9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

orginally 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.

ARRGH. Wings have two angles, SWEEP, which is the angle viewable looking DOWN on an airplane, and DIHEDRAL, which is the angle viewable looking at the front of an airplane. The amount of sweep tells you how fast an airplane was designed to fly at - fighter jets have lots of sweep to keep the wings inside the shock wave during supersonic flight. Commercial jets have sweep appropriate for flight at mach 0.8-0.86 (BTW:supposedly we once got a 707 briefly supersonic in an accident and the wings stayed on! That must have been quite a ride!). Low speed planes like global hawk have almost no sweep at all, for better low speed performance. Regarding GROUND EFFECT, Fighter jets have very little dihedral, to make them more manueverable. Commercial planes have lots of dihedral, to make them more stable. Lots of dihedral means the 757 is more stable in ground effect than a fighter jet. I have been in the flight deck (jump seat) of a 757 on landing, and the pilots didn't "wrestle" the airplane through the ground effect on landing. The plane just buoys up a little from ground effect, and you ease it down.

orginally posted by ULTIMA1 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.

It actually proves the opposite. A wing without fuel only has to hold up the plane. A wing with fuel has to hold up the fuel too.

originally posted by ANOK 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.

Did you see the link I posted a week or two ago of an actual rotor burst event? ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ) The engine casing shattered, a compressor wheel shattered, and a 1/3 disk piece made it all the way through the keel beam and gear bay to lodge in the opposite engine nacelle. And that was without running into a reinforced concrete wall 6 feet thick (sorry I said 12 feet earlier.) If anything melted, it could be hidden under all that debris. Personally, I think most of the airplane just got shredded. BTW: I'm not saying this is a significant factor in the disappearance of pieces, but I still think it is possible some of the aluminum just burnt up. Pure aluminum burns when "finely divided" (not sure sure what that means) leaving behind grains of aluminum oxide (the stuff that mades black sandpaper). This is the reaction that make thermite burn so hot. en.wikipedia.org... -Boenoid

[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. Good Grief...appearantly he does only read Zaphod's posts.... One more time, on the F-16, the left and right wing each have internal fuel cells located in the wing structural box. Thanks for forcing me to dig out my tech school notes.

originally posted by Mvd2 No large tail sections, wing sections, cockpit etc. were found

This is, in fact, exactly what you would expect. Tail sections and the flight deck are over 90% air. The wing spar is a massive piece of aluminum which tapers down to nothing at the tip, but I doubt you would able to recognize it as an airplane part when it is broken into pieces and all the wing skins (only 1/8" thick!) and other structure are stripped off. These are the only solid pieces you would expect to find after an accident like this: Gear struts (found), gear rims (found), gear trucks (haven't seen any pix of those), engine disks (found a few of those), wing root of wing spars (not identifiable if found). Any other pieces remaining intact would be strictly by chance. Analogy: When a house burns down, all you can be confident will survive is the fireplace. Other things will survive, including delicate stuff, but you can't predict what it will be because it survives by chance.

Regarding GROUND EFFECT, Fighter jets have very little dihedral, to make them more manueverable. Commercial planes have lots of dihedral, to make them more stable. Lots of dihedral means the 757 is more stable in ground effect than a fighter jet. I have been in the flight deck (jump seat) of a 757 on landing, and the pilots didn't "wrestle" the airplane through the ground effect on landing. The plane just buoys up a little from ground effect, and you ease it down. Only 1 problem with your story, normal landing speed for a 757 is 150mph not 500mph. Try landing a 757 at 500mph and see what the ground effect would be. Also Nila Sagadevan an aeronautical engineer and a pilot with over 6000 hours commercial flight time said it would be almost impossable to to hold a plane down at that speed. [edit on 10-7-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 10-7-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 10-7-2006 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 10-7-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Boenoid

originally posted by Mvd2 No large tail sections, wing sections, cockpit etc. were found

These are the only solid pieces you would expect to find after an accident like this: Gear struts (found), gear rims (found), gear trucks (haven't seen any pix of those), engine disks (found a few of those), wing root of wing spars (not identifiable if found). Any other pieces remaining intact would be strictly by chance.

Only 1 gear strut shown in pics, only 1 rim shown in pics. Since the gear were up all the landing gear and wheels should have been protected and should have survived. No other engine sections or components shown in pics. No tungsten counterweights shown in pics.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Boenoid Regarding GROUND EFFECT, Fighter jets have very little dihedral, to make them more manueverable. Commercial planes have lots of dihedral, to make them more stable. Lots of dihedral means the 757 is more stable in ground effect than a fighter jet. I have been in the flight deck (jump seat) of a 757 on landing, and the pilots didn't "wrestle" the airplane through the ground effect on landing. The plane just buoys up a little from ground effect, and you ease it down.

