9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

First off, a plane doesn't CREATE Ground Effect. Ground effect is the effect of lift coming off the wing and bouncing back up into the plane. Secondly, I'm not saying that a 757 ISN'T affected by compressibility. It's not AS AFFECTED as you're saying it is. The swept wings will keep it from being ripped apart like you claim it would. That's right! They're SWEPT!

Originally posted by Zaphod58 First off, a plane doesn't CREATE Ground Effect. Ground effect is the effect of lift coming off the wing and bouncing back up into the plane. Secondly, I'm not saying that a 757 ISN'T affected by compressibility. It's not AS AFFECTED as you're saying it is. The swept wings will keep it from being ripped apart like you claim it would. That's right! They're SWEPT!

Yes, and ground effect would make it difficult to keep a 757 down that low, you would have to be constanly fighting it. Well they may be swept but they are not designed to take forces like a military planes wing. They are hollow to carry fuel, most military planes do not carry fuel in the wings. [edit on 8-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Then I'd expect the F-15 to be ripped apart in low flight atleast versions C,D and E with fuel tanks in the wings. Oh, and B-52's as well... Oh, F-16 as well... Wait! F-14 as well... And Mirage F1 also... Just a coincidence that 5 of 5 military planes I've started the search with have the integral wings fuel tanks? Even the F-14A in the outer parts of the wings, that is in the moving pieces? Or those aren't military planes? And yes, B-52's suffered problems when they were transferred to low-altitude penetration, but these structural failures were appearing after much longer time in small altitude at full throttle rather than after minutes or so. [edit on 8-7-2006 by tuccy]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Yes, and ground effect would make it difficult to keep a 757 down that low, you would have to be constanly fighting it. Well they may be swept but they are not designed to take forces like a military planes wing. They are hollow to carry fuel, most military planes do not carry fuel in the wings. [edit on 8-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Uh, then why are the SPR nozzels on most military planes in the wings? Fighters have them on the fuselage, but they still carry SOME fuel in the wings. The wings were DESIGNED to carry fuel tanks.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 [edit on 8-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Uh, then why are the SPR nozzels on most military planes in the wings? Fighters have them on the fuselage, but they still carry SOME fuel in the wings. The wings were DESIGNED to carry fuel tanks.

What does a fighter carrying fuel external tanks have to do with how hollow and thin a airliners wings are. Just proves that a fighters wing is alot more study then an airliners. There are very few fighters that carry fuel in the wings, the only 1 i do know about from experience is the RF-4C and its only a very small bladder in the wing root, 90% of the wing is pretty solid not hollow like an airliners. [edit on 8-7-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 8-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]

YOU were the one that brought up most military planes don't have fuel in the wings. Well guess what, they DO. Just like a civilian plane.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 YOU were the one that brought up most military planes don't have fuel in the wings.

Well guess what, they DO. Just like a civilian plane.

Show me what planes have fuel in the wings,, they can cary external fuel tanks but show me which ones carry it in the wings. As atated the RF-4C has a small bladder in the wing root,, [edit on 8-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]

KC-135 (all variants) KC-10 B-52 B-1 F-14 B-2 F-117 F-16 F-15 F-18 Shall I go on? ALL of them have at least SOME fuel in the wings, the bigger planes ALL have wings that are FULL of fuel just like a civilian plane does.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 KC-135 (all variants) KC-10 B-52 B-1 F-14 B-2 F-117 F-16 F-15 F-18 Shall I go on? ALL of them have at least SOME fuel in the wings, the bigger planes ALL have wings that are FULL of fuel just like a civilian plane does.

I need to see where you got your proof of the fighters having the fuel in the wings..

Originally posted by JIMC5499 The picture shown in this thread is of a turbine wheel minus the blades, add about 20 inches to the diameter and then tell me its from a Tomahawk.

I know what the pic is, I was a jet engine mech for 6 yrs. I didn't claim it was from a Tomahawk either. So one turbine wheel survived? Where are the rest of them? Engine casing are designed not too shatter, for safety reasons. They are desinged to keep components, rotor shaft, rotort blades, rotor hubs etc., inside if they were to shatter from FOD... Also if the engines, and airframe, were supposed to have melted, where is the molten metal? I've seen no pics of molten metal from the pentagoon.

