9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Mr. Roark- I was always fascinated by the idea that "they" could shut anyone up. I always tell people who believe these things, "What would you do if one of your coworkers disappeared, and men in black (or whatever) showed up and told you to deny he'd ever worked with you?" I know I would only do something like that if the men in black totally convinced me it was a necessary and temporary subterfuge to catch a terrorist or something. If they threatened me, I'd just agree to whatever they said and then go to the authorities and the press. I think that's what most people would do. Which means "they" would then have to do away with me, and all of family (because I would have told them) and all of my coworkers (because they are ethical people who would do pretty much what I said I would do) and all of their family members (because they would have been told as well). And remember we're talking about engineers and techs and scientists here - pretty smart people who put men on the moon and vaccuum flush toilets on jetliners. They would consider it a challenge to figure out how to blow the whistle anonymously while being followed! Think about it: In corrupt dictatorships weeping people tell the western press about their loved ones being "disappeared." If murderous Saddam Hussein couldn't keep his people from yammering about their missing loved ones, how can "they" do it in America? Now, I may be wrong, but I figure that when someone believes "they" can shut anyone up, it tells you that person doesn't think much of the ethics and moral fiber of his own friends and coworkers, probably including you. The next time someone says, "they" can shut anyone up, ask the speaker, "So what would it take to shut you up if 'they' took me away?" (And Mr. Roark? Is Ms. Francon really as hot as they say? Just curious.) Aotearoa-

"how close to the ground can a 757 get without grounding it's engines?"

Well, I found this using google: www.boeing.com... On Page 50 it says the at rest ground clearance for a 757 is ~3 feet. During flight, the wings curve up dramatically, so there could easily be another foot or two. At that point, the bottom of the engine nacelle might not be the limiting factor - the lowest point could be the keel beam. So to answer your question - I don't really know, but it's damned close. During our high-speed pass over Glascow, MN, the flight test director claimed we got a bit closer to the ground than could be obtained with the landing gear down and standing still! I'll bet the view from the flight deck was heart-stopping. So to speculate, the tip of the tail might be 43 ft off the ground in the above condition. I would think 46 or 48 feet would be more reasonable. In fact, given the bent-over lamp posts, I wonder if the pilot didn't get low too soon, and was struggling to avoid grounding the airplane before it got to the Pentagon. If you're flying a stable aircraft (not a fighter) flat and level over a well-behaved flat surface I think you can ride the ground effect like a hovercraft. This is the principle behind the Russian ground effect planes. Any pilots here who could comment?

"Also, I'd be interested to know if Boeing's ever been asked to identify parts from any of the aircraft."

I'm sure we did. I think we routinely provide this service after incidents. We have a sort of "forensic engineering" lab that does this kind of work. This lab also does post-mortem on parts that failed prematurely. For my visits the FAA (SACO & MITO) and the supplier had to be present before the failed part could be cracked open, to prevent any appearance of impropriety. If there were a crash, I guess the NTSB would be required as well. -Boenoid

Originally posted by Cade

Originally posted by HowardRoark How many times do I have to explain this to you.

Do you feel it's confusing to answer this question: "how did the fuselage penetrate 3 rings" with saying: "the fuselage didn't, only heavier pieces DID" and then ask me how many times you have to explain to me that no "3 rings were penetrated" ?

OK, let me clarify that then. I was talking about the debris that made the punchout hole. A couple of the heavier sections of the fuselage caused that. As far as the three rings part goes, If you haven't figured out the design and construction of the building and the layout of the floors by now, then I simply can't see any point in continuing this discussion.

Originally posted by Cade But if we base my question in this pypothesis that there really were not much resistance as no 3 rings were penetrated, then it only changes my question to: then why did the engines not even follow through the first wall? or even leave a footprint?

Unfortunately some of catherder's original photos are no longer available. He had a nice one of the wing scar on the front of the building showing the location of the right engine impact. THis photo does show where the engine plowed through the generator enclosure. edit: go to the first page of this thread At that point the engine would have been tearing itself apart from the ingested debris.

Originally posted by Cade How do you explain the difference in what the fuselage penetrated and what the engines did not?

How can you insist that any difference has to be significant?

Originally posted by Cade Some say the front was so hard that the plane vaporized, but then how did we get a punch out at ring C at the same time?

look at the punchout picture again, the debris that caused it is right there, punching through the wall used up the last of its kinetic energy.

