9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

What parts Howard? The only moving parts in a jet engine are the rotor blades and the rotor shaft. What we are missing are the heavy engine casings...A pretty substantial cylinder of titanium alloys, not easy to disintegrate into nothing. The blades rotate inside this casing, so are protected pretty well from impact. They engines should still be there, a little banged up obviously, but we should still recognize them. And there should be 2 of everything, why do we see only one of the 3 parts found? You guys keep ignoring the casings, especially you Howard, who keeps referring to flimsy rotor blades like they are the only part of a jet engine.

Someone needs some training in engine parts and material. Fan Requirements: Fan 1. High strength. 2. Lightweight (Safety precaution in case it blows up). 3. Be able to handle a direct blow without breaking (bird strike). 4. Temperature range: ~ -50 - 100° F Fan containment 1. Absorbent. 2. Compact. 3. Preferably a layered structure. 4. Temperature range: 400 - 500° F Commonly used material: Blades - Polymer Composite or Titanium alloys. Containment - Nickel-based alloys, Polymer Composite, or Titanium alloys. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compressor Requirements: 1. 200 to 300 hot hours. 2. Temperature range: 800 - 1200° F Disk 1. High strength. 2. Resist centrifugal stress. 3. Resist fatigue. Commonly used material: Blades - Titanium alloys (cold side). Nickel-based alloy or Titanium alloy (hotter end). Disk - Titanium alloys (cold) and Nickel-based alloy (hot). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combustor Requirements: Combustor 1. 18,000 to 20,000 hours. 2. 9,000 hot hours. 3. Average temperature around 2,800° F. Combustor liner 1. Stresses due to thermal gradient heat. 2. Transient stresses due to takeoff and cool down situations. 3. Resist oxidation. Commonly used material: Currently - Nickel-based alloy. Future - Ceramic composite. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turbine Requirements: 1. Rotational strength. 2. Pressure loading. 3. High temperatures. 4. Resist Creep. 5. Resist Oxidation. 6. Temperature range: 1000 - 2000° F Commonly used material: Disk - Nickel-based alloy Blades - Single crystal Nickel-based alloy with thermal barrier coating. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mixer Requirements: 1. High Temperatures. 2. Temperature range: 1000 - 1200° F Commonly used material: Nickel-based alloy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nozzle Requirements: 1. High Temperature. 2. Temperature range: 1200 - 2400° F Commonly used material: Nickel-based alloy Titanium alloy Ceramic matrix composite [edit on 26-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Someone needs some training in engine parts and material.

Not sure if you were refering to me or howard with this statement... I was just trying to keep it simple, "rotor blades" includes the fan blades, compressor blades and combustion chamber rotors etc... Engine casing is what everything sits in...Usualy made from an alloy of titanium, alluminum and steel for strength and light-weight. The casing is what we see cut-away in this pic... Also what happened to the massive shaft everything is attached to? RR RB211 The only pics we see of parts from the pentagoon are pretty lightweight pieces that could have easily been planted beforehand, just like the airframe pieces on the lawn. Where are the heavy pieces that should have survived in some form, two large rotor shafts and pieces of engine casing? [edit on 26/5/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Aris

Originally posted by Dansker The outer wall in this case had also been reinforced with kevlar that keeps fractured parts beyond the immidiate impact area in place, and prevents the wall from caving in. At least for a while...

Again, for those who make these claims: Please provide me with the plans, in detail, that give you this information. Hopefully it will have each and every wall, each and every thickness and each and every material composition. Not some iffy diagrams. Corroborated, undeniable documentation of the exact composition and thickness of all walls along with the floorplans and exact dimensions of those three rings the supposed 757 plowed through.

