9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by snoopy 3. We have been shown hundred of photos. We have eyewitness testimony of people who were there and handled the wreckage. We have video of a lot of the wreckage. There is absolutely no contesting the wreckage. 4. It wasn't the fire that destroyed the planes, it was the impact. You know that huge concrete reinforced building it hit at over 500 mph? Gonna put a ding in it. And yes fire did destroy a lot of the DNA. But as the companies that did the testing said, they have gotten pretty good at it. And they admit they were not able to identify every body. But the fact that they were able to identify most of the passengers is prety much a open/shut case. And if you think the passengers were ALL completely incinerated, then how do you explain the pictures of passengers still in their seats at the scene? 5. 100% speculation. This is a classic example of how your points only hold up if viewed one by one. Forgetting that you are just hypothesizing and have no evidence to back this claim up, how does it add up with the bodies of the victims, the DNA testing, the plane parts nd everything else? It doesn't. 6. Completely untrue. This is probably another case of CT web sites intentionally misleading people by taking quotes out of context. Just as one reporter was quoted as saying there was no plane. he of course went on record as saying that wasn't at all what he said,m he was just describing the scene and his quotes were taken out of context. A lot of people said there was no plane or similar descriptions which they meant to describe thqt there was no *whole* plane. 7. There was. The irony of that statement is all these threads about the Feds confiscating so many things for their investigation hehe. I don't doubt the list goes on.....

Please show me the hundreds of photos of parts found at the Pentagon, also any reports that these parts are only used on 757 or reports that match these parts to flight 77, because i can state that the photo of the wheel found is the type used on other aircraft. So let me get this straight, the plane was sturdy enough to go through a reinforced concrete wall, 13 reinforced collums and interior walls and break out the other side and then just fall to pieces ? If i remember from the official story they claim that a large fire from the jet fuel destroyed the plane. At that time they did not have very good DNA testing for bodies that had been severly burned and crushed. NIST DNA experts had to come up with new testing but they were not ready until 2002, after the official story said they had already ID'd all the bodies. So can you show me the incident reports from the FBI and NTSB, becsuase i have been looking for months and can not find them. I can find FBI and NTSB rpeorts on every other avition crime scene but nothing on any of the 911 aircraft. [edit on 8-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Please show me the hundreds of photos of parts found at the Pentagon, also any reports that these parts are only used on 757 or reports that match these parts to flight 77, because i can state that the photo of the wheel found is the type used on other aircraft. So let me get this straight, the plane was sturdy enough to go through a reinforced concrete wall, 13 reinforced collums and interior walls and break out the other side and then just fall to pieces ? If i remember from the official story they claim that a large fire from the jet fuel destroyed the plane. At that time they did not have very good DNA testing for bodies that had been severly burned and crushed. NIST DNA experts had to come up with new testing but they were not ready until 2002, after the official story said they had already ID'd all the bodies. So can you show me the incident reports from the FBI and NTSB, becsuase i have been looking for months and can not find them. I can find FBI and NTSB rpeorts on every other avition crime scene but nothing on any of the 911 aircraft. [edit on 8-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I am not going to show you that evidence because it has been done so too may times on this very site.Threads with hundreds and hundreds of posts dedicated just to the plane debris, on this very web site. In fact when I first came to this web site I was convinces 9/11 was an inside job and the Pentagon was the main reason. I came here arguing that there was no debris and the hole was too small and all that stuff. It was people on this forum who started showing me all the pictures of the many plane parts that I was convinced didn't exist. Simply, look at the reference thread at the top or do a search for pentagon photos. I have seen web pages full of em. And I have seen posts on these forums that take up several pages because there are so many photos. Posts that go through the debris and match them up to identify the parts. The plane going through the building was not about being sturdy. It was about focused energy. The plane was liquified on contact meaning it had already broken up as soon as it hit the wall. But all those pieces created a liquid like state of fource that kept going because the energy to stop them was greater than what the wall could provide. Cornell University made a perfect computer simulation of how it happened and showed how the liquified plane traveled through the building. This is why there are still columns standing directly in the path between the entrance and exit hold. A missile could not have done that. What they probably meant by the fire was that it was probably responsible for destroying the many remains that entered the building. But there's no way a plane is going to survive hitting a concrete wall, fire or no fire. They DID and still do have good means of testing for DNA. The confusion is that they could not identify every person because some were too badly burned. This doesn't mean that they were all burned beyond testing or taht they can't test anything burned regardless of the severity. And what the reports were saying was that the bodies were so badly burned that they had to use DNA testing to identify them since they could not be identified visually. And no report had ever identified all bodies, not even the DNA testing ones. Also keep in mind that NIST was only one group out of many that did DNA testing. Many outside companies were called in to do so. And I think there is confusion about the testing methods. After 9/11 and due to 9/11 new techniques were used to extract DNA from bones to get results which would normally come up empty. This again does not mean they couldn't get any DNA results at all, it means that new techniques allowed them to get even more than before. I think it was NRGRI that worked on that. The NTSB would have no jurisdiction here, the FBI would. I am not familliar with the FBI making public records of its investigations.

