9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by defcon5 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....

That's hell of a claim there buddy, YOU told me what happened to the wings? Were you there, mr.expert? Dude I don't care how the wings are attached, if they sheared off at impact then what caused them to be inside the building? Sry but your theory does not make any sense at all. You are stretching to reach a conclusion that fits the official story. My logic is flawed...

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.

Jeez if a car did that then the engine wouldn't disappear now would it? It will still be an engine, a little squashed or broke up but you would still recognize the engine, or parts. I'm talking about the CASING that makes up the compressor section etc. The heat resistant, shatter proof alloy casings. Pls point out parts of the casings in your pics pls and proof they came from an AA's 757.

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.

Most of the parts we have pics of are easily handled by one or two ppl. So what if they used a fork lift, the government does have such equipment you know? What is silly is your uneducated attempt to make ppl think you are an expert on aircraft. You might fool someone who doesn't have any aircraft experience, but sry I've had too much experience with engines to 'be told' anything by you.

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.

Exactly, so where are the rotor disks like I asked before, about 20 of them? I'm not confusing anything, I know what fan blades are, and I know what rotor/turbine blades are. (If I use fan when I should use rotor it's because 'fan blade' is a common term for all rotor/turbine blades. We never actually called then turbine blades even though that is the correct term).

Again though this makes me think that you are still not understanding what a High By-Pass Turbo Fan is.

LOL I know exactly what one is, what did I say that wasn't right? It's a jet engine like any other with a big FAN on the front driven by said jet engine. The fan creates most of the thrust (HIGH-PASS), thus it can use a smaller engine that is quieter and uses less fuel. What am I missing? It still has the classic configuration of intake, compressor and combustion, made from the same alloys as any other jet engine. I've worked on everything from APU's, turbo-props and turbo-shafts and am very familiar with turbo-fans, 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…

So what? I got out in 95. Engines haven't changed in 10 yrs, sry bro. Like I said there is no major difference in jet engines that would change the way they reacted in a crash situation, I can't even figure out where you're going with this??

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.

I'm not understanding cause you're not making sense, just like Agent smith who made the same claims you did, are you Agent Smith?...lol I know they don’t have the fan, unless it’s an turbo-fan equipped plane like the S-3 Viking... So what? What difference does the fan make to what happened to the engines?

I am trying to simplify here to help you get my point, but I hope it makes sense to you.

No I don’t get your point lol. I worked ‘I’ level for 2 yrs ('O' level the rest), which means I worked on engines out of the planes. When I say engine casings, which I think I already explained, I mean the compressor, combustion section etc. not the airframe ‘cowling’. That's what is called the engine casings. What do you mean by 'older type' engine? Turbo-fans have been around for awhile you know, and they're still making these 'older type' engines... There has been no new re-design of engine casing AFAIK. I’m not looking for huge engine parts, just engine parts… Like the rotor shafts, rotor hubs etc...(If one survived where are the rest of them?) Military aircraft don’t have anything added to the engines to make them stronger; they have to consider weight as much as any other type of plane. You are the one who doesn’t seem to understand jet engines very well. Go back to fueling or whatever you did, and leave the big stuff to those who have been trained in it. Just so we’re on the same page… You can also see the numorous rotors inside, through the cutaway top section. What happened to all of them? Another point is we know when two objects of different strengths smash, science says the weaker object will yield. So in this case the wall yielded to the plane, so I ask again what destroyed the plane? [edit on 10/1/2007 by ANOK]

I have a few questions for you: 1. Are the any photos of the engines? 2. Why does the manufactuer of the plane say that parts found do not belong to that type of plane as reported in the loose change video. 3. Why can't we see videos from various surrounding businesses showing the plane flying into the Pentagon. 4. If we know the twin towers were controlled demos, which shows thermite being used, why couldn't there be some other type of coverup or mis-info on the pentagon, I believe the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was a Global Hawk. 5. Then there is Building 7 Things don't add up I believe 911 was an inside job and we are due for another terrorist attack soon

Very well writen, But there are a few problems. The main BODY of the plane would infact create a hole that would be the correct size, but are you forgetting the wings? Even when the planes hit the trade centers there were wing markings (of corse that was glass and kept the shape well). Since the pentagon is not glass there definantly should have been eather 2 wings lying on the ground or more of the wall would have been distroyed at the original point of entry from the wings and the tail wings. Also there is the case of the lawn. With landing gear down, the engines stand about 5 feet of the ground and are comsiterably lower to the ground than the rest of the plane, so for the nose of the plain to be 2 feet off the gound for the point of entry in to the wall, the engins would have to have been draging the groung. If you look at the magical penagon lawn, there are no markings on the ground. Also if you look at crashes from other 757 flights there are still parts of the main frame left. Even planes that crash and exploed and burn until the fire goes out. On top of that there is also the fact that the pentigon is not a normal building. We have to remember that this is a VERY high tech building. And even with a 757 going as fast as it was it would not, under any circumstances, would a plain clear 6 steal reenforced concrete walls, magicaly stop before wall 7 and then the front of the plain crumble or disapear. Then there is a matter of how loud and big jumbo jet plane is. Have you ever not heard one as it was landing or taking off? When it was crossing the interstate, the turbulance would have done a lot more damage and the sound would have defend many people if it was low enough to knock over the light poles. Take another look at a few of the pictures, you might find some interesting things. There is also the fact to manuver a plane so well over and around other objects, the piolet would have to be well trained or there would have to be a very great, high tech guidence system, like the ones found in missles. Since the piolet who is said to have hijacked the plane couldn't even pass piolet shool and the guidence systems are pritty basic on commercle planes, there has to be a flaw here too. The real questions are why is the government covring it up? What good does it do? And why did they cover it up so horrably?