Only 1 problem with your story, normal landing speed for a 757 is 150mph not 500mph. Try landing a 757 at 500mph and see what the ground effect would be. Also Nila Sagadevan an aeronautical engineer and a pilot with over 6000 hours commercial flight time said it would be almost impossable to to hold a plane down at that speed.

Did you read my previous post about being ON a 757 flight test going faster than landing speed in ground effect? We definitely weren't going 500 mph, but we were sure zipping along. It was smooth as silk. Did you read the previous poster who talked about flying "nap of the earth" operations in military jets? Ever see a military cargo plane unload Hummers as high speed without landing? No superhuman effort is required, especially with a wing with lots of dihedral: as the airplane banks left, that wing comes closer to the ground increasing the ground effect and righting the airplane. And I don't know who Nils Sagadevan is, or how valid his experience is, but why do you accept his authority so readily? The real experts are Boeing flight controls guys and Boeing flight test pilots. They've done stuff with Boeing jets no commercial pilot would ever dare to try. None of them have come out and said, "This is impossible." -Boenoid [edit on 11-7-2006 by Boenoid]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Boenoid

originally posted by Mvd2 No large tail sections, wing sections, cockpit etc. were found

These are the only solid pieces you would expect to find after an accident like this: Gear struts (found), gear rims (found), gear trucks (haven't seen any pix of those), engine disks (found a few of those), wing root of wing spars (not identifiable if found). Any other pieces remaining intact would be strictly by chance.

Only 1 gear strut shown in pics, only 1 rim shown in pics. Since the gear were up all the landing gear and wheels should have been protected and should have survived. No other engine sections or components shown in pics. No tungsten counterweights shown in pics.

Since the gear were up the wheels should have been protected???? ULTIMA, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 757 is made almost entirely out of 1/8" thick aluminum. It makes pretty devastating shrapnel after impact, but it doesn't hold its shape! When Wiley E. Coyote runs through a concrete wall, he makes a hole shaped exactly like Wiley E. Coyote. Jetliners do not do this to concrete walls. A jetliner is more like a giant empty aluminum beer keg. When it hits a concrete wall, all that aluminum turns into so many tons of 500 mph shrapnel. For goodness sakes, a 737 flew into a flock of birds on landing a few years ago and ended up with holes in the wings, elevators and fuselage, and one of the birds even made it through the radome and fwd bulkhead into the cockpit and injured the pilot. (Great pictures, BTW. I'll see if I can find a link...) Mind you, birds aren't supposed to make it through the flight deck bulkhead, but sometimes one gets "lucky." That thin aluminum sure ain't going to "protect" a steel landing gear, which is made of thick steel, BTW. The gear will just rip loose of the softer aluminum and fly free, as happened in the Pentagon, and as happens during any hard landing. Regarding tungsten counterweights, I've got almost 20 years at Boeing, nearly 10 years working on 757 design, and I have no idea what a tungsten counterweight looks like and wouldn't be able to identify one if I saw it. Could you? How big are they? The debris is piles are over 4 feet thick in spots. You can lose a lot of stuff in 4 feet. -Boenoid [edit on 11-7-2006 by Boenoid]

Originally posted by Boenoid ULTIMA, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 757 is made almost entirely out of 1/8" thick aluminum. It makes pretty devastating shrapnel after impact, but it doesn't hold its shape! For goodness sakes, a 737 flew into a flock of birds on landing a few years ago and ended up with holes in the wings, elevators and fuselage, and one of the birds even made it through the radome and fwd bulkhead into the cockpit and injured the pilot. (Great pictures, BTW. I'll see if I can find a link...) Mind you, birds aren't supposed to make it through the flight deck bulkhead, but sometimes one gets "lucky."

1. Well as i recall from what a 757 is made from the landing gear doors are made from CFRP/Kevlar so the gear and wheels would have been somewhat protected. 2. According to your bird strike story kind of proves the point that the 757 at the Pentagon should not have been able to withstand hitting lampost, generator and ground and then going all the way through the section of the Pentagon. Proves how fragile the airframe is so makes it hard to believe it did all the things that the official story said it did. Mod Edit: BB Code. [edit on 11/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 1. Well as i recall from what a 757 is made from the landing gear doors are made from CFRP/Kevlar so the gear and wheels would have been somewhat protected. 2. According to your bird strike story kind of proves the point that the 757 at the Pentagon should not have been able to withstand hitting lampost, generator and ground and then going all the way through the section of the Pentagon.