observing the 3d images of the wing placement, I wondered how we could get the right wing up so high without digging the left? My only answer is that upon impact this right wing was already bent up and shearing off due to the repeated pole hits and generator strike. Where did the wings go? I can't picture it...My only thoughts are that they were pulled through the hole in a shredding peeling effect. It is hard to imagine all that sheetmetal getting sucked into that small hole, though strange dynamics are at work at these speeds. Impact , splash, sheetmetal bursts and detaches with ignition of fuel while the guts of the wing are folded back and pulled by the center fusalage parallel and through the hole. even so, it doesn't add up, where is the huge shards of sheetmetal from the wings? Hard to picture

Originally posted by snoopy I am not going to show you that evidence because it has been done so too may times on this very site.Threads with hundreds and hundreds of posts dedicated just to the plane debris, on this very web site. In fact when I first came to this web site I was convinces 9/11 was an inside job and the Pentagon was the main reason. I came here arguing that there was no debris and the hole was too small and all that stuff. It was people on this forum who started showing me all the pictures of the many plane parts that I was convinced didn't exist. Simply, look at the reference thread at the top or do a search for pentagon photos. I have seen web pages full of em. And I have seen posts on these forums that take up several pages because there are so many photos. Posts that go through the debris and match them up to identify the parts. The NTSB would have no jurisdiction here, the FBI would. I am not familliar with the FBI making public records of its investigations.

NO, there are not a lot photos of debris, i have seen all the photos its only a few and as stated the parts shown could be from any aircraft not just a 757. They did not have the DNA testing at the time to ID all the bodies as reported, thats why the top NIST experts had to come up with new testing. The FBI by law was the main investigators of 911, the NTSB is the only agency regulated by the FAA to do aircraft crash scenes. [edit on 9-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ORB Hard to picture

Extremely. The hole really isn't a hole at all. If you look at it you can see that most of what looks like a hole is in fact just the buildings facade. You can still see columns in this so called hole. Regardless of speed certain basic physics laws still come into play. For example if the aircraft was strong enough to make a hole in the building, and continue into the building, what caused the plane to disintegrate into unrecognizable pieces? It had already hit and gone through the main reinforced walls, then it hit office furniture and air. So where did it go? The wall itself didn't do that because the wall gave way and supposedly this huge airliner fit all of itself, engines included, through an 18' hole. We have debris that could have easily been planted. Where is the big stuff like the engines? We have what? A pic of one rotor from a miniumun of about 20? Where are the rotor shafts? The engine cases? Where are the massive rear landing gear? We have a pic of one wheel, where are the other 9?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 because i can state that the photo of the wheel found is the type used on other aircraft.

Funny I have seen rims exactly like that on 757’s, though rims are optional, like engines. Meaning that not all 757 rims are going to be the same. The best piece of evidence is the cargo door frame that broke through the interior ring, that part is clearly from a commercial jet.

Originally posted by ORB observing the 3d images of the wing placement, I wondered how we could get the right wing up so high without digging the left?

Aircraft wings are very flexible. Check out the NASA crash test footage of the 707 and you can see how the wings are able to bend upward when the engine is sliding across the ground. Here are some pictures showing just how far that they can bend wings before they snap. Its called Wing load Testing, google it you can find plenty of other pictures.