Originally posted by Cade Others say there was little resistance and only office material, but then why did the engines not penetrate?

You seem to be confusing the interior with the exterior walls. [edit on 13-6-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark OK, let me clarify that then. I was talking about the debris that made the punchout hole. A couple of the heavier sections of the fuselage caused that.

Yes you are, and I'm asking you how you explain (to your self) that "heavier pieces" (we can call what ever you prefer) goes through 3 rings / only 3 connected rings with office material when nothing else on the plane did the same. You put forward the hypothesis that the internal rotation of the Boeing engines somehow dismantled themselves with their own rotational forces. Does this hypothesis have any prior cases to validate it? If the rotational force did the job, and we find no pictures of the Pentagon (except the one you say no longer excists?) that show the buildings doing the job, surely other plane wrecks would have the footprint of your hypothesis? OR are you saying your hypothesis is brand new and therefore needs new confirmation?

As far as the three rings part goes, If you haven't figured out the design and construction of the building and the layout of the floors by now, then I simply can't see any point in continuing this discussion.

This drawing gives credit to the hypothesis "not 3 rings but 3 connected rings". But what is it worth when the real world picture shows the picture is not representing reality?

Unfortunately some of catherder's original photos are no longer available. He had a nice one of the wing scar on the front of the building showing the location of the right engine impact.

If we find a "wing scar" it really does very little to explain to me how a wings, engines, tale section etc. leaves no trace and in one case a "scar" while "something" plows through the rest of the 3 rings. If there is little resistance they why did the rest of the plane leave nothing except one scar? If there was plenty resistance and the plane vaporized, then "what" did the 3 ring damage?

THis photo does show where the engine plowed through the generator enclosure. edit: go to the first page of this thread At that point the engine would have been tearing itself apart from the ingested debris.

Am I understanding your hypothesis correctly? You are saying the picture on page 1 shows how an engine "plows" through a generators "enclosure" ???? That the other engine left a "scar" But that "heavier pieces from the fuselage" made it to the punch out? Are you sure that hypothesis is easier to sleep with than "history repeating" ? No disrespect, just trying to understand how you are thinking on this.

Originally posted by Cade How do you explain the difference in what the fuselage penetrated and what the engines did not?

How can you insist that any difference has to be significant?

I wasn't aware that I did? Where do I insist that any difference has to be significant? link? While you find it, let me ask you the same question again, the one you didn't answer (again). How do YOU explain the difference in what the fuselage penetrated and what the engines did not? With all due respect.

look at the punchout picture again, the debris that caused it is right there, punching through the wall used up the last of its kinetic energy.

Let's say your hypothesis is correct for a minute: then how did the kinetic energy from the engines only leave a "scar" and "plow throught the enclosure of a generator" ? I'm asking you how you explain (to your self, you don't owe me any explanation, I'm just interested in how you make this crash site fit the official explanation.

Originally posted by Cade Others say there was little resistance and only office material, but then why did the engines not penetrate?

You seem to be confusing the interior with the exterior walls. [edit on 13-6-2006 by HowardRoark] How do you figure that? Sincerely Cade [edit on 13-6-2006 by Cade]

Cade I'm not sure how many times I have to say this (or in how many threads) but you're dealing with a totally unique aviation disaster. No aircraft has ever before deliberately plowed into a reinforced wall of a building. So yes, you're dealing with something that's never happened before.

Originally posted by Aotearoa Cade I'm not sure how many times I have to say this (or in how many threads) but you're dealing with a totally unique aviation disaster. No aircraft has ever before deliberately plowed into a reinforced wall of a building. So yes, you're dealing with something that's never happened before.

I'm sorry you feel you had to repeat yourself, but since it does not answer my question this one might be your own waste of time, in other words, it wasn't about the event, but the hypothesis. The question was not if a Boeing had ever hit the pentagon or a reinforced wall before. If you see the difference, your welcome to share your thoughts. Please read my post again. Let me ask something else: What if a boing has hit a mountain where lots of plane debris were found? Would we then have to come up with a hypothesis where the Pentagon's reinforced walls were harder than the cliff wall of a mountain? Sincerely Cade

it depends how the plane went into the mountain.

still 3 rings, still 'heavier parts' still no questioning of the exit angle (which is opposed to the alledged trajectory) still the whole slew of wings that at first 'scar the facade' then quickly fold up and vanish through a hole (i wonder just how elastic these things are - cartoon physics?). This gets tiresome, i tell you. these alledged 'a/c parts' crop up one after the other, with time, there are earlier photos without them, on p118++. PS: What i find rather curious is that from time to time, posters with very special preferences appear out of thin air. wanna wager that these will fall into 'dormant' status sooner rather than later? filling pages upon pages with fillers makes me believe that there's something in this thread which is considered, well, undesirable data by some. [edit on 13-6-2006 by Long Lance]

Here is a shot looking in from the outside www.photolibrary.fema.gov... This picture shows the rings looking from the A-E drive outward.