So, the picture of what your saying is that the Boeing should have been shredded up real badly enough not to make it perfectly into the pentagon like it did? The hole that ripped through those walls, was it the nose-cone? Or was that part 1/8" thick too? [edit on 11/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]

So which CT is currently running? That the damage is too small for a 757 or too large for a 757? IMHO the explanation is rather simple - the bird is hitting in one point, not spread out over the entire hull and inner wings cross section, avoiding the parts of plane with most penetrating power. The undercarriage protection is concentrated in the area of doors, right? So how is it then protected in a head-oh collision?

How come an airplane which ""is more like a giant empty aluminum beer keg. When it hits a concrete wall, all that aluminum turns into so many tons of 500 mph shrapnel."" , hitting a newly reinforced (with massive concrete, steel beams and kevlar netting) outer wall of the Pentagon under an angle of attack of between 36° up to 55°, (this angle depending on which source you quote), did not got reflected for the most of its heavier parts and bounced back into the Pentagon grass lane? Just perform the beercan smashing trick : Put an empty alu beercan up right on a floorboard, and crush it flat with a swift slam of your heel. Now repeat that with another empty alu beercan, but now the floorboard is resting on a piece of concrete, such that it makes an angle of 36° or 55° with the actual floor. And the can is standing on a small folded thin piece of carton so that the bottom is parallel to the actual floor, thus imitating the angle of attack of the plane hitting the Pentagon wall. Try to crush that second beercan again with a swift slam of a heel, hitting it straight on the bottom of the can, just like in the first test. I bet you, you can't. It will slip from under your heel and bounce away. Why did all the mass of that plane slide through a fortress wall, under an idiotic sharp angle, and disappeared all into the Pentagon? WHY did NOT ONE -heavier- part of that plane bounced away from the Pentagon wall?

Do you or anyone have any links to videos or pictures of heavy debris flying back from an explosion, I do love examples to give me an idea of things, Not calling you stupid or anything, examples are fun to look at when showing a point. [edit on 11-7-2006 by BigMoser]

I made a post on "A 757 did not hit the pentagon" but I guess it wasn't right thread to discuss, its a little out dated now and this ones getting a lot more attention so I'm moving post here, sorry for the double. Hey I've read much of the did not and did pentagon posts and I admit I am having a VERY hard time believing that a plane crashed into the pentagon. Now I believe 2 planes did crash into the WTC buildings. Did they let it happen,IDK? Were there explosives set in the WTC buildings to help them collapse, maybe. I must ask though, if a plane did not crash into the WTC buildings was it the plane that crashed in PA? I don't think it is, so if it was is there any evidence backing that it was or any evidence as to where it went (any collisions that day or anything?)? Also I know it was said the black boxes from the WTC planes wernt found but what about the one from the pentagon or from PA?

LABtop: Because the plane wasn't standing and noone's heel was crushing it, the plane was moving, and moving fast, so that its parts did have enough momentum to stay roughly on course during the initial impact. In fact it is more likely for lighter parts to deflect (as is this ripped and twisted metal found on the lawn) but heavy compact things will retain their direction. EDIT: Was thinking about analogy to the armour penetrating projectiles. The plane in that case is close not to solid AP shot but to APCR (Armour Piercing, Composite Rigid) with light body and dense core, plus it is also close to the APC projectile (capped) - the point of the cap made from a soft metal was to "stick" to the target's armour upon impact, making ricochet of the shell unlikely. [edit on 12-7-2006 by tuccy]

then just imagine you shoot a THIN alu pipe with a STOMP nose, with a bow to a cardboard wall, under an angle of between 36° to 55°. or under an angle of 90°. Tell me which case will have the better chance of deflecting from the cardboard, instead of penetrating it. And a better comparizon would be shooting off the THIN alu pipe with some kind of compressed air gun, to come near the supposed airspeed of the Pentagon plane. Which has been reported within a widely varying range by the way, from 350 to 550 miles per hour. Your example with the armour piercing stuff is a bad example, since we observe in those cases airspeeds of the munitions being far above supersonic, around 2 to 5000 km/hr. Btw, the 36° attack angle comes from the few officially most sound investigations, and a stomp nosed plane hitting under that angle should bounce of the wall. If you look at the pilars broken or heavily damaged in the officially released Pentagon damage drawings, you will observe an unmistakenly 2 attack pathes pattern, and the most right ( and 90°) pattern is straight at and through the ONI hall. Remember, the Pentagon released a press statement later, that the planned accountancy investigation of the trillions of $$$ not accounted for by the Pentagon in the last years, was halted for at least the coming EIGHT years, because all the personnel involved in these investigations were killed by flight 77. Meaning to say between the lines, that they didn't have data backups made, locked up in different places. Do you know an accountant in your circles? Just ask him/her, what the procedures would be in such a mega fraud case. They must think we probably still believe in Santa Claus and a bunch of other corporate moneymakers.