Originally posted by ANOK For example if the aircraft was strong enough to make a hole in the building, and continue into the building, what caused the plane to disintegrate into unrecognizable pieces? It had already hit and gone through the main reinforced walls, then it hit office furniture and air. So where did it go?

The columns shredded the plane, Anok I don’t understand why that is so hard for you to understand? Picture pushing a piece of cheese through a cheese grater, the stronger parts of the building such as the columns sliced through the weaker aircraft, while some of the weaker parts of the building allowed penetration by some of the denser part of the aircraft.

Originally posted by defcon5 The columns shredded the plane, Anok I don’t understand why that is so hard for you to understand? Picture pushing a piece of cheese through a cheese grater, the stronger parts of the building such as the columns sliced through the weaker aircraft, while some of the weaker parts of the building allowed penetration by some of the denser part of the aircraft.

That doesn't explain where the plane went, or the parts I mentioned in my other post. One of the weakest parts of a plane is the nose, one of the strongest is the engines. You want me to believe that the aircrafts nose punched through leaving a nice neat 18' hole, yet the engines left no marks on the building? So if the columns sliced up the plane, what happened to the slices? Did you completely think this theory through? Still doesn't answer what happened to the wings ether, I'm guessing you believe the 'wings and engines were sucked into the little hole by liquification' BS? If the nose was strong enough to punch through then the engines and wing leading edges would have also. For the wings and engines to be pulled through the hole would mean the wall would have had to resist the impact of wings and engine, which is obvious it couldn't because it didn't resist the soft fiberglass nose, and on top of that was already compromised before the wings hit. Sry but your cheese grater analogy doesn't really work. When the cheese has gone through the grater you still have cheese, it doesn't disappear...

Originally posted by ANOK One of the weakest parts of a plane is the nose

Yes the ray dome is only made of composite and would turn into confetti on impact. The wall behind the local radar is substantially tougher and the frame denser after that.

Originally posted by ANOK one of the strongest is the engines

Absolutely incorrect. Only the engine shaft, possibly the Compressor, Combustor, and the Turbine blades might be solid enough to have survived in any recognizable form. Almost Ninety percent the size of the engine is the Fan and Cowling; here is an example of what I mean: Low By-Pass Turbo-Fans vs High By-Pass Turbo-Fans TurboJet Low By-Pass Turbo-Fans and TurboJets are what you're used to from working in the military, not High By-Pass Turbo-Fans.

AeroSpace Web Article on 911 Engine Parts A turbofan with a low-bypass ratio means that most of the air flowing through the engine passes through the turbojet core and very little through the outer fan bypass duct. Such engines are most common on military combat aircraft like fighters. Today's commercial airlines, like the 757, are instead fitted with high-bypass turbofan engines. A high-bypass turbofan consists of a very large diameter fan and a much smaller-diameter turbojet core within.

The toughest parts of the aircraft are the ones we saw that survived, parts of the Compressor assembly, parts of the landing gear assemblies, areas where the frame is denser like around doorways.

Originally posted by ANOK You want me to believe that the aircrafts nose punched through leaving a nice neat 18' hole, yet the engines left no marks on the building?

The nose did not make an 18’ hole, the force of the entire frame structure and fuselage made that hole, the nose was most likely crushed backwards and broke up. The only intact chunk that we see a picture of is from a doorway which survived all the way through to the inner ring. You do of course realize that there is only 25 feet between engines, which means that they would have been right on the ragged edge of the 18’ foot hole. Also since as I stated above, the engine is about 90% fan blades which are designed to break up with any significant impact the parts of the engine that would have gone into the building would have only been a few feet in diameter. Besides this I am not sure what 18 foot hole your talking about the entry hole was larger then 18 feet.

Originally posted by ANOK Still doesn't answer what happened to the wings ether, I'm guessing you believe the 'wings and engines were sucked into the little hole by liquification' BS?

