrete. Do you not see anything odd about that? Btw I was a jet engine mech in the Nav...

Originally posted by ANOK So how do you explain lack of damage from the engines that hit the wall at the same speed the nose did?

You seem to think that the engines themselves are not indestructable or can withstand the force of a reinforced concrete buidling from not destroying them. lack of damage? The hole in that wall was nearly 75 feet wide. Far bigger than the width of the fuselage and far bigger to accomodate the "engines"

Hard, heavy engine...no damage. Soft, hollow, light aluminum nose..punches through re-inforced concrete.

What do you mean no damgage? There is damage 75 feet of damage.

Do you not see anything odd about that?

I dont know what images you're looking at , but I see a big hole where a plane went through.

Originally posted by Wizy You seem to think that the engines themselves are not indestructable or can withstand the force of a reinforced concrete buidling from not destroying them. lack of damage? The hole in that wall was nearly 75 feet wide. Far bigger than the width of the fuselage and far bigger to accomodate the "engines"

Huh? Were did you get 75 feet from? Try more like 20... LOL so the soft nose is stronger than a titanium alloy engine? Get real dude... I didn't say they were indistructable. You have obviously not looked at the pics before the building collapsed. Now go away, do some research, get caught up with the rest of us then come back and try again...

Originally posted by ANOK Huh? Were did you get 75 feet from? Try more like 20... LOL so the soft nose is stronger than a titanium alloy engine? Get real dude... I didn't say they were indistructable. You have obviously not looked at the pics before the building collapsed. Now go away, do some research, get caught up with the rest of us then come back and try again...

In this article it claims one of the engines punched a 12 foot hole in the second ring. Again, I am no physics expert, but the physics experts at Purdue seem to think that the wings snapped inward and followed the fusalage into the initial hole, there by following the path of least resistance. After impact the plane ceased being a "plane" and became a "landslide" of aluminum, steel, and jet fuel. The pentagon is complete different than the WTC, it's walls are concrete, so an aircraft isn't going to slice through it like they did the WTC, but still that kinetic energy has to go somewhere. The pictures in the initial post shows what is left of one destroyed engine, inside the Pentagon. The initial hole is 20 feet wide, but the fusalage is only 13 feet wide. A fighters fusalage is only ~4-5 ft wide and it's wings are of lower mass, they would almost certainly snap off, making a much smaller hole, probably about 1/2 the size. A missile or bomb would also make a much smaller hole in the outside of the building. The video shows something cleary larger than a missile or bomb, approaching the pentagon at an altitude and attitude that is not the attack profile for a missile or bomb, but at a speed clearly too fast to be any ground based vehicle. Many eyewitnesses have said they saw an American Airlines commericial aircraft extremely low heading towards the pentagon. Light poles were knocked flat on the approach to the pentagon, the generator outside was clipped and knocked off it's axis toward the pentagon. A fighter would have crashed as soon as it hit a light pole, a missile would also likely crash or detonated the first light pole it hit, at the very least, they would have been knocked off target. None of these would have moved that generator without detonated at the generator. It would have required something with considerable mass to move that generator and continue on past it. Some "eyewitnesses" report hearing something that "sounded" like a missile, but most of the these people wouldn't know what a missile sounded like. Not to mention that there isn't a missile in the arsenal that would cause that much damage to a building like the pentagon after hitting it from the side. NOBODY reports seeing anything even remotely resembling a global hawk and it is pretty unmistakable, you would definately know it if you saw one. So if a commercial aircraft didn't hit the pentagon, what did? If this is a conspiracy, why the pentagon? Why not just the WTC and call it a day? Why the elaborate scheme to make it look like an AA aircraft hit the pentagon only to have something else hit it? Why switch your MO in mid conspiracy (planes for WTC, but something different for the pentagon). I swear you guys give our government way too much credit. No way they pull this off and keep a lid on it, the amount of loose ends is just staggering for a government conspiracy. I guess you will believe what you want to believe, since there are not photos of every bolt of the aircraft available to you, you equate that to government conspiracy and coverup. Fine, I don't follow that, but fine. Radical Islam is the fascism of the modern world. You want boogey men, there you have them. [edit on 23-5-2006 by vandalizor]

And with that last sentence, vandalizor, all your credibility went out the window..... I was arguing point by point in this thread a year ago and all I got was wild speculation. I'm still waiting for one of you defenders of the official line to provide one... single... shred of evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. 140+ pages of speculation, no evidence. It could have been a 737 for all I know, based upon all this supposed "evidence" that "proves" it was Flight 77.

Originally posted by Aris And with that last sentence, vandalizor, all your credibility went out the window.....

Not that the evidence to support this isn't voluminous, but maybe you haven't been paying attention to the goings on in Iran of late?

Originally posted by Aris I'm still waiting for one of you defenders of the official line to provide one... single... shred of evidence of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. 140+ pages of speculation, no evidence. It could have been a 737 for all I know, based upon all this supposed "evidence" that "proves" it was Flight 77.

What would you like as proof? Aircraft do not have their flight number in 5 foot neon light letters on the side, so what proof would you like? So there is no video or photographic evidence that will help, what are you looking for? Where is flight 77 then and it's passengers? Actually, come to think of it, there is no proof you could find acceptable unless someone could produce video with the faces of all the passengers, screaming in terror, in the windows of the aircraft a millisecond before it impacted the pentagon. They would also have to verify the authenticity of the video, through many outside sources that could scientifically vouch for the films authenticity. Anything else would could easily be written of as fabricated. A mock 757 painted up to look like the one from AA Flight 77 could be substituted very easily and you would not be able to say with any degree of certainty that it is infact flight 77. Oh well, since such evidence does not exist, you will never be convinced. I am afraid you will have to live with that. [edit on 23-5-2006 by vandalizor]

What would I like as proof? Is that a rhetorical question? Proof, man, I want proof. Without proof, you cannot claim "Flight 77 truly hit the Pentagon". What's that you say? No photographical proof? No video proof? No forensic analysis, parts matching to the specific flight, corroborated by an independent investigation? Nothing??? Well then, my friend, you or anyone else cannot keep insisting that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon because a good prosecutor for eg would rip this speculation to shreds. Can you or anyone else prove that it wasn't a 737, for example, so as to disprove other possibilities? No. So we have 140+ pages of speculation which is highly tainted by personal bias, I might add. As to your other question, regarding where Flight 77 is, well that's a good question. Am I supposed to know and provide an answer so I can say that 140+ pages of speculation are just that, 140+ pages of speculation?

Originally posted by vandalizor Not that the evidence to support this isn't voluminous, but maybe you haven't been paying attention to the goings on in Iran of late?

Of course I have. What does Iran have to do with "Radical Islam is the fascism of the modern world"? Many claim that the US is the fascism of the modern world. So?