9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Jeeez!! lol... So the engines flexed up above the fuselage and conveniently left no marks on the grass?... C'mon Smith think about what you are saying... If they flexed up they would have also flexed down, how could they not of hit the lawn? Maybe the terrorists were holding them up?... If you look hard you'll see the flex is mostly beyond the engine anyway. The part of the wing between the engine and fuselage is a lot stronger and doesn't flex as much as the rest and doesn't flex as much as it seems. BTW in the Navy I flew in commercial jets on a regular bases, we had to fly from Washington state to Florida regularly. I've also flown from the US to Europe and back many times, so yes I have flown in a commercial plane...lol [edit on 23/5/2006 by ANOK]

It actually fits pretty well, especially when you consider the altered angle of the wings in relationship to the body. Funnily enough the starboard engine is right where all that nasty damage occured to the columns. WARNING!! - Estimation of relative size, may contain slight errors. Good! Then you know what I'm talking about. Why would it flex down though? The wing was generating lift...? [edit on 23-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

I suggest you watch the video of NASA crashing a 707 doing a test of "non-explosive fuel" (note how well THAT idea worked). The plane smacks the ground, the wings flex up a good bit, and all four engines stay intact. Granted, they're smaller, and don't stick down as far as a 757, but the same thing SHOULD happen when the 757 hit the ground.

Originally posted by AgentSmith When I've flown light aircraft, you can even then see the wings flex depending on airspeed and the maneuvers you are carrying out. If he was pitching to the left (as eyewitness accounts and the damage suggests) there will have been more lift generated by the right wing than the left, so it will have been at a different angle to the body than the left one (even comparative to the body of the aircraft, not just the relationship to the ground), especially when conducting such sharp maneuvers at high speed.

You know, I always fly choosing seats near the window and toward the "back" of the plane but enough to see the wings. Its just fun to watch as we take off and land to watch the engines and flaps on the wing work to fly the plane and of course to land it. Those wings bounce a lot. They are flexible for a reason.

Well this is a fun game isn't it? Scale correct within a couple of inches.... Global Hawk carrying a missle?? Makes more sense if you can see the whole forrest...

[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire preceeding post] acutally your scale is wrong. the wheels of a global hawk are different than those found at the accident sight (the wheels found are consistent and the same size as that of a 757-200) There are no hanging engines on the global hawk, but they found parts ofthe rolls royce engine at the accident site. The right/starboard engine clipped a generator cuasing damage, yet nothing of the sort of a global hawk could do that. REally, you must try harder. [edit on 5/24/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

It's a shame your Global hawk is to small to have made the damage then isn't it? Not only that, what caused the damage to the columns where the engine was on the 757? What, in your image, struck and damaged the spools? How did your magic missile (because the global hawk is to small to have created the entry hole) manage to create the entry hole and make it's way through the entire building to also create the punch out hole?

I'm still going with my gut feeling that it was a 757, but someone else was controlling it. I'm wondering how much distance there was from the final turn to the final approach. Do you really think a bad novice pilot could manage to keep control of a plane that big at that speed and at such a low altitude? I don't Also many personnel on the scene said they smelled cordite. This makes me wonder what might have been in cargo. [edit on 24-5-2006 by FallenFromTheTree]

Wizy what parts of a Rolls Royce engine were found? Pls supply some kind of evidence when you make these claims. Agent Smith, what did cause the punch out hole? You think a 757 did? How so? It would have had to be a Hawk with some kind of missile or bomb atached, of course it wouldn't have caused that damage on its own, neither would a 757. I actually was making fun of your post with my Global Hawk, you can't prove it wasn't and I can't prove it was a hawk, so we are wasting out time with this argument. I feel their is much more evidence that makes me believe it wasn't a normal 757 that was flown into the pentagoon, like the difficult flight path, lack of damage to the lawn, lack of engine parts and wing spars etc...'Operation Northwoods', and the govs 'war on terror'. We are wasting our time arguing over details. 757 or not, it was an inside job from which certain people have gained immensely

Originally posted by vandalizor I do no dispute that we have reverends here doing the same thing, but most Americans don't listen to them or take them seriously. In fact when they make public statements that preach idiocy they are openly criticized and blasted for it.