The wings are pretty thin on a 757, even at the root I cannot believe that they are more then 3 foot tall, at the tips they are not even a foot thick. Now that is estimation from having worked on 757’s, I don’t have the exact thickness. But still the wings size and thus its durability taper off quickly on the other side of the engine mounts, so you only really have 25 feet of substantial wing thickness. I would imagine that the inner wings carried into the building with the fuselage, and the outer wings were split by the building pilings and shattered when the fuel tanks inside them exploded. You ever see the movie Armageddon? “What happens if you light a firecracker in the palm of your hand, you burn your hand right... Now what happens if you close your fist around the same firecracker… Your Wife will be opening your ketchup bottles the rest of your life”. Same thing here, the fuel was in a contained tank that is located in that wing, when those areas of the wing hit the building pilings they would have broken at that point and exploded. Not much would be left of them besides confetti.

Originally posted by ANOK liquification' BS

They are not trying to say that the aircraft actually turned into liquid, but rather a swarm of shrapnel that would pour through the structure in a fluid manor.

Originally posted by ANOK If the nose was strong enough to punch through then the engines and wing leading edges would have also which is obvious it couldn't because it didn't resist the soft fiberglass nose, and on top of that was already compromised before the wings hit

Again it was not the nose that pierced the structure, but rather the inertia created by the weight that was behind the nose concentrated into a small area. Why does a pointed object pierce something better then a blunt one? Because you’re concentrating the inertia of all the weight behind the object into a smaller surface area; Physics 101… The fiberglass is not even an issue, it was the frame of the body starting at the ray-dome firewall, I don’t think there is a single logical person here that believes that the fiberglass/composite survived the impact, it was immediately obliterated. As to the leading edges of the wings, they did pierce the fascia of the building and there have been plenty of pictures of that long thin line of impact in this thread. Where does that impact end, right at the concrete pilings just like I mentioned above. The entire line along the fascia is only short by 10 feet per side, the thinnest, weakest last ten feet of each wing. Now when you take into consideration that the wing is swept back, that means that they would have been the last part of the wing to impact, and thus after the explosion of the thicker, farther forward, and fuel laden roots. Thus this last ten feet most likely just blew up into a million tiny shards of shrapnel.

Originally posted by ANOK Sry but your cheese grater analogy doesn't really work. When the cheese has gone through the grater you still have cheese, it doesn't disappear

It absolutely fits. After it has gone through a cheese grater then you have thin slices of confetti. Each corresponding row of pillings would act like another cheese grater chopping those pieces smaller and smaller until they finally came to a rest. A few pieces survived, but those are ones that were able to bounce through those pilings in one piece, the denser parts as I mentioned above; as well as some parts that were ejected in the explosion. Edit:had to change the graphic [edit on 1/9/2007 by defcon5]

You have voted defcon5 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month. Great Job Defcon5. Well explained in simple terms. Not sure it will do much to change the minds of the few that are left arguing the Pentagon CT's.

ok here is my take. 1 passenger jet hit the pentagon, 1 went down in pa, and two hit wtc. i think all the evidence supports this. here is the part of the planes that concerns me, where i think or fact finding should be concetrated. i am not a pilot, but have talked with a few experienced airline pilots. each one said they are not sure they could fly a 757/767, into the wtc at top speed, and were even less sure they could hit the pentagon at the angle it was hit. so if we have been told the terrorists were bad flight school students, how was this possible? second,, the wtc 1 and 2 collapses do not look like controlled demolitions to me, just my opinion, however, wtc 7 was a picture perfect demolition, how could that happen third, how certain are we about the stories of the israeli, possibly massoud guys cheering at the site of the towers burning. last, how in the world was attah's passport photo found at the site, is this a confirmed news report or urban myth.

Originally posted by defcon5 Funny I have seen rims exactly like that on 757’s, though rims are optional, like engines. Meaning that not all 757 rims are going to be the same. The best piece of evidence is the cargo door frame that broke through the interior ring, that part is clearly from a commercial jet.

Yes that wheel type is used on 757s but it is also used on other aircraft. The cargo door frame may be from a commercial jet but is it from flight 77 ?

Originally posted by defcon5 Aircraft wings are very flexible. Check out the NASA crash test footage of the 707 and you can see how the wings are able to bend upward when the engine is sliding across the ground.

Yes aircaft wings can move up and down quit a lot, but they are not made to take impacts as shown in the following reports. 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.

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.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 9-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by defcon5 Yes the ray dome is only made of composite and would turn into confetti on impact. The wall behind the local radar is substantially tougher and the frame denser after that.

