9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

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

Originally posted by HowardRoark Simple, the entire fueselage didn't, just the heavier pieces did. The engines were running at full throttle when they impacted the building. Parts of the engine were going in excess of 10,000 rpm.

I ask you how the fueselage penetrated 3 rings while the engines did not. You answer me by telling me it wasn't the fueselage but "heavier pieces". Now I'll have to refraise my question: How did "heavier parts" penetrate 3 rings while the engines did not? You also explain how engines were running at full throttle when they impacted the building in excess of 10,000 rpm. Thank you for that fact, but do you also have an answer to the question? I respect any opinion on 911, it's an emotional issue, and for good reason. So what ever you have to say to my question you'll get nothing but respect from me. Sincerely Cade [edit on 30-5-2006 by Cade]

I haven't read all 150+ pages of the discussion here, just the first few, and if this has been accurately addressed, I do apologize. On the first page of the discussion, many people posted what a wonderful job you did on your post, and I must agree. You put a great deal of work, and for thought into it. Hoever, with the images you have posted, and referenced to of the 'debris' of the Pentagon attack, there isn't a reasonable amount of debris of RECOGNIZABLE 757 parts. Where were the wings? Where was the tail section? Where was the REST of it? You stated that you were once a skeptic, until you realized the size of the fuselage was only 13 feet wide. But that would have to mean that the rest of the plane would have to have stopped before entering the wall completely. If this had been the case, and it clearly wasn't... wing sections, the tail section.. and other PROMINATE debris would have and should have been visible. It wasn't. Can you explain that? Or, link to the post here that does explain that? Thanks

that is why you should read all 150+ pages. If i took the time to do so (three days) and found the answers, then you should too. your questions have been answered.

Originally posted by Cade Now I'll have to refraise my question: How did "heavier parts" penetrate 3 rings while the engines did not?

How many times do I have to explain this to you. The aircraft debris did not ”penetrate 3 rings’ as you state. At least not in the sense that it passed in and out of six separate masonry exterior walls. The first floor of the builidng is not divided into separate rings. It is a continous open office space. Between the initial hole on the outer walls and the “punch out” in the A-E drive, there were only drywall partition walls and concrete columns. The fuselage as a whole is a lot more massive than the engines. The initial impact of the airplane was at the nose of the plane, not the engines. Once the initial hole in the exterior was opened up, there wasn’t much to absorb the energy of the impact of the fuselage debris moving into the building.

Originally posted by Cade You also explain how engines were running at full throttle when they impacted the building in excess of 10,000 rpm. Thank you for that fact, but do you also have an answer to the question?

There are a number of witnesses who stated that they heard the engines “rev up” just before the impact. The engines are three stage, three shaft design. As you can see from this certification document, that the 100% rated RPM for the various stages were 13,300 RPM for the high pressure stage, 9,100 RPM for the intermediate pressure stage and 3,900 RPM for the low pressure stage. Even if the engines were only running at 75%, the high pressure stage would have been in the 10,000 RPM range. Note that at 10,000 RPM, the outer edge of a rotor disk 2 feet in diameter will be traveling at 714 mph.

Originally posted by HowardRoark There are a number of witnesses who stated that they heard the engines “rev up” just before the impact.

The plane was supposedly traveling 530 mph. How would they have been able to distinguish the engines reving up with a plane coming in so fast compared to the plane getting louder as it approached and coming in at that speed? How would such a horrible pilot like Hanjour been able to keep calm and steady enough to rev up the engines a second before he was about to die? This is just more nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Just like those witnesses who claimed to see faces in the windows!

I have a quick question. I have skimmed through the whole thread, but I didn't notice a possible answer to this question: When a plane takes off, right after the nose lifts up off the ground, there is a force called wake turbulence, almost like wind tunnels that come off of the wings of the plane. This force is dependant on 3 variables: Speed, Weight, and Cleanliness (flap configuration). The slower, the heavier, and the cleaner (clean meaning flaps are up) the more wake turbulence. That being said, if the plane was flying for 30 secs to a minute at really low altitudes, even though the speed was 530 mph, wouldn't there be some effects of this wake turbulence? a 757 is a pretty big plane (comapred to a cesna, lets say) and weight is the main ingredient to wake turbulence. Again, something I just thought of, since I learned about it for ATC. From the pics I have seen, there is tons of damage to the buildings, but not really to the grass where the approach was made. any answers? maybe the wake turbulence would not be strong enough, which I guess is a possibility. But this force IS strong enough to bring down planes behind them, hence the need for separation during take off and landing procedures. Edited for grammar [edit on 31/5/06 by Mouth]

well then it's a good thing that there were no Cesnas following Flight 77.

Originally posted by HowardRoark well then it's a good thing that there were no Cesnas following Flight 77.

Heheh, well Howard, what I mean is, shouldn't the grass be burned, torn up, something?