HowardRoark: Thank you for explaining the drawing for me. I thought it was showing the Pentagon from above, not from the side, now I get it. Thanks. I'll assume you have no answer for my questions. I've been kind enough to refrase, ask again, use your terms etc. Sincerely Cade

Originally posted by Long Lance still 3 rings, still 'heavier parts' still no questioning of the exit angle (which is opposed to the alledged trajectory) still the whole slew of wings that at first 'scar the facade' then quickly fold up and vanish through a hole (i wonder just how elastic these things are - cartoon physics?). This gets tiresome, i tell you. these alledged 'a/c parts' crop up one after the other, with time, there are earlier photos without them, on p118++. PS: What i find rather curious is that from time to time, posters with very special preferences appear out of thin air. wanna wager that these will fall into 'dormant' status sooner rather than later? filling pages upon pages with fillers makes me believe that there's something in this thread which is considered, well, undesirable data by some. [edit on 13-6-2006 by Long Lance]

I know what your trying to say here, totally. I'm not really here searching for an explanation for what happened that day when it's so obvious. I'm really here to try and understand those who for some reason cannot see the obvious, those who for obvious reasons do not agree with my position on this. I find it interesting. New people are looking at these unanswered questions every day, and they all wonder why there is no debate in the public arena, why there is no room for the critics. (and please don't anybody show me those 10 clips in the last 5 years and think that will make ME feel there's been any room for it, you may feel so, I'll respect your opinion, but it's not going to make me forget the number of hours the government version has had, on our "fair and balanced" media) Sincerely Cade

my whole take on all this (this message is for all the conspiracy theory people). There is no way that you will be able to prove what hit the pentagon, and yet you guys, after being presented with large amounts of evidence, still ramble about all these little details about this or that. Considering you guys will never be able to prove that it was a missile or a military plane, considering the overwhelming evidence that this was a 757, just let it go. It was a 757. Period. So why not show the families a little respect?

Originally posted by nt327 my whole take on all this (this message is for all the conspiracy theory people). There is no way that you will be able to prove what hit the pentagon, and yet you guys, after being presented with large amounts of evidence, still ramble about all these little details about this or that. Considering you guys will never be able to prove that it was a missile or a military plane, considering the overwhelming evidence that this was a 757, just let it go. It was a 757. Period. So why not show the families a little respect?

I'll respect that you see overwhelming evidence, but I have a right to an opinion too, and all I see is lack of evidence to support the official story. If one suspects foul play in an event like this, wouldn't anything else but going after the real terrorists (who ever they are) be disrespectful to the families? How do you personally explain to yourself that the terrorists went to such trouble to hit the one renovated side? how the plane was able to fly past the pentagons automatic defence systems (or do you feel that the Pentagon was not protected? remember USA has a Pearl Harbor in it's book of lessons). I'm just curious, cause I see these things as huge tell signs that someone was aiming to have a small casualty list and a big show stopper. With all due respect Sincerely Cade [edit on 13-6-2006 by Cade] [edit on 13-6-2006 by Cade]

What the missile defense systems that don't shoot down the planes landing at the airport near it? The ones one's who's flight path take them over the Pentagon? Transponders go wrong, so don't give the crap about the friend or foe rubbish. This isn't a glossy DoD leaflet on their latest tech, this is real life and things go wrong every frikkin day, take it from someone who has the experience and knowledge (howver limited) in military hardware and aviation. I've flown over military airbases with a broken transponder, guess what - no shoot down, no radio call, nothing. What they tell you on the face of it only bears a vague resemblance to reality, the majority of a defense is a bluff and relying on the enemy's ignorance I'm afraid. If they had any sort of defense system that could automatically track and attack an incoming aircraft of anysort just because it's transponder was off or malfunctioning then planes would be getting shot down every day.