OK I”ll buy that but only if you then agree that the wings are more than just thin aluminum and have quit strong bracing under that skin that should have done more than be sucked in a hole. Where are they? Where is the debri from wing spars and the fuselage frame we both now agree is pretty 'tough and dense'. Strong enough to break through a re-inforced concrete wall, but then disappear into nothing?

Absolutely incorrect. Only the engine shaft, possibly the Compressor, Combustor, and the Turbine blades might be solid enough to have survived in any recognizable form. Almost Ninety percent the size of the engine is the Fan and Cowling

No it’s not incorrect. I have asked many times where are the engine casings (intake, compression and combustion chambers)?? The compressor and combustor section you mention are made from strong, heat and shatter-resistant alloys. Where are they? You are wrong about rotor blades, they are probably the least likely to survive a crash like this. Size has nothing to do with anything, in fact the small size, as you pointed out, should have more of an impact than a larger surface. As a 6 yr jet mech I should know what makes up the engine, thanx.

Low By-Pass Turbo-Fans and TurboJets are what you're used to from working in the military, not High By-Pass Turbo-Fans…

What is your point? All jet engines have pretty much the same design and use the same materials. The only major diff is how air is introduced into the intake/compressor section, or as in the case the the turbo-fan with an extra fan (The reason for the huge engine shrouds) creating most of the thrust (thus High-Pass). They are used on commercial planes because they are quieter and use less fuel, but the basic engine is the same as any other jet engine. So where is this compressor section you speak of? I have yet to see any parts of the engines casings and I’ve asked many times. We have a pic of ONE rotor, minus it’s blades, where are the others? Should be approx 20 of them (too lazy to count). Where are the rotor shafts? Your claim that what survived is what should be expected is wrong.

The only intact chunk that we see a picture of is from a doorway which survived all the way through to the inner ring.

What piece is this, please show me a pic and then the proof that it is from an AA’s 757.

Besides this I am not sure what 18 foot hole your talking about the entry hole was larger then 18 feet.

Most of what you think is hole has columns still behind it. What you are seeing is the buildings façade blown away from the impact, not a hole that something went through. Again I know how big the engines are, I have looked under the hood.. I also know how strong the casings are, and the rotor shafts, and the lading gear. Where is the rear landing gear. And again we have a pic of ONE wheel when there should be 10, you notice a pattern here or what?

You ever see the movie Armageddon

You need to stop watching movies.

As to the leading edges of the wings, they did pierce the fascia of the building and there have been plenty of pictures of that long thin line of impact in this thread

Yeah the marks that would have put the left engine shroud under the ground. Sry but you know that’s been de-bunked…

It absolutely fits. After it has gone through a cheese grater then you have thin slices of confetti. Each corresponding row of pilings would act like another cheese grater chopping those pieces smaller and smaller until they finally came to a rest

How many columns were there?…LOL Sry but not enough to shred a 757 into unrecognizable pieces. And man they must have been strong columns in the pentagoon cause, tell me if I’m wrong, but according to your official story the columns in the WTC (which were much larger) were sliced through by a 757 right? Don’t you base the collapse on that happening?…

Originally posted by CameronFox You have voted defcon5 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month. Great Job Defcon5. Well explained in simple terms. Not sure it will do much to change the minds of the few that are left arguing the Pentagon CT's.

Hahahaha, yeah you’re here to find the truth Thanx for the laugh guys!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Yes aircaft wings can move up and down quit a lot, but they are not made to take impacts as shown in the following reports. 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.