Yup, the AP shots move at higher speed - thus, due to speed of the interaction, the ricochet is more common. During test fires it was revealed that the higher the velocity, the more probable ricochet. According to everything I've been taught in the Physics, such a crash won't end with ricochet, but with deformation.

Quick comment for LaBtop: A beer can can be easily crushed with a person's hand. A beer can hitting a person's chest at 500 mph will also be easily crushed. It will also probably punch a nice hole right through the poor guy and out the other side. There wouldn't be much left over that was identifiable as a beer can, but you would still have a nice hole right through the corpse. Oh, and the hole would probably be smaller than the beer can. Just think about it: the center of the mass easily punches through, but the edges of the mass would tend to curl back or break off. Probably would leave a cone-shaped hole as the can disintegrated on the way through. BTW: Did you ever see the video of computer simulations of a asteroid hitting the atmosphere? Way cool! The actual rock mostly vaporizes - it's the shock wave that hits the ground, throws megatons of crap into the air, and kills the dinosaurs. -Boenoid

Great sources for pentagon below,Enjoy 911myths.com... Next one is for the "LC" crowd,others welcome. www.ccdominoes.com... Hope ya do the research.These pages are easy to find.I wonder how Dylan and crew spent all these years in research,only to miss the info contained in these pages.These are not the end all,but a great wealth of info.By crew I mean ALL "CT" FOLKS!

That's a nice analogy, but has nothing to do with my remark about the deflection probability. Human soft tissue is in no way a comparison to a welded steel beams, kevlar netting, reinforced concrete and bricks wall. The reported airspeeds I see posted here are also far out of factual range, the plane flew a lot slower. It is also not in fact the thin alu airframe I'm interested in, it's the 2 motors, the 3 landing gear struts, the main-body luggage area beams, stretching the whole length of the floor and the overall 1/3 lower part of the plane which has the most sturdy beams in it. The motors and the landing gear area is the strongest part of the plane, logically, because that's the part which has to be the best shock resistant during landings, which can be rough at times. At least a few parts of those should have been deflected, not those flimsy skin parts. But they didn't. Everyone is obliged to his/her own conclusion. It was you who said all airplanes in the world are accounted for. How come, in Europe they do have such difficulties to pinpoint the CIA flights who abduct citizens from all kind of countries to bring them to oldfashioned East-european murder and torture prisons, where they can be interogated fascist style, like the ruling US class shows to be so fond of lately? The CIA has a whole fleet of unaccounted planes, which they use for all kinds of operations. All kind of bloody stories floating around about that. You can find a lot of them online, btw, but by far not all. I'm really interested to know if the mainstream US citizen is not interested to know at all anymore, where all these unaccounted TRILLIONS of $$$ went, spent by the Pentagon brass, spent from hard earned tax payments from US citizens and corporations. I'm quite sure that those corporations already know, and really don't want the public to know. You must realize soon, that if you can't keep your military accounted for what they spent from the gross national product, you in fact have no democracy anymore, but are left with something very SINISTER. A military which can buy all the heavy industry, most corporations, all politicians, and most legislature. You already past that point, a long time ago. The sad conclusion must be, that a majority of you do not care anymore. Remember, before it is too late, you can not eat money. When you have outsourced about everything you produced locally before, to the third world, the moment is near they can easily starve you to death.

TROJAN HORSE i 757 could have hit pentagon and there is still a COVER UP has anyone ever seen the deliberate dysinformation by someone that appears to be on your side or appears to share your beleif system it is used ALL THE TIME, they are called TROJAN HORSE's the bigget flaw of open minded people willing to do some critical thinking about some (ALTERNATIVE THEORIS that imply the goverment's version is immoral , and deceptive at best) is they fail to realize the impact of such a deliberate diversion and the impact it has on good reasearch! theNON pentagon plane was 1 trojan horse of 911. delibritalely made up to be latere discoverd to be false. GET INFORMED DENY IGNORANCE peace out