You gotta love our government a little..

Anok It's not that the wings sheered off. The plane liquified upon impact which means that it becomes a body of little broken parts that moves in a liquid manner. This is anormal phenomenon with impacts. There is too much energy for the objects to simply come to a stop. They are going to continue forward until they encounter enough force to bring them to a rest. They follow the path of least resistance that is going to be the hole. This of course is all explained and demonstrated by Cornell who has made some good computer simulations to demonstrate. If a car engine hit that wall at 550mph, there would be nothing but dust left. I think this is the source of confusion. You are basing your ideas on what you know, which are car crashes. Car crashes do not occur at these speeds and can in no way be compared. If that plane had hit the wall at 70mph, then you would see a lot more parts, and it probably wouldn't even have made a hole. You are also implying that the plane should have left large pieces. But that is simply impossible. had there big large pieces, then i would suspect foul play. But a plane hitting a concrete wall at 550mph is not going to leave any large parts. Have you looked at any crash footage as I suggested? If you do, you will see that not only are there no engines remaining, but there's no plane period. Everthing completely disintegrates. There are lots of videos that show various planes and in slow motion. You can see the planes just vanish.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 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.

There is a big difference in the types of lights that both aircraft hit. Single street light poles that are designed to shear off at the base to protect a driver in a auto accident are not the same thing as hitting a rack of stadium lighting attached to the top of a building. A break away light pole might damage the skin of the plane, and it might even bend a section of frame, but its not going to shear a wing section off. Also a DC-9 is a smaller aircraft with smaller/thinner wings. [edit on 1/11/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by ANOK if they sheared off at impact then what caused them to be inside the building?

In the words of Sir Isaac Newton's First law of Motion

Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight ahead, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed. [Cohen & Whitman 1999 translation

translation: Inertia But I suppose it makes more sense to you that they instantly broke off then just sat there motionless right outside the hole where the fuselage went into the building, like in a cartoon. The wings would have severed at the moment that the leading edge impacted the fascia of the building, the wing section inner of the engine, I am going to guess went inside with the fuselage, the section out side the wing severed at each corresponding piling and exploded, the shrapnel from those wing sections carried on into the building. Whatever wing sections were sheared yet still attached by skin and frame sections would have folded along the sides of the fuselage and been pulled into the structure with the body.

Originally posted by ANOK Jeez if a car did that then the engine wouldn't disappear now would it? It will still be an engine, a little squashed or broke up but you would still recognize the engine, or parts. I'm talking about the CASING that makes up the compressor section etc. The heat resistant, shatter proof alloy casings. Pls point out parts of the casings in your pics pls and proof they came from an AA's 757.

Aerospace web, which is frequented by aviation folks seems to feel that the parts that they show are in fact the pieces that you are asking about. I think I’ll take their expertise on the subject over yours.

Aerospaceweb.org is a non-profit site operated by engineers and scientists in the aerospace field. The goal of this site is to provide educational information on a variety of subjects ranging from aviation to space travel to aerospace technology. Our primary areas of expertise include aerodynamics, propulsion systems, vehicle design, engineering career information, and aerospace history.

But of course I am sure they are in on it too, right?

Originally posted by ANOK Most of the parts we have pics of are easily handled by one or two ppl. So what if they used a fork lift, the government does have such equipment you know?

So where are the pictures of the forklift dropping these pieces in the debris piles then? There were photographers and news stations at the crash scene almost immediately after the accident.

Originally posted by ANOK What is silly is your uneducated attempt to make ppl think you are an expert on aircraft. You might fool someone who doesn't have any aircraft experience, but sry I've had too much experience with engines to 'be told' anything by you.

Its awfully funny how other folks on here with an aviation background all seem to disagree with you; guys like Zaphod, OTS, etc. In my experience with Ex-Military mechanics, and I had many of them working on the ramp for me, the military apparently rates many folk’s mechanics that civilian aviation disagrees with. If you are an Ex-Military mechanic, when you leave the military and try and get a job at the airport you are rated to work the ramp slinging bags, pulling chalks, and driving tugs. Civilian aviation does not even consider military mechanic experience equivalent to holding an A&P certification. The only way to come out of the military and get a job as a civilian mechanic is to attend a civilian mechanic school prior to leaving the military and receive the proper certifications. SOOOO….. With that in mind there must be some difference between the two, there is obviously differences in terminology, in structure, and equipment type. Besides this, I have never said I was an expert, but I do have a pretty good knowledge about the topic of aviation.

Originally posted by ANOK Exactly, so where are the rotor disks like I asked before, about 20 of them? I'm not confusing anything, I know what fan blades are, and I know what rotor/turbine blades are. (If I use fan when I should use rotor it's because 'fan blade' is a common term for all rotor/turbine blades. We never actually called then turbine blades even though that is the correct term).