Believe it or not this happened within 5 miles of where I lived at the time… I was at the accident scene not long after the crash and was very familiar with the Avis building. There are two crucial things that made this accident different then the light poles that were hit by the 757. First the lights on top of the Avis building that the aircraft snagged were not standard light poles such as you see on the side of the road like those hit at the Pentagon, they were stadium type lights. These lights had rows of multiple lights held together on a rack similar to those at a baseball field or football stadium, These types of lights are not meant to sear off like lights that may be hit by an automobile and are much more substantial in their structure and size. The second issue is that this aircraft was on take-off roll out, just after rotation. This means that the aircraft was flying at higher power, but less speed and thus less inertia. It is also the period of the flight were the aircraft is more prone to stalling out during the climb, low speed and lower lift in a climb causes a lack of lift and thus a stall. Added to this problem is the main cause of the flight crashing; the pilot became distracted prior to take off and forgot to set his flaps, providing that much less lift. The lights were struck because the pilot was unable to generate enough lift to clear the lights to begin with and the second he lost some of the wing he had that much less lift and stalled the aircraft right down under the overpass. The one thing about this crash that does relate to the Pentagon is to look at the damage done to the overpass piling, which was basically nothing, and the debris field after it hit the piling. You will notice exactly what I said above; that the wreckage after the fuselage hit the piling is nothing but confetti, much the same as the Pentagon crash which also involved pilings. The only substantial wreckage left from that flight was the tail section which fell off back on Middlebelt Road prior to hitting the pilings. Part of the reason that folks seem to have an issue with the tail being missing, is that most of the crashes that we have seen in the past have involved aircraft with tail mounted engines. Mostly 727’s, on a tail mounted aircraft the frame of the tail is quite substantial as it must hold the stress of the engine. The tail on a 757 does not contain an engine and thus it does not have anywhere near that amount of structure in the tail.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 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.

I am not sure how this relates to the Pentagon crash. The aircraft did not crash and only sustained damage. The Yeah bird strike causes damage to wings, but its only skin damage, I have seen it first hand. It did not bring down the aircraft, there was no crash. Also the engine damage may have caused wing damage, especially if the engine catastrophically failed and exited the wing. There is not much detail given in the account of that incident, so I cannot comment more on it unless you have some further information on how it relates to the topic at hand. [edit on 1/10/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by ANOK OK I”ll buy that but only if you then agree that the wings are more than just thin aluminum and have quit strong bracing under that skin that should have done more than be sucked in a hole. Where are they?

First off I am not going to negotiate with you, your logic is flawed and I will be happy to show you where. Second, I already told you what did in fact happen to the wings. Yes they have spars that run through them, but only one significant set that attaches them to the aircraft and those are only held in place by a few bolts. The spares of the aircraft are designed to take stress on an horizontal plane not in a vertical one. In other words they are meant to flex up and down, but not back and forth. The impact would have driven the a wing that came in contact with the ground up as the lowest point of the wing (engines on a 757) came into contact with the ground. However, the impact with the building would have forced them back and sheared the bolts. So yes part of the wings went inside the building with the fuselage. Other parts of the wing would have been destroyed in the explosion of the fuel tanks.

Originally posted by ANOK The compressor and combustor section you mention are made from strong, heat and shatter-resistant alloys.

A car is just about as strong as the chambers that hold the compressor and combustor, so what would be left of a car if it rammed into a piling on an underpass at 500Mph? Would it look the same as it did before the crash? Would the impact be severe enough to break the engine block which is even tougher then the hollow chambers you’re talking about? There are sections of these chambers visible in the pictures; there is one on the site I linked above. But they are not going to be in one solid still round piece, they are going to be twisted, torn, warped, and even fragmented. To say these parts are planted is just silly, first off most folks would not even know what they are, secondly they weight so much that it would not be possible to transport them in without a forklift.

Originally posted by ANOK You are wrong about rotor blades, they are probably the least likely to survive a crash like this.

I think your confusing the fan blades with the turbine blades. Also I doubt that the turbine blades would remain intact, but the disks they are on might. Again though this makes me think that you are still not understanding what a High By-Pass Turbo Fan is.

Originally posted by ANOK As a 6 yr jet mech I should know what makes up the engine, thanx.

Yeah, and in the past you have informed me that your jet experience was in the Navy, and you are retired and have been for quite some time. Thus I think you’re unfamiliar with engines such as those on a 737-300 and up, 757, 767, 747, etc… I am going to guess form the remarks you make here and the things you have shared in the past your more used to engines along the line of DC-9’s, 707’s, 727’s, maybe 737-1 and 200’s, fighter aircraft, turbo-props, and helicopter turbine engines. None of these aircraft have the tremendous Turbo-Fan that takes up most of the engine. Most of these engines are much smaller and thus much stronger, hence the fact I don’t think your grasping what I am telling you about the engines.

Originally posted by ANOK What is your point? All jet engines have pretty much the same design and use the same materials.

