9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Ok lets end this dispute, and go to the actual job description.

CAREER GUIDE FOR AIRCRAFT MECHANIC EDUCATIONAL, TRAINING, AND LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES The Department of Labor provides the following information: To keep aircraft in peak operating condition, aircraft and avionics equipment mechanics and service technicians perform scheduled maintenance, make repairs, and complete inspections required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Many aircraft mechanics, also called airframe, powerplant, and avionics aviation maintenance technicians, specialize in preventive maintenance. They inspect engines, landing gear, instruments, pressurized sections, accessories—brakes, valves, pumps, and air-conditioning systems, for example—and other parts of the aircraft, and do the necessary maintenance and replacement of parts. Some mechanics work on one or many different types of aircraft, such as jets, propeller-driven airplanes, and helicopters. Others specialize in one section of a particular type of aircraft, such as the engine, hydraulics, or electrical system. Powerplant mechanics are authorized to work on engines and do limited work on propellers. Airframe mechanics are authorized to work on any part of the aircraft except the instruments, powerplants, and propellers. Combination airframe-and-powerplant mechanics—called A & P mechanics—work on all parts of the plane, except instruments. The majority of mechanics working on civilian aircraft today are A & P mechanics. In small, independent repair shops, mechanics usually inspect and repair many different types of aircraft. The majority of mechanics who work on civilian aircraft are certified by the FAA as “airframe mechanic,” “powerplant mechanic,” or “avionics repair specialist.” Mechanics who also have an inspector’s authorization can certify work completed by other mechanics and perform required inspections. Uncertified mechanics are supervised by those with certificates. Most airlines require that mechanics have a high school diploma and an A & P certificate. Although a few people become mechanics through on-the-job training, most learn their job in 1 of about 200 trade schools certified by the FAA. About one-third of these schools award 2- and 4-year degrees in avionics, aviation technology, or aviation maintenance management. FAA standards established by law require that certified mechanic schools offer students a minimum of 1,900 actual class hours. Coursework in these trade schools normally lasts from 24 to 30 months and provides training with the tools and equipment used on the job. Some aircraft mechanics in the Armed Forces acquire enough general experience to satisfy the work experience requirements for the FAA certificate. With additional study, they may pass the certifying exam. In general, however, jobs in the military services are too specialized to provide the broad experience required by the FAA. As new and more complex aircraft are designed, more employers are requiring mechanics to take ongoing training to update their skills. Recent technological advances in aircraft maintenance necessitate a strong background in electronics—both for acquiring and retaining jobs in this field. FAA certification standards also make ongoing training mandatory. As aircraft mechanics gain experience, they may advance to lead mechanic (or crew chief), inspector, lead inspector, or shop supervisor positions. Opportunities are best for those who have an aircraft inspector’s authorization. In the airlines, where promotion often is determined by examination, supervisors sometimes advance to executive positions. Those with broad experience in maintenance and overhaul might become inspectors with the FAA. With additional business and management training, some open their own aircraft maintenance facilities. Mechanics learn many different skills in their training that can be applied to other jobs, and some transfer to other skilled repairer occupations or electronics technician jobs. The State Council of Higher Education lists Hampton University as a Virginia educational institution offering certificate programs for Aviation Maintenance Technician in both airframe and powerplant.

Many airlines require additional certifications such as: Certified Welder. FCC license with a certificate from an accredited Electronics Technican Program. Certificate of completion from accredited Machinist Program. Now whine and cry all you want to about the topic, but again, I said that you cannot come out of the military and work in general aviation without additional schooling and/or certificates, and that is 100% correct. Don’t question me on why so many ex-military mechanics never make it to being civilian mechanics, but it is a fact. There are at least as many ex-military mechanics working the ramp in most airports as there are actual mechanics in those airport. I especially enjoyed this bit:

With additional study, they may pass the certifying exam

With additional study they may get up to par with an FAA certified civilian mechanic. Lets also check this statement