Well to my knowledge rotor can mean anything that is spinning, even helicopter blades are referred to as rotors…

Main Entry: ro•tor Pronunciation: 'rO-t&r Function: noun Etymology: contraction of rotator 1 a : a part that revolves in a stationary part b : the rotating member of an electrical machine 2 : an assembly of rotating blades that supplies lift or stability for a rotorcraft

Using these images and other diagrams of the RB211-535 engine, we can obtain approximate dimensions of the engine's rotary disks for comparison to the item found in the Pentagon rubble. Our best estimate is that the engine's twelve compressor disk hubs are about 36% the width of the fan. The five turbine disk hubs appear to be slightly smaller at approximately 34% the fan diamter. According to Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory and Jane's, the fan diameter of the RB211-535E4B engine is 74.5 inches (189.2 cm). It then follows that the compressor disk hubs are approximately 27 inches (69 cm) across while the turbine disk hubs are about 25 inches (63.5 cm) in diameter. Both of these dimensions fit within the range of values estimated for the engine component pictured in the wreckage at the Pentagon. Whatever piece this is, it appears to be only the central hub of a compressor or turbine stage. Normally, each of these rotating stages would be fitted with several curved blades mounted along its circumference. These blades were apparently knocked off the rotor hub found in the wreckage due to the force of the impact. The loss of these blades is unfortunate since different manufacturers often adopt unique shapes for their fan, compressor, and turbine blades that would make the source of the component much easier to identify. Nonetheless, we have been able to locate the following picture of the intermediate pressure compressor section of the RB211 that appears to match several characteristics of the Pentagon debris. Note that this photo appears to be from the RB211-524 which is an uprated relative of the RB211-535 used on the Boeing 747 and 767. This engine model contains seven intermediate pressure compressor stages compared to the six of the RB211-535. However, the compressor disks used on both engines are believed to be nearly identical. One similarity between the two photos can be seen in the cleats along the edge of the Pentagon object. These devices are called dovetail slots and provide attachment points for the compressor blades. The shapes of these slots on the Pentagon wreckage appear to match those on the RB211 assembly shown on the left. Furthermore, the "nosepiece" jutting out from the center of the disk in the Pentagon photo shares commonalities with the central shaft visible in the RB211 photo. The above analysis indicates that the Pentagon debris does in fact match the characteristics of a rotor disk from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535.

very nice picture here: www.aerospaceweb.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Originally posted by ANOK LOL I know exactly what one is, what did I say that wasn't right? It's a jet engine like any other with a big FAN on the front driven by said jet engine. The fan creates most of the thrust (HIGH-PASS), thus it can use a smaller engine that is quieter and uses less fuel. What am I missing?

Good so you’re agreeing with the fact that the dense part of the engine is only 3 foot in diameter or so. Considering that the wingspan to the engines with the wings properly attached is only 25 feet, and if we go with the idea that the hole is 18 foot as you said, though I am pretty sure it was somewhat bigger. Now add to it that the wings might have been sheared and folding back toward the fuselage and the area between the engines was now less then 25 feet. With this in mind is it so hard to believe that the reason that the hole was 18 feet instead of the 13 foot that the fuselage is was from the few feet of wing and surviving engine parts continuing into the building? Should we really be expecting to see huge gaping holes where the 6 or so foot fan and cowling, that your admitting would not survive, penetrated the building?

Originally posted by ANOK So what? I got out in 95. Engines haven't changed in 10 yrs, sry bro. Like I said there is no major difference in jet engines that would change the way they reacted in a crash situation, I can't even figure out where you're going with this??

What navy aircraft, even ten years ago, has an comparable High By-Pass Turbine engine? The Viking is the only one I can think of that is even similar and those engines are much smaller and thus stronger. In case you have not caught on to what I am saying yet… The smaller the diameter of the engine, the tougher that the engine and its components are going to be, and the more penetration/survivability they are going to have in a crash. A 12 foot casing is not going to be as strong as a 3 foot casing, as it has more unsupported area in diameter.

Originally posted by ANOK I'm not understanding cause you're not making sense, just like Agent smith who made the same claims you did, are you Agent Smith?...lol

No I am obviously not Agent Smith, I wonder whatever happened to him, I have not seen him post in a long time… [edit on 1/11/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by ANOK I know they don’t have the fan, unless it’s an turbo-fan equipped plane like the S-3 Viking.. . So what? What difference does the fan make to what happened to the engines?

I think that it is because folks look at the size of those engines, and don’t realize how much of that engine is nothing that could survive a crash. Now you might know better, but I see folks heading down the path that it could not be a 757 as there are not two 8 foot holes 25 feet apart on either side on the main hole of penetration., and that just does not have to be the case. Now add to this already complex situation the fact that if the engines were undergoing a catastrophic failure and if functioning according to design, then they should have also been exiting the wings over the top. That is just like the topic of the tail, If the number 2 engine hit that generator and began to exit the aircraft, then the aircraft would begin to roll over on that side, the 1st officers side of the plane. So how far could it roll in that time, and where does that actuality place the tail? We obviously see that one wing hit higher then the other, which seems to fit that the aircraft rolled over on entry into the building. Once the wings were gone the body would continue to roll and most likely start to turn to the left or right What I mainly see here is an oversimplification of an extremely complex event that occurred very quickly with different parts moving in different ways. That and a lack of understanding of the actual scale of the aircraft in comparison to the building.

Originally posted by ANOK ...(If one survived where are the rest of them?)