Ah… See here is the problem, your relating this back to this older style of engines. Now I am seriously not trying to pick on you here, just to explain what I am saying. On any of these new engines I can stand in front of the turbo fan (when it’s off obviously) and look straight through it and see what is going on behind the engine. There is that much open airspace between the cowling and the center core that is the actual jet engine. You have to think of them more along the line of a turbo-prop, a small central core driving a set of large blades. Now obviously the fan blades are much different then the turbo-prop blades, but the idea is the same. You could not stand in front of a 737-100, 737-200, DC-9, or 727 engine and see out the back of the engine. The fan is very small in comparison to the turbine. The fan is made to be fragile and break apart very easily with a substantial impact. The core might survive, but it is only 2 or 3 feet in diameter compared to a fan that can be 6 to 8 feet in diameter, depending on the aircraft. So although the engines look huge, they are actually mostly empty airspace. Like that turbo-prop with a cowling around the blades. I am trying to simplify here to help you get my point, but I hope it makes sense to you.

Originally posted by ANOK The only major diff is how air is introduced into the intake/compressor section, or as in the case the the turbo-fan with an extra fan (The reason for the huge engine shrouds) creating most of the thrust (thus High-Pass). They are used on commercial planes because they are quieter and use less fuel, but the basic engine is the same as any other jet engine.

Correct, and that is why its incorrect to be looking for these huge engine parts to survive, as the core is very small and the only part that might be dense enough to survive. Thus we see in the photos these very small sections of the turbine core, and not these big engine parts.

Originally posted by ANOK So where is this compressor section you speak of? I have yet to see any parts of the engines casings and I’ve asked many times.

AeroSpace Web Article on 911 Engine Parts Unless you mean the cowlings. The cowlings are made of composite and would never survive. If you mean the ring that the ring that surrounds the fan blades, it is quite large and most of it is simply made of aircraft aluminum, the inside of those rings are very thin sound baffling aluminum that is covered in many small pinholes. There are also sections that are made of composite/fiberglass.

Originally posted by ANOK What piece is this, please show me a pic and then the proof that it is from an AA’s 757.

images.abovetopsecret.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/> You can see that there is a ring made of small holes on this piece, it looks like the receiver end of an old telephone. That area is commonly seen on commercial aircraft above the area where the light panel is for the cargo bin. I cannot tell you that is only appears on 757’s though, as I have also seen those holes on DC-9s/MD-80’s. Since I no longer have access to a 757, I cannot go in and photograph one to show that it is there on a 757, but I know it exists on cargo doorways of the DC-9 family for certain.

Originally posted by ANOK Most of what you think is hole has columns still behind it.

Yeah. The building pilings, I mention these multiple times above. If you want to see what pilings do to an aircraft, then research into the NW crash at DTW and see what a set of under/overpass pilings did to that aircraft. These are the cheese graters I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by ANOK Again I know how big the engines are, I have looked under the hood..

Yeah, so have I, but on the newer aircraft unlike those older military ones. I have worked on all versions of the following aircraft: 707’s, 727’s, 737’s, 747’s (including Lufthansa’s cargo combi’s), 757’s, 767’s, 777’s, A310’s, A320’s, A330’s, DC-8’s, DC-9’s, DC-10’s, MD-80’s, L-1011’s, a BA Concord, and a ton of turbo-prop aircraft too numerous to mention but mainly Dash’s, Beeches, and Bandits. Also several military aircraft including C-130’s and F-16’s.

Originally posted by ANOK I also know how strong the casings are, and the rotor shafts, and the lading gear. Where is the rear landing gear. And again we have a pic of ONE wheel when there should be 10, you notice a pattern here or what?

I believe that either Howard or OTS showed that there were several more pictures of wheels in this very thread, but I don’t have to time to look through all 200 pages for them. There are also pictures of surviving main wheel gear spares. There is one in the opening post.

Originally posted by ANOK You need to stop watching movies.