Some aircraft mechanics in the Armed Forces acquire enough general experience to satisfy the work experience requirements for the FAA certificate

“Some aircraft mechanics”, as in not all, or perhaps few… Certainly not all. [edit on 1/13/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5 Some aircraft mechanics in the Armed Forces acquire enough general experience to satisfy the work experience requirements for the FAA certificate. With additional study, they may pass the certifying exam. In general, however, jobs in the military services are too specialized to provide the broad experience required by the FAA. I especially enjoyed this bit:

With additional study, they may pass the certifying exam

With additional study they may get up to par with an FAA certified civilian mechanic.

[edit on 1/13/2007 by defcon5]

Well you must not have read my last post very well. As i stated a Crew Chief is trained and has experience in airframe and powerplant, not like a specialist who only spcializes in 1 area. As i also stated all it takes for a Crew Chief to gain an FAA A&P certification is a few courses. Also as stated thier is a lot more to a Crew Chiefs job then a civilain mechanic. A civialin mechanic with a A&P certification would not be able to work on a military aircraft without several hundred more hours of training, but a Crew Chief can work on a civilian aircraft with only a minimal amount of training. Here is what NASA says about a job of a Crew Chief beseide being the chief mechanic. www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Crew chief's task A crew chief has the ultimate responsibility for safety around his or her aircraft. For that reason, a crew chief must be asked for access before approaching an aircraft. Here is the policy from the Aircraft Maintenance and Safety Manual that explains the role of the crew chief. "Aircraft Maintenance and Modification Branch personnel, in particular the aircraft crew chief, are responsible for the general safety and security of their aircraft and of all personnel that enter the aircraft area whether the aircraft is in the hangar or on the ramp. The aircraft crew is responsible for challenging any person entering the aircraft area that is not part of the normal aircraft crew. If, in the opinion of the crew chief, aircraft crew, or supervisor that safety is impacted due to the number of people present at a particular aircraft operation, they have the responsibility to terminate the particular aircraft operation until the safety issue is resolved. Any person requiring access on the aircraft shall first notify the aircraft crew chief or designee."

[edit on 13-1-2007 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 13-1-2007 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 13-1-2007 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 13-1-2007 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 13-1-2007 by ULTIMA1] [edit on 13-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Maybe it’s because you flip-flopped it around from us talking about the qualifications of a military mechanic to a military crew chief. I never mentioned Crew chiefs, you apparently did. A crew chief is not the same thing as a mechanic; a crew chief is a head mechanic position. So what was the tactic here, start saying I did not know what I was talking about then once you could not defend your position, change the topic to a slightly different topic and think no one is going to notice it? Anything to prove the Truth Movement correct, no matter how dirty you have to fight it, eh? Tell me again how I am the one that is desperate to believe what I believe, or how this truth movement is not based on an agenda? Just show me once in the above posts where I was talking about Crew Chiefs qualifications? PS: From what you posted above, crew chief looks more like a position that the airlines call a lead agent, which is a ramp position. Lead agents are in charge of the flight when its being ramped, and they restrict ramp access and control all ramp functions. They are responsible for that flight until it leaves the gate. Edit to add: Oh, yeah also someone that is a specialist mechanic is also qualified to perform general maintenance functions as well, not just their specialized area of maintenance. [edit on 1/13/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5 Maybe it’s because you flip-flopped it around from us talking about the qualifications of a military mechanic to a military crew chief. I never mentioned Crew chiefs, you apparently did. A crew chief is not the same thing as a mechanic; a crew chief is a head mechanic position. So what was the tactic here, start saying I did not know what I was talking about then once you could not defend your position, change the topic to a slightly different topic and think no one is going to notice it? Anything to prove the Truth Movement correct, no matter how dirty you have to fight it, eh? Tell me again how I am the one that is desperate to believe what I believe, or how this truth movement is not based on an agenda? Just show me once in the above posts where I was talking about Crew Chiefs qualifications? PS: From what you posted above, crew chief looks more like a position that the airlines call a lead agent, which is a ramp position. Lead agents are in charge of the flight when its being ramped, and they restrict ramp access and control all ramp functions. They are responsible for that flight until it leaves the gate. Edit to add: Oh, yeah also someone that is a specialist mechanic is also qualified to perform general maintenance functions as well, not just their specialized area of maintenance. [edit on 1/13/2007 by defcon5]