Well, I did post part of a floorplan from the Arlington After Action Report (www.mipt.org... see appendix 4) showing the interior layout of the first floor, but I'm sorry I don't have access to further detailed, probably classified, information about the finer details of the archithecture. They may be available trough the US Library of Congress or something, but I'm not that motivated. Anyway, here's the floorplans of the first and second floors without the superimposed 757: The fact still stands that whatever collided with the Pentagon went through one reinforced exterior wall, a number of internal walls and columns, and one exterior masonry wall. You're the one claiming a Boing 757 travellling at hundreds of miles an hour loaded with passengers, cargo and fuel couldn't possible have done that, so why don't you try to prove it? Meanwhile, the only claim I made in the post you responded to is that the walls in that newly renovated section had been reinforced with kevlar. I thought that was common knowledge, and it's certainly not hard to find this information. Do you ever do any research of your own? "Also on the exterior walls, between the steel columns, the renovation crew had placed Kevlar cloth, similar to the material used for bullet-proof vests. This had the effect of holding together building materials so they wouldn't become deadly projectiles in an explosion." www.architectureweek.com...

Originally posted by Aris [One small problem, Dansker. The engines don't fit. The tail doesn't fit either.

The tail, or vertical stabilizer, is the flimsiest part of the plane. It's basically a hollow structure coverered with millimeter thin aluminum skin. And unlike the wings, it's not filled with fuel, so it doesn't carry a lot of mass. It would obviously be incapable of breaching a reinforced concrete/steel/kevlar wall. There was however damage to the wall and windows above the main hole, and several broken windowpanes. The unexpected location of this damage is possibly due to a slight roll to the left caused by the fuselage's passage through the building, so that by the time the rear portion of the plane struck the building, the tailfin was angled leftward above the second floor. Did you even look at the article I linked? Here's a link: www.911review.com... The approx. hundred feet wide hole in the exterior was plenty wide enough to allow the left engine, or whatever remained of it after the initial impact, to enter the building. Judging from the photographic evidence, I personally think the right engine hit near the point where the vertical column meets the second floor slats next to this window after having collided with a huge motherlover of a diesel generator. Some of it was smashed to pieces by the force of the impact, the rest entered through the broken window and caused considerable damage inside, as you can see in the secondfloor plan i posted above: Of course I can't prove it, but unless you can present a valid argument as to why that isn't plausible, I'm sticking with it. [edit on 27-5-2006 by Dansker]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Someone needs some training in engine parts and material.

Not sure if you were refering to me or howard with this statement...

I was just posting it for people who do not understand what an jet engine is made of. You do not see any pics of the tungsten counterwieghts for the flght controls.

Originally posted by Aris [Good quote my butt... Where are all the exploded parts? If it "exploded" outside, where are the parts?

Could all this debris covering the helipad possible be some of it you think?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 You do not see any pics of the tungsten counterwieghts for the flght controls.

Is it really so hard for you to understand that we've only seen a tiny fraction of the pictures taken that day? You act like the pics that are in this thread are ALL of the pictures taken that day at the Pentagon and that we've seen every single one. I'm sure there are hundreds or even thousands of pics that we haven't seen and probably never will see.

Originally posted by Aris

Originally posted by HowardRoark I believe that everything is laying there in the pile of debris out side the hole.

Everything is laying there?

Where is it? There are absolutely no pictures in these 150+ pages that show much of anything being there.

There are pictures in the first post on the first friggin page of this thread that shows a large pile of debris includig parts of the landing gear outside the exit hole in the C-ring.

Please ignore this post. I tried to point out someone else's mistake, then realized I'd made a mistake myself. [edit on 27-5-2006 by Dansker] [edit on 27-5-2006 by Dansker] [edit on 27-5-2006 by Dansker]

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 You do not see any pics of the tungsten counterwieghts for the flght controls.

Is it really so hard for you to understand that we've only seen a tiny fraction of the pictures taken that day?

Sorry but working for the Office of Weapons and Space i have seen a few dozen pics and still nothing showing proper parts or debris.

So, we should just assume that it was there although there's zilch evidence supporting the plane theory? I don't think so, there are ways to concoct multiple scenarios to make the known facts fit, but that doesn't mean it's the real explanation. i'll go as far as to say that IF a 757 hit the pentagon it had to have hit elsewhere (ie. roof), then quickly covered up using various techniques including creative media governance AND, of course, two conspicously circular holes in the front wall and C-ring for everyone to get lost in. imho, this kind of operation would have required a substantial amount of time, necessitating huge discrepancies between the statements of actual witnesses and 'plants'. this includes timeline discrepancies, i'm afraid, but don't quote me on that. There once was a thread on ATS, titled The Mystery of the Moved Taxi or somesuch, in which witness statements were picked apart one by one, i can no longer find it, though. the only way to surely know is finding a witness yourselves, i'm afraid.