Originally posted by Mouth From the pics I have seen, there is tons of damage to the buildings, but not really to the grass where the approach was made. any answers? maybe the wake turbulence would not be strong enough, which I guess is a possibility. But this force IS strong enough to bring down planes behind them, hence the need for separation during take off and landing procedures.

I'm still amazed to this day how a large plane could hit the lawn first as so many witnesses, reports, and debunking site claimed and not leave a mark on the lawn! I agree with you, I find it odd to that if this big plane didn't hit the lawn that the turbulance it creates underneath it would blow the blades of grass in the direction it was headed to make a visual path mark in the lawn. Sort of like the tracks the fire truck made in the lawn.

Originally posted by Mouth Heheh, well Howard, what I mean is, shouldn't the grass be burned, torn up, something?

Why? does it get torn up and burned at the ends of runways?

Originally posted by HowardRoark Why? does it get torn up and burned at the ends of runways?

C'mon this is getting too weird now, are you suggesting, that aircraft touch down on the runway threshold now? can't be true, this hurts my common sense too much. As if stating that there were only 2 walls between entrance and 'exit' holes (the latter complete with chisel marks, as has been said before many times now), was the rest of the building suspended in thin air? ah, right, concrete columns don't seem to count as obstacles.... k, nothing to see here...

Originally posted by HowardRoark It is a continous open office space. Between the initial hole on the outer walls and the “punch out” in the A-E drive, there were only drywall partition walls and concrete columns. ..... Once the initial hole in the exterior was opened up, there wasn’t much to absorb the energy of the impact of the fuselage debris moving into the building.

heeeheee! you're becoming quite comical, howard. this is what ALWAYS happens to an increasingly convoluted web of lies based on lies. a 'continous open space', occupied by "only concrete columns"...., ONLY!? heehee! and what happened to your intricate knowledge of the OLD construction materials? it wasn't 'drywall', now, was it? was it not more like old style plaster on wood strapping? ie. MUCH hardier. so why was the punchout hole perfectly in line with the impact trajectory when there were concrete columns to bounce off of EVERYWHERE? another 'amazing coincidence' of 911. i think it should be called 'amazing coincidence day' from now on, as a tribute to the MULTITUDE of amazing coincidences.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Mouth Heheh, well Howard, what I mean is, shouldn't the grass be burned, torn up, something?

Why? does it get torn up and burned at the ends of runways?

Do tires tear up asphault? no... but they do tear up grass. and, there are barracades at the end of alot of runways to block and redirect the heat, not to mention a good amount of excess runway space between the end of the runway, and the actual starting point of a plane's take off. Usually they are marked with huge X's. IF there were grass a few yards away from a jet engine taking off, it WOULD get burned. Edit: I firmly believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon. CH (IMO) proved this in the initial post. I just wondered if wake turbulence has been discussed yet, and the possible burning of grass from the angle of attack shown in the video. [edit on 31/5/06 by Mouth]

Originally posted by Mouth Edit: I firmly believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon. CH (IMO) proved this in the initial post. I just wondered if wake turbulence has been discussed yet, and the possible burning of grass from the angle of attack shown in the video.

How could one have? there is no markings on the lawn. the left engine would have had to gouge the lawn at least if the fuselage had entered the 1st floor.

Originally posted by Long Lance As if stating that there were only 2 walls between entrance and 'exit' holes (the latter complete with chisel marks, as has been said before many times now), was the rest of the building suspended in thin air?

No, it was held up by columns just like other buildings are.

ah, right, concrete columns don't seem to count as obstacles.... k, nothing to see here...

There are spaces between the columns, aren’t there? And as for your “chisel marks”

Originally posted by billybob and what happened to your intricate knowledge of the OLD construction materials? it wasn't 'drywall', now, was it? was it not more like old style plaster on wood strapping? ie. MUCH hardier.

Only a small portion of the debris path was in wedge 2. Wedge 1 had been completely gutted and rebuilt with new materials. And, no, it was not wood lath, but clay tiles with plaster for partitions, or in the case of the exterior wall next to the A-E drive, it was wire metal lath. A little harder than drywall, but still rather fragile when hit by a heavy moving mass.

Still waiting for a response on the wake turbulence/burned grass questions. If the engines were at full throttle, would there not be a trail of singed grass? Or, possible earthing up of the ground from the wake turbulence?

Originally posted by HowardRoark Only a small portion of the debris path was in wedge 2. Wedge 1 had been completely gutted and rebuilt with new materials. And, no, it was not wood lath, but clay tiles with plaster for partitions, or in the case of the exterior wall next to the A-E drive, it was wire metal lath. A little harder than drywall, but still rather fragile when hit by a heavy moving mass.

it is quite clear that you have tried to downplay any form of available resistance in these recent posts. or in other words, your girdle is showing, dear. typical OCT(official conspiracy theory) tactic.