I don’t really watch that much TV, I don’t really have the time. Although Armageddon is mostly BS in its space facts, its still an entertaining movie. I very much like it as it has humor poking fun at another great movie, “The Right Stuff”. It just so happens though, that this one quote in the movie is right on the money here. If you have an explosion without an area to build pressure then it lacks force, if you have it in a contained area then the force builds until the explosion is either contained or it blows apart the thing that is containing it. This is what would happen in the contained tanks of the wing and possibly the center tank as well. If you are implying that I got my information from the movies; then see the above post. I spent almost 8 years as a fueler, and ramp supervisor working on commercial aircraft. This is a much more relevant source then being a military mechanic which works on a different type of aircraft. Military aircraft have much tougher structure as they are intended to fly under more stress and in harms way. They are often smaller, making for a tighter frame structure and sometimes have armor plating. The engines are much more compact (smaller diameter) and thus much tougher as well.

Originally posted by ANOK How many columns were there?…LOL Sry but not enough to shred a 757 into unrecognizable pieces.

One set of three in-line pilings shredded the NW DTW flight to confetti…

Originally posted by ANOK but according to your official story the columns in the WTC (which were much larger) were sliced through by a 757 right? Don’t you base the collapse on that happening?…

I am sure that some of the pilings were severed; it depends on what part of the aircraft hit each individual piling. If you think about it, the fuselage was like a battering ram more powerful then any in recorded history. The thinner parts of the aircraft would break off, but the central core, the fuselage would not. All the horizontal frame spars, that run through the fuselage taper together at the nose firewall behind the radar dome. Those spars run the entire length of the aircraft. While I am sure that they also got crushed as they ran into the building, they also would have done considerable damage to that area of the building. The airfoils which did not have that type of frame and had frame intended for forces from other angles would not have survived.

Originally posted by CameronFox You have voted defcon5 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Thank you for the vote CameronFox.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 NO, there are not a lot photos of debris, i have seen all the photos its only a few and as stated the parts shown could be from any aircraft not just a 757. They did not have the DNA testing at the time to ID all the bodies as reported, thats why the top NIST experts had to come up with new testing. The FBI by law was the main investigators of 911, the NTSB is the only agency regulated by the FAA to do aircraft crash scenes. [edit on 9-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I have seen close to 100 photos of debris, most on this forum. And you are expecting that a plane hitting concrete at 550mph is going to produce whole parts? No sir. Not possible. But there are 100s of photos and many many that show identifiable parts. There are no pictures of any missile parts or anything else. They most certainly DID have the DNA testing at the time. They NEVER EVER reported identifying all the bodies, and they still have NOT identified all of the bodies. The problem is not about them using the bones for testing to get better results, but this claim that they said they identified every body. Even today they aren't saying that. Again, the NTSB has no jurisdiction here. They are there to help the FBI, but this is not their investigation. This is not your typical crash, hence the FBI having this case, not the NTSB.

For the people who don't understand the physics behind a plane impact, just do a search for test plane crashes. There are countless clips of test footage showing planes impacting into concrete at full speed. In all of them you will see the plane liquify in time stop camera footage. You can see frame by frame what happens to a plane upon impact. You will see that the plane is reduced to dust. The wings and body are just completely gone. Nothing but dust left. Now of course in such footage the concrete is much thicker than the walls of the pentagon, so in the case of the Pentagon, the plane is not going to completely turn to dust, it's going to be somewhere in between. As we see in the Pentagon Debris. The Cornel U computer simulations show how the plane liquified and continued through the building. As an object traveling at those speeds is simply not going to stop. People on here can argue their opinion all they want, but they are in no way qualified to make these claims of how big a hole should be or what should really happen. That's what the experts are for. Again, everyone do themselves a favor and just do a search for crash test footage. Once you see that, the Pentagon and what happened to the wings and all will make more sense.

Originally posted by defcon5 I am not sure how this relates to the Pentagon crash. The aircraft did not crash and only sustained damage. The Yeah bird strike causes damage to wings, but its only skin damage, I have seen it first hand. It did not bring down the aircraft, there was no crash. Also the engine damage may have caused wing damage, especially if the engine catastrophically failed and exited the wing. There is not much detail given in the account of that incident, so I cannot comment more on it unless you have some further information on how it relates to the topic at hand. [edit on 1/10/2007 by defcon5]

Well both reports prove my point that wings are not designed to take impacts and can be easliy sheared off. You would think that a plane hitting poles at 500 mph would cause severe damage even if the poles were meant to breakaway.