Most likely in the piles of rubble, do you think that the photographers ran around digging through wreckage to try and find every single disk? Especially considering that the photographer probably had no idea what they were or how many of them there were to begin with?

Originally posted by ANOK Military aircraft don’t have anything added to the engines to make them stronger; they have to consider weight as much as any other type of plane.

But again they have a smaller diameter, making them stronger.

Originally posted by ANOK You are the one who doesn’t seem to understand jet engines very well. Go back to fueling or whatever you did, and leave the big stuff to those who have been trained in it.

I was an airline supervisor and thus I had many ex-military mechanics running around on my ramp as ramp agents, fuelers, tuggers, lead agents, and other supervisors. Again nothing about being a military mechanic qualifies you to be a civilian one.

Originally posted by ANOK Another point is we know when two objects of different strengths smash, science says the weaker object will yield. So in this case the wall yielded to the plane, so I ask again what destroyed the plane?

Composite parts and weaker parts were destroyed by the wall, the pilings did the rest, and as you can see most of them did not yield. Let me ask you this… If you hooked up an aircraft to tug it into a hanger and you hit a wing on the hanger doorway and kept on pulling, what would happen (if the towbar did not shear that is)? Let’s also assume that it’s a concrete hanger, not an aluminum one. Would the wing be cut by the wall? Would it do damage to the wall but be cut by the frame or the load bearing building pilings? What exactly would occur?

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133 1. Are the any photos of the engines?

No because as we are arguing above they would not survive intact, and most of the area of what most folks consider the engine is actually nothing but empty airspace. Here are some pictures of parts that have been Identified:

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133 2. Why does the manufactuer of the plane say that parts found do not belong to that type of plane as reported in the loose change video.

Because Boeing does not make the engines, engines are optional, same as wheels. The airlines choose what company they wish to purchase the engines from. It is entirely possible to be on an aircraft with a Rolls-Royce Engine on one wing and a GE on the other, especially if they had to do an emergency engine change and they did not have two of the same engines.

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133 3. Why can't we see videos from various surrounding businesses showing the plane flying into the Pentagon.

They are slowly releasing them, but I don’t hold much hope of them showing anything. I used to take a lot of pictures on the ramp when I worked there, and when I tried to take photo’s of aircraft on take off, even from the ramp, they came out looking pathetically small. Most of the professional photos you see on sites like airliners.net are taken with telephoto lens’s. Photographing even large aircraft with a normal lens, like my 35mm, they come out very tiny compared to the landscape around them. I have no problem with the released video, as the tail is about the same distance above the tree-line behind the aircraft as in photos I have personally taken from roughly the same distance.

Originally posted by PHARAOH1133 4. If we know the twin towers were controlled demos, which shows thermite being used, why couldn't there be some other type of coverup or mis-info on the pentagon, I believe the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was a Global Hawk. 5. Then there is Building 7

I don’t deal with this topic as I have nothing useful to add to it. I know nothing about demolitions. Now if there is a question about the aircraft then I might be more of a help. As to the global hawk, go to the site I linked above and check out their parts comparison, I believe you’ll find that the parts pictured above were in fact too large to be from a global hawk or a fighter plane.

Originally posted by cyanide The main BODY of the plane would infact create a hole that would be the correct size, but are you forgetting the wings? Even when the planes hit the trade centers there were wing markings (of corse that was glass and kept the shape well). Since the pentagon is not glass there definantly should have been eather 2 wings lying on the ground or more of the wall would have been distroyed at the original point of entry from the wings and the tail wings.

No the wings would break up most likely about the way I mentioned above. They would be broken into sections as pilings cut them, they would have been fragmented by the explosion of the fuel in them, and the thicker wing roots would have sheared their bolts and been dragged into the structure with the body by the weaker but more flexible skin and frame that remained intact.

Originally posted by cyanide Also there is the case of the lawn. With landing gear down, the engines stand about 5 feet of the ground and are comsiterably lower to the ground than the rest of the plane, so for the nose of the plain to be 2 feet off the gound for the point of entry in to the wall, the engins would have to have been draging the groung. If you look at the magical penagon lawn, there are no markings on the ground.

The time that the aircraft was in contact with the ground was not that great to begin with, especially if the aircraft had been in ground effect or had bounced. Even then if you look at the photos of the fire trucks they were not ripping up the lawn either and they had their weight concentrated into a smaller area. Now later in the day when the ground had been saturate with water, then you see the fire trucks start tearing up the turf. To be honest though, aircraft are made to be belly landed in an emergency, the surfaces on the bottoms of a plane are quite smooth to allow it to slide, and the weight is distributed over a great amount of area. Besides this, the grass is very slippery, and doubly so if it was still covered with morning due. There are many pictures online of other aircraft that have made similar belly landings and there is no apparent damage to the grass they landed on.

Originally posted by cyanide Also if you look at crashes from other 757 flights there are still parts of the main frame left. Even planes that crash and exploed and burn until the fire goes out. On top of that there is also the fact that the pentigon is not a normal building. We have to remember that this is a VERY high tech building. And even with a 757 going as fast as it was it would not, under any circumstances, would a plain clear 6 steal reenforced concrete walls, magicaly stop before wall 7 and then the front of the plain crumble or disapear.

