9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by tuccy 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.

Where are the parts that would survive an crash ? Also if you do a little research on aircraft flight you would find some problems with natural flight. If the 757 was doing around 500 that low to the ground it would be tearing itself apart and the wings would be ripping off. There is something in aircraft natural laws called Compressablitiy and Ground Effect. [edit on 29-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Where are the parts that would survive an crash ?

Some of them are scattered over last 150+ pages of this thread.

Also if you do a little research on aircraft flight you would find some problems with natural flight. If the 757 was doing around 500 that low to the ground it would be tearing itself apart and the wings would be ripping off. There is something in aircraft natural laws called Compressablitiy and Ground Effect. [edit on 29-5-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Depends on for how long do you fly at this altitude and speed. Usually (unless the plane already has some problems) the process is rather slow and invisible until some major component breaks off... For example the problems experienced by B-52's when they were forced to NOE flight mode. It took more flight hours in full speed in the proximity of ground to develop major structural failures. Would a suicide pilt be troubled by this, knowing he has to pass say one minute in such environment?

Originally posted by tuccy Depends on for how long do you fly at this altitude and speed. Usually (unless the plane already has some problems) the process is rather slow and invisible until some major component breaks off... For example the problems experienced by B-52's when they were forced to NOE flight mode. It took more flight hours in full speed in the proximity of ground to develop major structural failures. Would a suicide pilt be troubled by this, knowing he has to pass say one minute in such environment?

Well i was talking about due to these laws the plane would be almost uncontrollable and would lead to it hitting things and also would be leaving debirs. Also thier are parts of planes that do not burn and can survive a crash, i do not see the majority of them in any pics.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Well i was talking about due to these laws the plane would be almost uncontrollable and would lead to it hitting things and also would be leaving debirs. Also thier are parts of planes that do not burn and can survive a crash, i do not see the majority of them in any pics.

And you sure these are ALL the pics taken in Pentagon? Besides, while there may be little (to your taste) pics of Boeing debris, there are NO púieces of Global Hawk/missile/whatever debris. Oh, and btw, not so long ago Slovakian An-24 crashed, at rather low speed, into the forest, on a flat trajectory. Even one man on board survived. But there weren't too many clearly distinguishable large A/C parts except the tail, and the plane didn't explode and the impact was totally different.

You can't compare a miltary plane with a civilian one, different wing loading. Military planes are designed to fly low commercial planes are not. As far as the hole, did you look at that pic? It's a square 18' foot hole, no way did a 757 do that imo. Whatever went through that little hole blew up on the inside pushing columns out.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1If the 757 was doing around 500 that low to the ground it would be tearing itself apart and the wings would be ripping off.

It would be? Then how was flight 175 able to do the same? Perhaps you are not taking the quiescent weather into account.

Originally posted by ANOK You can't compare a miltary plane with a civilian one, different wing loading. Military planes are designed to fly low commercial planes are not.

B-52 was designed to fly high and LONG time spent in the ground proximity made a mess in wings, so they had to be strenghtened. But it didn't work as if "once we are at top speed at NOE, plane will tear apart". It took much more than minute to develop serious structural failures.

As far as the hole, did you look at that pic? It's a square 18' foot hole, no way did a 757 do that imo. Whatever went through that little hole blew up on the inside pushing columns out.

Sorry but clearer pictures show a much wider hole to both sides of the center impact hole. EDIT plus the diagrams showing damaged columns as well. [edit on 29-5-2006 by tuccy]

Originally posted by tuccy Sorry but clearer pictures show a much wider hole to both sides of the center impact hole. EDIT plus the diagrams showing damaged columns as well.

No they don't! Show me thses pics. The one I posted is one of the most clear, before the collapse, that there is. You can clearly see windows still intact both sides of the 18' hole.

Originally posted by ANOK No they don't! Show me thses pics. The one I posted is one of the most clear, before the collapse, that there is. You can clearly see windows still intact both sides of the 18' hole.

Check out this - page 17, there are two clear shots showing much wider hole. fire.nist.gov... The picture you are presenting is a detail of this one: posted by Catherder on the very beginning of this thread and here you can see it is not clear at all - the ground floor (where most of damage occured as you'd see above) is completely covered in the water mist. Unfortunatley many images linked by Catherder are inaccessible already as the thread is here for a long time, and I'm too lazy to look them up, but Pg. 17 in that report offers two nice clean pictures of wider hole.