I am just trying to find the truth of what happened on 911. I am not a CT and i am not saying the government was behind it. You kept wanting to make it look like a military mechanic was not as qualified as a civiian mechanic. I just wanted to prove a point that a military mechanic has the education and experience to work at a civilian airport with little additional education. I was a Crew Chief in the Air Force for 4 years I was a Federal Police officer at NSA for 12 years. I am now a data analysist for the Office of Weapons and Space at NSA.

Originally posted by CameronFox 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.

I have NO idea what hit the pentagon. I can only guess like anyone else. But I'm pretty sure that the damage and debris is not consistant with a huge airliner. I can't answer the question of where the wings went either, that's why I keep asking those, like you, who seem so sure that the official story is what really happened. If you are so sure of the official story, should you not have all these questions answered 100% for yourself? You don't know where they went either, unless you cling onto a misunderstanding of physics... As far as the physics, I think I covered that. I also assume most ppl on ATS have a basic understanding of physics that doesn't need a complete explanation, I guess not? Snoopy said the path of least resistance would be the hole the plane made. That is incorrect.

In physics, the path of least resistance is always taken by objects moving through a system. For example, water flowing downhill follows the path of least resistance as it is pulled downward by gravity.

Source (not the best source but it works for this). You see the 'path of least resistance' doesn't apply in the pentagon incident. The wings would have naturally been bounced off the wall and landed in pieces all over the undamaged pentagon lawn, not sucked through the hole. Also the other physics facter that I already mentioned is the 'two objects of unequal mass when colliding the weaker object will yeald' Not worded very well but do we agree on this? If so then the plane managed to breach the wall, which means the wall must have been the weaker object. If that's the case then what caused the plane get reduced to a few unrecognisable and questionable pieces? The only wall that was strengthened was the first wall it went through (most resistance). What was beyond the wall should not have even scratched the paint if it managed to get through that first wall. Very basic high school physics stuff.... (And remember WTC2? I explained the physics of that for you also, remember?)

Originally posted by snoopy What are these other paths? Don't say backwards because they are in motion and must continue forward until stopped by something.

LOL they were stopped by something...The WALL they hit. No need to even reply to the rest of your misunderstandings....

Anok your physics are wrong its not about mass its about velocity, a weaker mass can and does penetrate a greater mass if the veocity is high enough. Can a peice of 4by2 timber go through a concrete block wall if you threw it at it, no it would not, the mass of the wall does not yeild to the mass of the timber. Fire the 4by2 at the wall at 150mph and the timber will cut through the wall like its not there, the velocity/mass of the wood at that point breeches the wall. Anti tank rounds work on the same principal, a small mass travelling at high speed pentrates a much denser mass. A plane travelling a hundreds of miles an hour would cut through the pentagon easily. The point in question is why would terrorists circle round a building, fly several feet above the lawn to hit a fairly low building. A very difficult manouver yes, when in reality if terrorists saw the pentagon from high altitude they would dove the plane right onto it yes, a bit like the Kamikazis. thats the question people should be asking.

Originally posted by defcon5 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

Of course it's a civi requirement. Doesn't mean a military mech doesn't learn just as much. What makes the AP&P tough for military guys is the lack of Civi planes you have to qual on. But it can be done.

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.

LOL

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.

Good I like to irritate people like you...I spell fine, I spell it like that on purpose. PENTAGOON! PENTAGOONS! Explains why you answer my posts the way you do, you're not even reading them...

