9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Howard, that's probably the first time that I'll ever have to agree with you on something! You're so cute

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Chickenhound Can a wing of a 757 or any jetliner survive(maintain integ) being hit with a light pole a 500 mph?

Well since the light pole is designed with a breakaway base to minimize the damage caused in auto accidents, and since the wing hit the top of the pole, thus maximizing the force on said base through the principle of leverage, I would say, yes, the wing will win the battle. That's not to say it wouldn't be damaged, just that the pole would give way first.

Actually, in the eighties a plane crashed on take off from Detroit Metro Airport. I beleive it was called "flight 255". It hit light poles at FAR lower speeds and the wing was eventually severed but possibly by a building roof, the plane crashed and all aboard perished except for one kid. I will look for a link. I was little when it happened. It was a fairy large plane... and MD-82. I remember seeing footage of the poles when it happened but finding good pictures of the poles and wings will be hard today because this happened before the internet and digital recording. If the info can be found it is at least an example of plane wings hitting light poles? [edit on 16-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Here you go: Light pole severs flight 255 (DC-9) wing at take off speed.

www.lasvegassun.com... ...It clipped a light pole in the National Car Rental parking lot, 2,760 feet past the runway, shearing off 18 feet of the left wing, then brushed the roof of the Avis Rent A Car building. The engines stalled.

So, I know there are other variables and this is not exactly parallel, but it is an example of a light pole severing the wing of a jumbo jet. Read into this whatever you will. Edit: It says it was a DC-9... Other article says MD-82... [edit on 16-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Actually I remember that crash as well. I had to fly into Detroit the next day. I had a car reserved at the Budget Rental Car facility. Oddly enough it happened 19 years ago today as well. I don’t know if the Detroit parking lot light poles were built with the same break away features as the DC highway poles were. I suspect that they weren't.

Originally posted by HowardRoark Oddly enough it happened 19 years ago today as well.

Weird that it would just pop into my head today, on the anniversary.

Originally posted by HowardRoark I don’t know if the Detroit parking lot light poles were built with the same break away features as the DC highway poles were. I suspect that they weren't.

Probably not, there are other variables too but it is the only "plane meets pole" example in my head (here is where we need a physicist and some details): 1. It was moving at a much lower speed. (What is take-off speed for this type of plane + full throttle to attempt to save the plane?) 2. It only took ONE pole to shear the wing. 3. The pole could have been WEAKER in construction as it was for a parking lot (cost, life expectancy, maintenance) 4. It has rear mounted engines so the wings may have been weaker as they did not need to support the engine weight. Lots of variables. Just an example of a wing shearing vs. light pole. OT: Jesus, what kind of pilot FORGETS the FLAPS on take off? Play a fligh simulator game ONCE and you will not make this mistake. A good reminder to look out the window and double check just incase. LOL [edit on 16-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Re "Easy" and "Hard" maneuver: Actually the thing you do describe, ie dive, is rather hard to control to hit the target, ESPECIALLY for an inexperienced pilot. The large 270deg turn wasn't any kind of stunt - it was just a maneuver passanger jets don't usually as passengers tend to lose stability sometimes, to fall and to break some bone which is rather unpleasant and costly. But the suicide pilot won't care about that. Other than that, on a flat trajectory you have to aim in just one plane (left/right) and to maintain relatively constant level, in a dive run you have to aim in two planes (right/left and up/down) and you have to keep an eye on the speed as well, esp. if flying a craft not designed for dive runs. It is true dive run can be deadly precise - but with an experienced pilot. During WW2, 617th RAF performed a dive run with a four-engined bomber, but they were extraordinary unit. Even the best tactical forces pilots preferred a low-level flat approach. Green pilots were ordered to use such attack run even with specialised divebombers - examples may be Henderson's Vindicators at Midway. Henderson knew his pilots are too inexperienced to perform dive run so he ordered them to use a gliding run. Another example are the Kamikaze - also, die runs were successful only with experienced pilots and inexperienced ones were instructed to attack using a flat trajectory. Diving isn't as easy as pointing the plane down, as you point the nose down, speed increases, but in the same time changed aerodynamical situation causes the nose to go up. Moreover, overspeed can be reached pretty quickly in a rapid descent and atleast it hinders steering of the plane. And as for the side of the Pentagon, it is logical if you assume the inexperienced pilots would rather attack from low level - it was the only side where there weren't obstacles such as buildings too close to the Pentagon, all reamining sides were blocked by buildings, trees and various other forms of blocks. EDIT: Just to add personal experience (though only with flight sims), in all from good old Aces over Europe or 1942 Pacific Air War to great flight model sporting Il-2 Shturmovik and its expansions, I had trouble hitting target, be it ground or aerial, in a dive (not mentioning need to keep an eye on speed and so on). Much better results were achieved with flat close-to-ground approach and quick almost horizontal burst of rockets [edit on 16-8-2006 by tuccy]