Originally posted by tuccy Just a coincidence that 5 of 5 military planes I've started the search with have the integral wings fuel tanks? Even the F-14A in the outer parts of the wings, that is in the moving pieces? Or those aren't military planes?

Seems strange, when i went through training to be a Crew Chief all the fighters we studied only had main tanks and external tanks, nothing in the wings.

Yes, and ground effect would make it difficult to keep a 757 down that low, you would have to be constanly fighting it.

How long would it have to have been 'fought'..seconds? I know nothing of things like groung effect. At what height does in come into play?

I don't have all the links right now, but I might have time to look for them later tonight. The F-15 has leading and trailing edge tanks in the wings. The F-16 has root tanks that extend a little into the wing. The blended fuselage/wing allows them more room for this. The F-14 has root tanks that extend a little into the wing.

Actually, the internal wing tanks on the F-16 extend quite a bit into the wings. I would post proof, but I cannot upload my F-16 Avionics Text onto this site. And before you say it, yes I said AVIONICS, thats because on the F-16, the avionics techs are responsible for the fuel tank probes.

Not only that, but the FBW systems go through the fuel tanks, and are encased in a special wiring to protect them.

Originally posted by ANOK [I know what the pic is, I was a jet engine mech for 6 yrs. I didn't claim it was from a Tomahawk either. So one turbine wheel survived? Where are the rest of them? Engine casing are designed not too shatter, for safety reasons. They are desinged to keep components, rotor shaft, rotort blades, rotor hubs etc., inside if they were to shatter from FOD... Also if the engines, and airframe, were supposed to have melted, where is the molten metal? I've seen no pics of molten metal from the pentagoon.

How many pics were taken at the Pentagon any way? I'm willing to bet that we haven't seen 10% of them. I was also a jet engine mechanic, the casings were designed to contain the parts in the event of an ENGINE FAILURE such as FOD or a bird ingestion, they were NOT DESIGNED to contain the components in the event of a crash.

Ultima1: F-14A Integral fuel tanks in outer wings, each with capacity 1,117 litres www.voodoo.cz... F-16: Given the fuel tank level selector has a choice "Int wing" for integral wing tanks I'd guess there are some... www.meriweather.com...# B-52G Each wing had three integral fuel tanks which replaced the rubber bladder-type tanks in the wings of previous versions. www.csd.uwo.ca... MiG-29 Basic 'Fulcrum-A' has four integral fuel tanks in inboard portion of each wing and in fuselage between wings www.danshistory.com... F-111 The aircraft's wings and much of the fuselage behind the crew module contain fuel tanks.www.military.cz... B-1... B-58... ...So far didn't found a plane without internal wing tanks except F-15A/B (and in that case C,D and E versions received them)... Shall I go on? Oh and does B-52 have swept wings? The wing sweep is 35 degrees compared to 25 degrees of 757.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I don't have all the links right now, but I might have time to look for them later tonight. The F-15 has leading and trailing edge tanks in the wings. The F-16 has root tanks that extend a little into the wing. The blended fuselage/wing allows them more room for this. The F-14 has root tanks that extend a little into the wing.

Leading edge/trailing edge and root tanks are not the same as having fuel in the wings like a airliner. Proves that military wings and airliner wings are different. Also airliners do not carry external tanks like a military plane can.

So do you bother reading any other posts but mine, or have you decided to ignore everyone else and just concentrate on mine. Because if you look ONE POST UP, you'll find links that show that fighters DO have wing tanks.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Also airliners do not carry external tanks like a military plane can.

And why do the mil planes carry ext. tanks? No, it's not because they have no integral in the fuels,it's because they need to fly the same distance as civ planes but then they have to return back without refuelling in the destination. Also jet engines on afterburner are really thirsty so every bit of extra fuel counts. Hint: Already in WWII most mil planes had integral fuel tanks in usable parts of wings. Yet, the external drop tanks were used. By the way at first "no mil planes have wing fuel tanks" now slowly transfers into "it doesn't matter they have them, it's completely different aqnyway"