Normally you see sections of the tail left on most aircraft accidents, but that is because most of the old aircraft had tail mounted engines thus a very reinforced tail section. As to this specific incident, there is little to compare it too as there has never been an incident that exactly matches it. The best approach is to look at the different similar accidents and then make a comparison based on them. The DTW NW airliner is a good match to show what kind of debris field is left after an aircraft hits a reinforced set of pilings. The NASA crash test footing shows what happens to a 707 when it is slid into a set of wing cutters, which would act similarly to the aircraft hitting the ground at the pentagon, the engine hitting the generator, and then the pilings of the buildings cutting the wing. The rocket sled test of the F4 shows how a reinforced wall literally compacts down a fuselage to nothing. By studying these videos, you can get a feeling for what happened to the aircraft when you combine those factors.

Originally posted by cyanide Then there is a matter of how loud and big jumbo jet plane is. Have you ever not heard one as it was landing or taking off? When it was crossing the interstate, the turbulance would have done a lot more damage and the sound would have defend many people if it was low enough to knock over the light poles.

Yeah I have heard them; I used to work on them. As to the Jet blast, it’s not a factor, the jet flew over the road at a high enough altitude that it would not affect the ground. We used to drive vehicles right behind jets with their engines running, and while it would shake the vehicle it never damaged any of them. The jet blast dissipates pretty quickly a short ways behind the tail of the aircraft. If jet blast was that much of an issue, you would see airport constantly having to replace the racks of approach lights at the ends of the runways.

Originally posted by cyanide Take another look at a few of the pictures, you might find some interesting things. There is also the fact to manuver a plane so well over and around other objects, the piolet would have to be well trained or there would have to be a very great, high tech guidence system, like the ones found in missles. Since the piolet who is said to have hijacked the plane couldn't even pass piolet shool and the guidence systems are pritty basic on commercle planes, there has to be a flaw here too.

First off the quote about him not being a good pilot was made by only one person that did not wish to rent him an aircraft, but he had his flight certifications which means that he passed his tests. He also did time in a professional flight simulator. As to how tough the maneuver was, I just don’t see it. It would be the same as making a landing approach. He simply did it at high speed like he was going to do a “go-around”. While landing is one of the tougher things that a pilot has to do, its not that big of a deal. Also you have to consider that this pilot had no intention of making a safe landing, so again he could rock that plane all over the sky and not have to worry about passenger comfort.

Defcon... Great additions to this thread. Not sure there can be much argument left in this debate. Well, other than the Pentagon NOT showing any video evidence. Other than that, between the very first post on this thread and what you have contributed,you guys have pretty much proven that it was a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by defcon5 In my experience with Ex-Military mechanics, and I had many of them working on the ramp for me, the military apparently rates many folk’s mechanics that civilian aviation disagrees with. If you are an Ex-Military mechanic, when you leave the military and try and get a job at the airport you are rated to work the ramp slinging bags, pulling chalks, and driving tugs. Civilian aviation does not even consider military mechanic experience equivalent to holding an A&P certification. The only way to come out of the military and get a job as a civilian mechanic is to attend a civilian mechanic school prior to leaving the military and receive the proper certifications. SOOOO….. With that in mind there must be some difference between the two, there is obviously differences in terminology, in structure, and equipment type. [edit on 1/11/2007 by defcon5]

I have been offered a job at a new, small commercial alirline company and did not have a A&P certification, they wanted me because of my education and experience. You are very wrong about the military mechanics not being able to work at a civilian airport, The only difference is a A&P certification which a military mechanic can get while in the service pretty easy. The education and experience a military mechanic gets is pretty much the same except military planes have more hazmat and other equipment to worry about. You do not see civilian mechanics having to deal with some of the hazmat that is involved with military planes, also you do not see civilians handeling things like external fuel tanks and other equipment that military planes have that commercial planes do not. I was a Crew Chief in the Air force and my job was to know every sytem on the aircraft not just specialize in 1. I strapped the pilot in the plane and hooked up thier oxygen (liquid oxygen supply) and G-suits, then started the engines and did flight control checks. Upon returning i had to inspect the aircraft and if i found any problems had to fix or call in a specialist if it was a large problem. I had to know the basics of every system. Hydraulic Pneumatic Pneudraulic Electrical Mechanical Service all areas Jet Fuel (JP-8) in Europe* Engine oil Hydraulic fliud Liquid oxygen * By the way JP-8 is probly the most unstable of the jet fuels, the Navy will not carry it on their carriers. [edit on 11-1-2007 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 11-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by defcon5 The time that the aircraft was in contact with the ground was not that great to begin with, especially if the aircraft had been in ground effect or had bounced. Even then if you look at the photos of the fire trucks they were not ripping up the lawn either and they had their weight concentrated into a smaller area. Now later in the day when the ground had been saturate with water, then you see the fire trucks start tearing up the turf.

Well here is just 1 pic of a plane going through some tress and tearing up the ground, i have dozens more of planes tearing up the ground and leaving lots of parts like wings, engines and tail behind. i114.photobucket.com... [edit on 11-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by snoopy They follow the path of least resistance that is going to be the hole.