Originally posted by BigMoser Someone posted on these forums about birds piercing holes through the wings of a passing plane going to land on an Airfield.

Yes it was a 757 too, i will see if i can find it again.

Originally posted by tuccy it was the only side where there weren't obstacles such as buildings too close to the Pentagon, all reamining sides were blocked by buildings, trees and various other forms of blocks. [edit on 16-8-2006 by tuccy]

actually an attack axis from the Jefferson dome or the Washington Monument(parking lot or over the lagoon boat docks) would have given him a better hit with few obsticals. In fact the over lagoon approarch would have given him a direct angle at the Pentagon main enterence and were Rumsflieds office is,with only two trees and a calm lagoon between him(hijackers) and the Pentagon thank you google earth!

Come to think of it, at the speed it was reportedly flying at, I would find it unusual that the wind didn't sheer off.

Originally posted by Masisoar Come to think of it, at the speed it was reportedly flying at, I would find it unusual that the wind didn't sheer off.

Me too,I also think he would lose control of the aircraft after the first hit but 5 hits,seems he would have skidded on the ground.

Here's is the path of the alleged Flight 77: How could a highjacker find this location after making such a turnaround without guidance?

And why would he try so hard to execute that bank just to hit that specific area on that particular side of the building, why not the roof? It's questions like this that raise more suspicion and do not help the official version of things at all. Nice find bro :

A little off topic, but coming in over the cemetary probably produces the least eyewitnesses. Remembering that no one probably would have understood it was an "attacking" plane until this point as it's path went right over the airport.

But no one from the Washington Airport didn't pick up this flight? How did the highjacker knew where to fly the plane after making a turnaround?

Originally posted by 2smooth4ya How did the highjacker knew where to fly the plane after making a turnaround?

The Pentagon is pretty unmistakable from the sky.

Originally posted by Masisoar And why would he try so hard to execute that bank just to hit that specific area on that particular side of the building, why not the roof? It's questions like this that raise more suspicion and do not help the official version of things at all. Nice find bro :

Why is that? Flying straight down and nose diving would have reduced the level of control they had over the plane and may have reduced the volume of damage on attack.

Originally posted by nogirt Why is that? Flying straight down and nose diving would have reduced the level of control they had over the plane and may have reduced the volume of damage on attack.

Flying directly into the OUTER wall reduced the damage. Only the outter wall was reinforced and only on that section... Odd. Coming in at an angle on the roof would/should have done FAR more damage if the angle was decent.

Originally posted by nogirt Why is that? Flying straight down and nose diving would have reduced the level of control they had over the plane and may have reduced the volume of damage on attack.

And exactly how do you intend on explaining that.

Birdstrike on 757 causing damage to both engines and wing on takeoff. Source: www.birdstrike.org...

Date: 22 February 1999 Aircraft: B-757-200 Airport: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl. (KY) Phase of Flight: Take off (rotation) Effect on Flight: Emergency landing Damage: Both engines and wing Wildlife Species: European starlings Comments from Report: Number 2 engine was destroyed. Extensive damage to right wing. Massive clean-up of 400 birds. Cost of repairs at least $500,000. NTSB investigating.

Bottomline, if computers and books can survive the 1000+ degrees that, that plane crash would have made, then the wings of the plane should have been seen there, in clear view. They aren't that fast at getting rid of parts.