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.

You don't even make sense...

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

Again you are showing your ignorance of physics. They will move fwd until they hit the wall and then what do you expect to happen genious? What if there wasn't a hole for them to be sucked into? Go throw something against a wall and then let me know what happened...

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.

Yeah sure he does, that's why I caught him out on many aviation related facts in 9-11 threads...You only say that because he believes what you do.

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.

Where they AD's? Did they serve more than a couple of years? Just because you're a military mech doesn't mean you'll automaticaly get a civi job. For one they're hard to get, believe me I looked into it, and for two you have to be AP&P lisenced which takes money and time. I think you just made a bunch of assumptions about your military buddies.

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.

LOL nice selective reading. Remember what I said, there are about 20 (2 engines remember). I said I was guessing cause I was too lazy to count them, that doesn't make me less of a mech. You supplied the correct count, thankyou. Still doesn't explain where they went though does it?

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.

And again the only way you can come up with this conclusion is if you don't understand the physics, as I've explained.

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.

Again why are you saying a military engine is stronger cause it has less diameter? That makes no sense at all. You're logic is flawed. And no not all of us are 'wacko's expecting a hole as big as the fan'. Remember who you are discusing with and remember what they say. Did I say I expected a hole? No in fact I've said many time I don't expect a hole, but I do expect to see some proof of a 757. As you don't expect to see a hole from the engines, I don't expect to see a hole from the fuselage either.

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

Again flawed logic, size doesn't matter... Wow your understanding of the military is so far off, just like your understanding of physics. Of course you don't come out of the military qualified to be a civilian mech. What part of 'required to have an AP&P license' don't you understand? It is a civilian requirement, many mechs come out of the military already licensed because they did the tests while still in. I started it myself but because of time restrictions I didn't finish. It doesn't mean military mechs are not just as knowledable as civilians. We learn the same stuff, just the military has it own requirements for quals. Have you heard of 'O' and 'I' level? 'O' level you work on the plane itself in the hanger or on the flight -line. 'I' level you work on the engine after it's pulled from the plane. I did both. I did every kind of work possible on jet engines. Engine rebuilds and testing, prop rebuilds and testing, APU's, helo rotor heads etc. etc...Everything a civi would do. Who do you think does this stuff? I was classified (NEC) as an 'AD-6418-T-56 TurboProp engine and 54H60 series propeller first degree/IMA mechanic.' Sry but I did a lot more than 'ramp work'. [edit on 13/1/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by magicmushroom Anok your physics are wrong its not about mass its about velocity, a weaker mass can and does penetrate a greater mass if the veocity is high enough. Can a peice of 4by2 timber go through a concrete block wall if you threw it at it, no it would not, the mass of the wall does not yeild to the mass of the timber. Fire the 4by2 at the wall at 150mph and the timber will cut through the wall like its not there, the velocity/mass of the wood at that point breeches the wall....

How fast is that 2by4 moving, how fast is that shell moving? I don't think 500mph with an object that is far from solid, is going to do what the 2by4 or shell does. But the physics I mentioned were pertaining to the wings and engines really not what the plane itself did. I'm not arguing the plane couldn't make the hole, just that if it did then it wouldn't have disappeared into nothing and the wings and engines would not have 'sucked into the hole.' Nothing to do with velocity.

Originally posted by ANOK LOL they were stopped by something...The WALL they hit. No need to even reply to the rest of your misunderstandings....

You can't be serious...... LOL!

Anok, you seam very certain of your understanding of physics.. may I ask your background in it?

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by ANOK LOL they were stopped by something...The WALL they hit. No need to even reply to the rest of your misunderstandings....

You can't be serious......

Huh? Please explain, don't just say 'are you serious'. This is what you said....

Originally posted by snoopy What are these other paths? Don't say backwards because they are in motion and must continue forward until stopped by something.