I don't feel this arguement can be used. Especially when the Pentagon was hit long long after the whole country knew USA was under attack, let alone the military. Using that arguement is the same as saying the US military is worth nothing. In my view, the fact that you are prepared to think so low of your own world only shows the desperation level. But you don't have to agree with me, and I respect your opinion even tho' I strongly disagree. Besides, the defence system to protect the Pentagon is a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c ofcause. Sincerely Cade

Will someone please show me a Source for the Pentagon defence system? Various people have spoken about it but nobody has shown any evidence that it exists. Thank you.

Originally posted by Cade Besides, the defence system to protect the Pentagon is a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c ofcause.

How does this automatic system distinguish between threats to the pentagon and planes on a landing path for Reagan National Airport?

I'd be glad to know that automatic defense system as well. Even during the heights of Commie paranoia ous ministry of defence and General staff buildings didn't have any (maybe in later years some mapack SA-7 missiles but I doubt that as well). Generally the air defense of the ministry was the same as of the entire Prague - interceptors, SAM's all around the country. And then the AD was in much less comfortable position than the american as we have no Atlantic and Pacific ocean the attacker has to cross first, thus giving away the moment of surprise. Doubt our AAA would be able to reast to a 911 style attack even back then. So... What are the automatic defences? MIM-104 Patriot? Navy Standards? Chapparral? Stinger? Hawk? Where is the launch platform? It isn't possible to completely hide it. What about guidance? Radar or heat? What about early warning? Again, some set of sensors would be feasible...

Cade: There is no automatic defense system for the Pentagon. Warships can have automatic defense systems because anything flying near them is the enemy. The pentagon CAN'T have an automatic defense system because the edge of Reagan field is less than a mile away. See link below: terraserver.microsoft.com... Here's the standard approach: en.wikipedia.org... Note that every single jet that comes in passes just a few thousand feet to the East of the pentagon! Today the "pentagon" defense system consists of passenger names being submitted 24 hours in advance, and limited the size of aircraft permitted to land. Back in 2001, the Pentagon had a warmed over "cold war" defense plan that went something like this: (1) If anyone tries to invade, we'll see their warships coming days in advance. (2) If bombers try to attack, we'll see them coming hours in advance. (3) If ICBMs are coming in, we'll see them 30 minutes in advance. We'll launch our own missles and then tell our families goodbye. Only a small group of very vocal and largely ignored people anticipated something like 9/11. As usual, our military was preparing to fight the last war. -Boenoid (edited to fix screwed up links) [edit on 14-6-2006 by Boenoid]

Originally posted by Cade Besides, the defence system to protect the Pentagon is a-u-t-o-m-a-t-i-c ofcause.

Uh? I think Boenoid explained it better than me, but still I fail to understand how you said that when I'd already answered it with my post? I already explained that it's impossible - how would it distinguish between friendly and enemy planes? The only way is using transponders but they often malfunction and it frankly would be too much of a risk right next to the civilian airport. I did explain all this in the first post...? You realise how close the Pentagon is to the airport, and the fact the aircraft have to fly over it on approach to Runway 15 (150 degrees) and over it on take off from runway 33 (330 degrees)? It's not a case of 'uh well it's so secret but it exists' or 'It's the military, their tech is so much more advanced, they use the super-duper secret friend or foe system that defies science and logic'.

You put forward the hypothesis that the internal rotation of the Boeing engines somehow dismantled themselves with their own rotational forces. Does this hypothesis have any prior cases to validate it?

I know this was directed at HowardRoark, but I'll answer that with a few links to a recent (and very rare) engine failure: www.freerepublic.com... www.pprune.org... www.flickr.com... Engine rotors have a large-ish disk (about 1/4 to 1/3 the diameter of the engine nacelle) with stubby blades. The main fan (almost the full diameter of the engine nacelle - the part of the engine you can see from the outside) is mostly blade, like a contained propellor. On those very rare occasions when engines pop, the rotor pieces usually go out the engine sideways, while the individual fan blades usually fly out sideways and foreward. You won't find the fan as an intact disk with blades attached after a crash. BTW: I think the small size of the rotors relative to the engine nacelle confuses a lot of people. "That tiny thing must have come from a Global Hawk!" Remember, most of nacelle is hollow. The engine core is quite small relative to the nacelle. There's a good picture at the link below, showing how small the core is relative to the fan: en.wikipedia.org... Cade: I'm curious, could you please tell me what you believe happened to the 4 jetliners that are no longer receiving support from Boeing and their engine manufacturers? What do you believe happened to the missing crew and hundreds of missing passengers? -Boenoid