This is where you are wrong. The hole is not least path of resistance, that would only work if there was no where else for the wings to go. This theory only works if there was no path to take BUT the hole. Sry bud but there was the space/lawn in front of the wall that was the path of least resistance, not the hole. The wings would have bounced off the wall, broke up and landed on the lawn. Do you understand that when two objects of unequal strength hit the weaker one will yield? The wall gave way, letting the plane/object through and then, unlike at the WTC, the columns shredded the plane into nothing? Really think about that one, because your pentagoon theory contradicts your WTC theory... There is nothing that would force or pull the wings through the hole, that's just redicularse and shows you really don't understand physics. You can argue till you're blue in the face it aint going to make it so... I'm not going to debate this with you all anymore cause we're going around in pointless circles again. Wake up, you're a dieing breed. Most people are smart enough to see through your redicularse stories.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I was a Crew Chief in the Air force and my job was to know every sytem on the aircraft not just specialize in 1.

I'll second this. My first two years in the Navy were spent as 'Plane Captain' (same as crew chief). You work on the whole aircraft, airframe, arm and safe ejection seats, fueling, engines etc...You do pre-flight and post flight inspections, 28 day inspection. You re-fuel. Do launch procedures giving hand signals to the pilot to start engines and run through pre-flight tests. We learn FAR more than your avarage civilian mechanic, and get to experience far more different engines. I worked on everything turbo-props/turbo-fans/turbo-shafts/APU's, ran an engine test cell. Everybody who works on engines has to have an AP&P licence. Anybody showing up for a job without one is not going to get a job working on aircraft systems. Of course you have to go to a civilian school to get one, the military has it's own training and requirements. You can get an AP&P in the military by corespondence course. It doesn't mean we don't learn as much

Originally posted by defcon5 In the words of Sir Isaac Newton's First law of Motion

Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight ahead, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed. [Cohen & Whitman 1999 translation

LOL you are not understanding Newtons law. No I don’t expect the wings to just sit there, I also don’t expect them to be ‘sucked’ in to the hole. You’re going to guess?That’s the problem, your whole theory is a guess! The wings would have sheared off and as Snoopy explained taken the least path of resistance, which wouldn’t be the hole. They would have bounced backwards and broke up all over the lawn. Saying they would have been pulled through the hole is a weak theory at best, it just doesn’t work like that. Show me precedence!! What stopped the wings from going ‘uniformly straight ahead’ and smashing into the wall? Imagining them being sucked into the hole is cartoon!

Aerospace web, which is frequented by aviation folks seems to feel that the parts that they show are in fact the pieces that you are asking about. I think I’ll take their expertise on the subject over yours. But of course I am sure they are in on it too, right?

No they are probably just delusional like you and are desperate to believe the official story.

So where are the pictures of the forklift dropping these pieces in the debris piles then? There were photographers and news stations at the crash scene almost immediately after the accident.

LOL, you do realize that the debris could have been planted before the attack right? Why would some take pics of them planting evidence?

Its awfully funny how other folks on here with an aviation background all seem to disagree with you; guys like Zaphod, OTS, etc. Besides this, I have never said I was an expert, but I do have a pretty good knowledge about the topic of aviation.

No but you act like you’re an expert just like Zaphod did, and I called him out on lots of things. For example he was convinced that the engine casings were actually the engine shroud/cowling. And your experience with military jet mechs must be very little… Neither of you seem to have any actual mechanical experience.

Well to my knowledge rotor can mean anything that is spinning, even helicopter blades are referred to as rotors…

NSS! Put it into context, you know what we’re talking about..

Should we really be expecting to see huge gaping holes where the 6 or so foot fan and cowling, that your admitting would not survive, penetrated the building?

No not looking for a huge hole the size of the fan, pls forget the damn fan for a second. Sitting behind that fan a heavy strong construction consisting of a shatter and heat proof alloy shell holding 12 ‘rotors’ and a rotor shaft. I just don’t see any evidence of them. Seeing as I don’t buy your silly ‘wings sucked into the hole theory’ I still want to know where the engines and wings went.

In case you have not caught on to what I am saying yet… The smaller the diameter of the engine, the tougher that the engine and its components are going to be, and the more penetration/survivability they are going to have in a crash. A 12 foot casing is not going to be as strong as a 3 foot casing, as it has more unsupported area in diameter.

What are you going on about? One minute you’re telling me that the Turbo-Fan engine is really small and insignificant and then you’re telling me it’s bigger than a military engine? Have you ever seen an F-14 engine up close? Sry but you’re ‘it’s smaller so it’s stronger theory’ is bollox too. Where are you getting this stuff…lol? Turbo-Fans are small by design, because of the fan. The fan creates most of the thrust so the engine can be made smaller, thus making it quieter and more fuel efficient. And again I’m the one who doesn’t understand what a Turbo-Fan is? And again if you knew anything about engines you would know that an engine is an engine. Take the fan away from a turbo-fan, or the prop away from a turbo-prop, or the rotor blades away from the turbo-shaft, guess what? You end up with an engine whose only difference is its size and configuration. [edit on 11/1/2007 by ANOK]

DAMN.... i better retract my last post. Anok, your putting up a pretty good argument, my problem is you never offer anything to say what in fact did happen...and how it happened. You claim "physics" in all your posts, yet dont explain. Saying its "Basic" or whatever does not back up your claim. You asked what happened to the wings...well... can you answer it? Over 100 people saw a plane... not ONE said... a plane without wings... just curios, what do YOU think hit the pentagon...and what brought you to that conclusion.