Your logic makes no sense. The wings hit the wall, no? So a sudden impact with a wall is not going to stop them moving forward? Where are they going to go once they hit the wall but don't penetrate it? Without reverting to your 'they were pulled through the hole' BS. You need to go back to high school!

Just a sample of what normally happenes when wings hit a building. ther are sheared off, but we don't see any evidence or trace of wings at the Pentagon. i114.photobucket.com... [edit on 14-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I swore I wouldn't get dragged back, but I have to. You're comparing apples and oranges. That picture is of a plane at LOW SPEED on the ground already that hit the building. Of course the wings won't react the same way as they did in a 500 mph impact.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I swore I wouldn't get dragged back, but I have to. You're comparing apples and oranges. That picture is of a plane at LOW SPEED on the ground already that hit the building. Of course the wings won't react the same way as they did in a 500 mph impact.

As i stated it was a sample. the same thing would happen to the wings of a larger plane going 500 mph, the wings are thicker and heavier so they would still shear off from hitting the building as most aircraft wings shear off when comming into contact with a object or the gound. As stated before thats why at most aircraft crashc sites you have wings, engines and tail survive. i114.photobucket.com... i114.photobucket.com...

So you're saying that the thinner wings of this plane are a perfect example of what would happen with the 757 at the Pentagon? What a joke! They're thicker and heavier, yes, they also hit with god knows how much more force, on a much thicker and heavier wall. The impact forces are completely different and they would never have just sheared off and fallen to the ground. You're probably talking a few thousands pounds of impact force here, against a few million pounds of impact force at the Pentagon. The reason tails and wings survive most crashes is because the pilots are trying to save the plane and they hit at a shallow impact angle at a relatively low speed.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 So you're saying that the thinner wings of this plane are a perfect example of what would happen with the 757 at the Pentagon? What a joke! They're thicker and heavier, yes, they also hit with god knows how much more force, on a much thicker and heavier wall. The impact forces are completely different and they would never have just sheared off and fallen to the ground. You're probably talking a few thousands pounds of impact force here, against a few million pounds of impact force at the Pentagon. The reason tails and wings survive most crashes is because the pilots are trying to save the plane and they hit at a shallow impact angle at a relatively low speed.

NO i am saying the wings on the smaller jet are thinner and sheared off at low speed. A 757s wings are thicker and heavier and would have taken more force to shear them off but they still would have sheared off. The reason wings survive is because the ussually shear off. The reason tails survive is because the plane usally hits nose or airframe first, thats why black boxes and beacons are put in the tail. The reason engines survive is becaus they can handle impact and heat.

And what about crashes where the plane goes in nose first and NOTHING survives? Happens a lot more than you think. This was the same type of crash. It impacted an immovable object at high speed, just like if it went nose first into the ground. Again, you're looking at low speed, low angle impacts where the pilots were trying to SAVE the plane and passengers. Not one where it was deliberately slammed into something at high speed.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 And what about crashes where the plane goes in nose first and NOTHING survives? Happens a lot more than you think. This was the same type of crash. It impacted an immovable object at high speed, just like if it went nose first into the ground. Again, you're looking at low speed, low angle impacts where the pilots were trying to SAVE the plane and passengers. Not one where it was deliberately slammed into something at high speed.

I have seen plenty of photos where aircraft have impacted the ground nose first and still left debris. Enough debris to get good numbers off of the match with the plane, something we still do not have for the Pentagon or flight 93. [edit on 14-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

How do you know they don't? Because they haven't shown every single piece of debris that was recovered? Oh, right I forgot that it's their obligation to release every single picture, and every single piece of debris for you to go over. The NTSB or any other organization that investigates plane crashes has NEVER released every piece of evidence they have. They probably have pictures and parts that easily identify this plane as they one they said it was, but they're not going to release it to satisfy a relatively small number of people that insist the gov't did it and it wasn't a 757.