Your pics show the same hole as the one I posted, it's as wide as you can see. You can't make it wider with another image...lol You can clearly see the hole is no wider than 18', you can see windows still intact each side of the hole. My pic is still much clearer, your pics have debris and fire obscuring the hole, how can they be clearer? The illustration on that page isn't showing the hole just the damage. [edit on 30/5/2006 by ANOK]

Yes they show the same hole - in the first floor. But the ground floor on your "proof" is completely screened by water mist. the photos in hte report show clearly the ground floor, one photo shows it to the left of your 18' hole and one to the right. You can see the front face of the building breached in a much wider portion (your 18' impact hole is on the first pic to the right). On the second picture you can see the hole to the right of center impact hole clearly, along with destroyed/severely damaged columns. In the ground floor invisible on your pic.

Look at this, I don't think it could be any clearer, fire fighting foam or not... A 757 disapeared through this hole? You can clearly see it's not as wide as that illustration in that PDF is claiming. [edit on 30/5/2006 by ANOK]

Okay, got me some pics from 0911Research site and used Paintbrush to make few markers... This is the picture you use (Yellow - visible part of the hole) www.sweb.cz... This is a pic with inobscured lower right part - yellow as above, red outlines additional damage and breached wall - wider than 18'. www.sweb.cz... Again, yellow is "your" hole, red is clearly visible part of the hole, this time to the left od the center. now definitely not 18'. www.sweb.cz... This one is a tad unclear but still you can see breached hole in the ground floor being WIDER than "your" hole. www.sweb.cz...

In reference to ANOKs diagram, the windows are 5' x 7', the gap inbetween looks about the same as a window width (not sure if there are any actual measurements anywhere) so that's 15' already + a bit of overlap so between 16' - 18' I would say, as do others I believe. To put that into perspective, the 757 has a cabin width of 12' 4".

Originally posted by AgentSmith In reference to ANOKs diagram, the windows are 5' x 7', the gap inbetween looks about the same as a window width (not sure if there are any actual measurements anywhere) so that's 15' already + a bit of overlap so between 16' - 18' I would say, as do others I believe. To put that into perspective, the 757 has a cabin width of 12' 4".

What he fails to acknowledge there was a much wider hole below this one.

No there isn't Tuccy, you are seeing the ground floor in that pic, maybe minus about 5 feet. Sry but no room to fit a Boeing 757... What you are pointing out in your pics are not the impact holes, they are the holes blown out holes and facade damage by whatever exploded inside. Some of them you circled don't even look like holes but blown out windows. How did a 757 make multiple seperate small holes? A 757 would have taken out FAR more of the building than the hight of one floor. The 757 wouldn't even be able to hit that low at the flat trajectory it was at without the engines hitting the lawn first, this obviously didn't happen or we'd see debris all over the lawn. BTW Smith where is your reference for a 5x7 window size? Not saying they're not just like to see it for myself? [edit on 30/5/2006 by ANOK]

Sorry for you, it is NOT the ground floor. Unless you call ground floor the floor above the ground floor. Dimensions (sorry for use of metrics): The building of the Pentagon is 23,6 meters high. If you measure the height of the central hole, you'd arrive to conclusion it is almost 9 meters in height - enough height to accommodate both floors and enough place to fit the Boeing, which has height of the hull with engines jutting below counted in 5.5 meters. [edit on 30-5-2006 by tuccy]

Originally posted by tuccy Sorry for you, it is NOT the ground floor. Unless you call ground floor the floor above the ground floor.

What? Yes it is the GROUND floor, how do you figure it isn't? The hole goes from the GROUND to the bottom of the 1st floor. Even in the graphic illustration on that PDF you can see it's the ground floor.

A bit rough, using as little time as possible to make this measurement, but you can see clearly where does the ground floor end and how high is hte impact hole. sweb.cz... Sorry for the yellow "Rooftop" sign, planned to make it red, noticed too late.

Some nice pics, they do not show proper entry for an 757 and no proper debris for a 757.