Originally posted by ANOK This is where you are wrong. The hole is not least path of resistance, that would only work if there was no where else for the wings to go. This theory only works if there was no path to take BUT the hole. Sry bud but there was the space/lawn in front of the wall that was the path of least resistance, not the hole. The wings would have bounced off the wall, broke up and landed on the lawn. Do you understand that when two objects of unequal strength hit the weaker one will yield? The wall gave way, letting the plane/object through and then, unlike at the WTC, the columns shredded the plane into nothing?

Really think about that one, because your pentagoon theory contradicts your WTC theory...

There is nothing that would force or pull the wings through the hole, that's just redicularse and shows you really don't understand physics. You can argue till you're blue in the face it aint going to make it so... I'm not going to debate this with you all anymore cause we're going around in pointless circles again. Wake up, you're a dieing breed. Most people are smart enough to see through your redicularse stories.

What are these other paths? Don't say backwards because they are in motion and must continue forward until stopped by something. If there is a hole in the direction they are traveling in, that's where they are going to go. Not backwards or sideways. That's just not how it works. And again, the computer simulations show this. The Pentagon and WTC were two different buildings made completely different. How can you even compare the two? Nothing is pulling the wings through, they are in motion. An object traveling at 550mph is not going to just stop, let alone, stop and then travel backwards. That would be impossible. Once again, check out the computer simulations that demonstrate all of this.

I am really not feeling well enough for a big elaborate post tonight, but I will say this much about the above posts:

The only difference is a A&P certification which a military mechanic can get while in the service pretty easy.

Everybody who works on engines has to have an AP&P licence. Anybody showing up for a job without one is not going to get a job working on aircraft systems. Of course you have to go to a civilian school to get one

As both of you have stated I am absolutely correct in what it was that I said, you don’t come out of the military and have the certifications that allow you to just walk into a civilian aviation job as a mechanic. Ramp agents and fuelers in the civilian sector preform many of the jobs that are performed by what the military considers mechanics. You have to get a civilian A&P as you both mentioned to even be considered being hired as a mechanic for a commercial airlines, even then its hard to get a job as one as there are thousands of folks leaving the military each year that held the title of Aircraft mechanic in the military. So there are many people that are working on the ramp that are supposedly ex-military aircraft mechanics. The guys that ULTIMA called specialists are the folks that airlines are looking to hire, not the guys that simply added oil, started engines, and changed tires, in many places those jobs are preformed by ramp crews. As soon as you get the title mechanic in an airlines, it starts costing them a bunch more money, and considering the sheer number of people that come out of the military with that title, all I can say is that its not enough. ULTIMA it sounds like you got lucky that you found an airlines so easily, I know for a fact that the majority don’t. As to the HAZMAT, which is not really dealt with as much by the mechanics, the ramp takes care of most of your HAZMAT that is involved in commercial airlines, as most goes as freight. However, if you think that a normal commercial fueler may never have to handle some of the other more unstable gasses, think again. Often if you’re at an airport that is near a military base they have a separate tank at the airport and are paid by the government to store fuel used in the fighters based in that area. Usually they will also contract a civilian hanger that is used to park military aircraft in the case that they have to shut down the runways at the military base.

Well here is just 1 pic of a plane going through some tress and tearing up the ground, i have dozens more of planes tearing up the ground and leaving lots of parts like wings, engines and tail behind. i114.photobucket.com...

As to your picture above ULTIMA, that aircraft tumbled, obviously. The 757 did not really start to break up like that until after it was in contact with the building. Also there are thousands of pictures online of other aircraft that have made belly slides and not in any way effected the surrounding environment. So basically all that you have proven is that it may or may not happen depending on many different circumstances, including how saturated with water that they ground is at that time and if it was a straight slide or the aircraft was already breaking up and tumbling at that point. Again most aircraft crashes that resulted in loosing the tail were 727's, as in your picture, with tail mounted engines. As a mechanic, you should understand this, and that airlines are getting away from the use of tail mounted engines, and thus you will not see as many tails lost in crashes. DC-9’s, MD-80’s, 727’s, L1011’s, and DC-10’s all tend to loose their tails in crashes due to increased tail structure involved with the tail mounted engines.

Do you understand that when two objects of unequal strength hit the weaker one will yield? The wall gave way, letting the plane/object through and then, unlike at the WTC, the columns shredded the plane into nothing?

Do you understand that the entire aircraft and the entire building are not uniform in their strength and so part of the aircraft may yield here and there and not yield in other places.

pentagoon

The second that you start using this word it makes me want to stop reading anything further you have to say. I don’t know why, but It REALLY irritates me. If you cannot spell pentagon correctly, then get a spell checker.

You can argue till you're blue in the face it aint going to make it so... I'm not going to debate this with you all anymore cause we're going around in pointless circles again. Wake up, you're a dieing breed. Most people are smart enough to see through your redicularse stories.

No actually you are the dying breed, there is not one article written by a single reliable source that agrees with you. It is funny though that the argument seems to come down to those of us that worked on commercial jets vs. ex-military people. In other words, people that never signed a thing with the government and never received pay or pension from them vs. people that have and often still are.

They would have bounced backwards and broke up all over the lawn.

ROFLMAO…. SO what is the force that would cause this, inertia would drive them forward.

No they are probably just delusional like you and are desperate to believe the official story.