Again, you honestly believe that you have seen EVERY SINGLE PICTURE taken at the Pentagon? Just because YOU haven't seen the picture doesn't mean that there is not a picture of it somewhere. Even if you say you've seen "a few dozen pics" I'm sure there were hundreds if not thousands of pictures taken around that time. Until you can say you know exactly how many pictures were taken, and you have seen EVERY SINGLE PICTURE TAKEN you can't say "There are no pictures of this part"

But Zaphod we can only go by what we have seen. If there are pics that would prove it was 757, why haven't they been released? All we get is a blurry laime video that shows nothing that looks like a 757. If the gov has pics that show unrefutable proof that it was a 757 don't you think they would have released them, with big fanfare and bells on it?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Again, you honestly believe that you have seen EVERY SINGLE PICTURE taken at the Pentagon?

How lame your argument is, imagine this was a trial (it is, but that's another matter entirely) and NO evidence could be found, there's no way you can justify a 'guilty' verdict based on basically nothing and a bit of patriotic belief. I don't know what happened, using the 757 would appear logical within the context, but someone probably got über-smart and decided to stage a diversion, that's the main reason for all the confusion, but make no mistake, these inconsistencies may throw many people off track, but it will without a doubt attract many more, the net result being wider reconition of alternative 9/11 history.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Again, you honestly believe that you have seen EVERY SINGLE PICTURE taken at the Pentagon? Just because YOU haven't seen the picture doesn't mean that there is not a picture of it somewhere.

You don't have to look at that many pics to see that there is no proper debis field at the Pentagon. Pics taken right after the explosion show no wings or thier debis and counterweights, no tail or its debris or conterweights, and very little normal debris such as seats and luggage, wheels and landing gear etz. [edit on 29-5-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 29-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 You don't have to look at that many pics to see that there is no proper debis field at the Pentagon. Pics taken right after the explosion show no wings or thier debis and counterweights, no tail or its debris or conterweights, and very little normal debris such as seats and luggage, wheels and landing gear etz. [edit on 29-5-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 29-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Won't it be so because majority of the wreckage travelled INTO the building?

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 You don't have to look at that many pics to see that there is no proper debis field at the Pentagon. Pics taken right after the explosion show no wings or thier debis and counterweights, no tail or its debris or conterweights, and very little normal debris such as seats and luggage, wheels and landing gear etz. [edit on 29-5-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 29-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Won't it be so because majority of the wreckage travelled INTO the building?

Well some but not all of the debris would be inside considering that, 1. Several of the witnesses stated that it hit the ground before entering the Pentagon. 2. Pics of the generator being hit and moved, should have been some debris from that. 3. A 757 is mostly aluminum so it would have broken up alot from hitting the ground and the building

Originally posted by tuccy Won't it be so because majority of the wreckage travelled INTO the building?

Do you have anything to back up this statement or are you just saying this cause that's what the powers that be are telling you? The whole plane went through a 18' foot hole that was at ground level? Where is the aircraft wreckage?

18' hole? right in this very thread there are photos showing much wider hole - enough to contain hull, inner parts of the wings and atleast one engine. As for "where is the wreckage", again, this very thread provided pictures of parts of plane wreckage, namely parts of the undercarriage, engine, upper hull... Yep, on the second pic you posted I cannot distinguish parts of plane wreckage. If you'll get Google satellite pic of some city on medium zoom level, you also can argue there are no cars there visible. As the plane was ripped to small pieces I'd be surprised some of them would be clearly distinguishable on such a photo. I have seen rather good number of aircraft wreckage pictures, while the crash usually happened at much lower speed and much flatter trajectory and guess what - often the wreckage was rather small, with very few recognizable pieces of debris. I daresy you'd be glad to find too many recognizeable parts after 500kts crash into concrete wall.