vandalizor, I agree, overall, with your assessment of religious indoctrination re: Christianity and Islam but slightly disagree with the above comment. A Pew research poll, about a year or two ago, if I'm not mistaken, found that over half of all Americans believe that the Testaments are literal and that the second coming will happen. I'd have to find that poll again (which is supported by various other sociological research) so as to be more precise but the overall picture it painted was one of religious indoctrination gripping millions of Americans in a xenophobic and warped, shall we say, manner. Furthermore, the phenomenon of religious offshoot sects and cults is pretty widespread in the US. Here in Greece, for eg, we may certainly have our share of religious fanatics, but you don't see anyone starting up weird religious sects. Finally, as far as the fundamentalists are concerned in the US, sure, I agree that when they preach idiocy, the mainstream derides them but nevertheless, the Pat Robertsons of America have millions upon millions of dedicated followers that support them, both vocally and financially. Fundamentalism's ugly head pops up now and then, with some nutjob follower murdering a doctor or bombing his abortion clinic for eg. Granted, while I presonally don't see such Christian fundamentalism to such an extent in Canada or Greece, American fundamentalism is very much alive & kicking, showing that, as you say, it's not the religion's fault per se but rather the people that use it as a vehicle to commit atrocities. Interest stuff, all this, but LaBTop is correct to kindly nudge us back on topic. Religious fundamentalism is a central issue of 9/11, thus relevant to the Pentagon crash as well, but we are straying off the specific topic which is about to reach its 150th(!) page

I still have an active FOIA request with the FAA, so I'm hoping to get some more answers. Their reply date May 1, 2006 says they hope to compete their investigation within 3 months. Meanwhile there is endless pressure to release the remaining videos under several other FOIA requests. I would like to believe that there are still devoted patriots who are doing all they can to expose what they know about these events. It may be a matter of timing just before the congressional elections or part of a greater plan to impeach this administration with viable evidence.

Regardless of if you were making fun or not, your image has done a splendid job of showing how it's practically impossible for a Global Hawk to have created the damage we saw, including the Generator, columns and spools. Thanks [edit on 24-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

AgentSmith, again, I thank you for taking the time to patiently indulge us with diagrams and analysis. However, there is a basic point that needs to be stressed: The laws of physics clearly demonstrate how the impact of a projectile on a wide surface is spread throughout it. I'm not a physics major so as to explain it precisely, but I'm sure you recall this much from high school physics so as to know I am correct. Of course, the exact point of impact receives the most pressure, but this pressure is instantaneously spread throughout the surface. Thus, when a plane, even a car, hits a wall for eg, it won't make a cookie cutter hole but rather cause a much larger opening. A plane that's 16ft wide, impacting a reinforced concrete wall at 500mph, will not make a 16ft hole. That is preposterous. Never mind the fact that the engines, from portside to starboard span many many more feet across, meaning that the initial hole should have been much wider than this total length. And if someone was to compare the twin towers' impact, which did indeed look like a cookie cutter impression, to the Pentagon, it would be wrong to do so because the towers were not a wide, contiguous concrete wall but more like a mosquito net. At any rate, a 16ft or so fuselage would not make a neat small hole. First of all, the fuselage would behave like a stubbed out cigar and the 500mph impact would be spread beyond the immediate pressure point, thus causing a much larger hole, probably twice or thrice the projectile's size.

Uh I realise that, that is why I highlighted the fact a 757-200 has a fuselage 12' 4" in diameter and the hole is 18' across. [edit on 24-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

And that is where your extrapolation is wrong, right from the very beginning. The breadth of the hole should have been twice, or so, of the wingspan. And don't tell me that beyond the engines, the wings are flimsy because at 500mph, even flimsy wings will severely damage a reinforced wall. And if you claim that no, they're too flimsy to puncture the wall and beyond their wingspan, then the parts of the wings would have to have remained outside the wall. Since they're not outside, they went through. Since they went through at around 500 mph, they shaould have hardly left "a good fit" as you assert. The supposed 757 shouldn't "fit pretty well" like you stated, it should have brought down the wall and caused one huge hole that's well over 200 ft wide and probably completely gone vertically, seeing as how it impacted at around 500mph.

Uh OK.. If that's how you look at it, then there is little point discussing this any further.

Well Aris, I respect your opinion and it just goes to shot how much of conspiracy talk boils down to opinions. It's like UFO discussion, some can see a UFO in that blurry photo, other just see a bird or bug.

To demonstrate what I mean, the minimum size of the hole one would expect from a 757 impacting the Pentagon wall at 500mph would have to be the yellow outline I added to your image:

Originally posted by AgentSmith Uh OK..

If that's how you look at it, then there is little point discussing this any further.

Well yes, that's how I, with basic knowledge of physics and experience of seeing the results of various crashes over my lifetime, find to be the case. You claim that a plane going 500mph will "fit pretty well" in the hole it creates. I claim that the laws of physics and common sense dictate that the hole will rather be at least the yellow outline I added to your picture.

I claim that the laws of physics and common sense dictate that the hole will rather be at least the yellow outline I added to your picture.

You might of had a valid theory there if there no windows, columns , floors or other things that would limit the spread of the energy over a larger area.