I am absolutely not desperate to believe in the official story; it just seems to fit the facts at hand with no problems for me. To me it looks like a 757 hit the pentagon. Personally, I did not vote for the current administration, and I don’t disagree with the fact that they might have been involved with what happened to some point. Nevertheless, these CT’s on the subject are just ridicules and don’t fit the facts. You, I would say, are the one that is desperate, because you obviously have some political agenda that you’re fulfilling in propagating this crap’olla.

No but you act like you’re an expert just like Zaphod did,

Zaphod knows his crap about aviation, and he knew it better then you did. It does not take much digging back into this thread to find many area’s where he just ripped you apart.

And your experience with military jet mechs must be very little…

I worked with a very large number of them that were unable to for one reason or another get mechanics jobs for the airlines, and were working on the ramp. Probably about ¼ of the guys on that ramp are ex-military, and most ex-mechanics.

Sitting behind that fan a heavy strong construction consisting of a shatter and heat proof alloy shell holding 12 ‘rotors’ and a rotor shaft. I just don’t see any evidence of them.

Well its nice to see that you figured out that there are 12 not 20, Mr. mechanic. I guess you read the article I attached. Again, those engine sections do not have enough size to make a large hole, and the parts would be inside the wreckage of the building.

What are you going on about? One minute you’re telling me that the Turbo-Fan engine is really small and insignificant and then you’re telling me it’s bigger than a military engine? Have you ever seen an F-14 engine up close?

I never flip-flopped. I said that a military engine is stronger because it has less diameter. I also said that the turbine behind the main fan on commercial jet engine is smaller then the size of the fan. Yes this part is also stronger then the fan, but its also much smaller then the fan. Folks are listening to these whacko theory sites and looking for a hole in the building to be as large as the fan front and cowling. Yes I have seen an F-14 up close, and almost all other fighters, bombers, and helicopters. Either at air shows, air museums, or when they had to emergency divert to the airport I worked at.

And again if you knew anything about engines you would know that an engine is an engine. Take the fan away from a turbo-fan, or the prop away from a turbo-prop, or the rotor blades away from the turbo-shaft, guess what? You end up with an engine whose only difference is its size and configuration.

I am not arguing that a turbine is essentially a turbine, what I am arguing is the size and survivability of them.

Originally posted by defcon5 As both of you have stated I am absolutely correct in what it was that I said, you don’t come out of the military and have the certifications that allow you to just walk into a civilian aviation job as a mechanic. Ramp agents and fuelers in the civilian sector preform many of the jobs that are performed by what the military considers mechanics. You have to get a civilian A&P as you both mentioned to even be considered being hired as a mechanic for a commercial airlines, even then its hard to get a job as one as there are thousands of folks leaving the military each year that held the title of Aircraft mechanic in the military. So there are many people that are working on the ramp that are supposedly ex-military aircraft mechanics. The guys that ULTIMA called specialists are the folks that airlines are looking to hire, not the guys that simply added oil, started engines, and changed tires, in many places those jobs are preformed by ramp crews. As soon as you get the title mechanic in an airlines, it starts costing them a bunch more money, and considering the sheer number of people that come out of the military with that title, all I can say is that its not enough. ULTIMA it sounds like you got lucky that you found an airlines so easily, I know for a fact that the majority don’t.

Gee you are so wrong. Specialist are poeple that just know 1 area of the plane, like an electrian, hydraulic or engine specialst. Only a Crew Chief knows all aspects of airframe and powerplant which makes them wanted more by the civilan airports, as stated i was offered a job without an A&P certification just because of education and experience and that was almost 10 years after i had been out of the service. It takesa a person like me who was a Crew Chief that the civcilian airports want to hire. And again as stated it is not difficult for a Crew Chief to get an A&P certification, i could have gotten 1 just by taking a couple of correspondence courses while i was in the Air Force. The only real difference between a military Crew Chief and a Civilian mechanis is basically a piece a paper with a certification, the education and job are the same. You also did not mention about the fact that a military mechanic handles more equipment on a military plane then is on a commercial plane. And thier are more hamat material on a military plane then on a commercial plane [edit on 13-1-2007 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 13-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Gee you are so wrong. Specialist are poeple that just know 1 area of the plane, like an electrian, hydraulic or engine specialst. Only a Crew Chief knows all aspects of airframe and powerplant which makes them wanted more by the civilan airports

Well gee, no I am not… Lets see at the location I was at, our airlines had one Maintenance Manager (crew chief), and about three general mechanics during the day shift when the flights were coming and going. At night, they would have another manager; about 4 general mechanics and the rest were all specialist mechanics (avionics, electronics, etc.), to work on the terminators.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 You also did not mention about the fact that a military mechanic handles more equipment on a military plane then is on a commercial plane. And thier are more hamat material on a military plane then on a commercial plane

Because the HAZMAT is handled by ramp personnel, not by maintenance in an airline, which I did state. The dayshift maintenance guys are too busy playing cards, and watching TV to be bothered with the loading of HAZMAT. Also the ramp personnel have to take the classes on HAZMAT as they are the ones handling it. The Spirit flight that went down in the everglades is a classic example of improperly handled HAZMAT. You really cannot say for certain that you handled more HAZMAT in the military as you have no idea what kind of things are shipped all the time. For instance there are tons of dry ice shipped everyday on aircraft, which is HAZMAT.