9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

If the wall was that strong, then I highly doubt an aircraft would be sufficient to really damage it.------------------------- People keep talking about the lawn, but keep failing to notice something: there isn't a mark on it!! No doubt someone is going to re-post the photo of a piece of the side of the fuselage on the lawn, but the lawn is not damaged. No marks where things dug in, no dirt flung around etc.. It's immaculate.------------------------- Just try driving your car on your lawn and see how easily marked it is. Still not convinced? Then you're looking only at the things that *ARE* there. -------------------------Line breaks aren't working in this post.------------------------- [edit on 19-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Nope - this post is broken, too.------------------------- My post above is broken so I'll continue here.------------------------- We have what is alleged to be the FORWARD section for the fuselage sat on the lawn, but I'm intrigued as to why it is one of an extremely small number of pieces to be ON the lawn.------------------------- We're led to believe this is where it landed after the crash, but I'm doubtful of this. Why? It would have been one of the very first pieces to impact the building. If it could fly sideways and remain relatively intact, it raises serious questions about the rest of the aircraft, and that good ol' tail.------------------------- If we have some good photos of this kind of debris, why don't we have good photos of the actual body of the jet?------------------------- [edit on 19-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Because it blew apart into many little pieces? You really think that a 757, weighing in at 200,000 lbs or so, traveling at the speed it was traveling would NOT damage the wall badly? Yes it was designed to withstand a truck bomb almost touching the wall, but you're talking about two completely different types of forces. An explosive would be spread out over the wall in a large area. A 757 fuselage (narrowbody) would be concentrated in a much smaller area, having a much larger force imparted to the wall at impact.

I'm pleased you said that because I wasn't sure. I don't know what size truck bomb we'd be talking about, but I'd have said the bomb would have imparted a greater force as the aircraft would disintegrate on impact, and the rest following it would lose energy. [edit on 19-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Unless you're talking about a shaped charge, an explosive spreads out pretty rapidly. Most of the damage is done by overpressure (IIRC), and not by any direct result of the explosives hitting something.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit mirage...a 'truck bomb', were it be able to get up close enough to the wall of the Pentagon in the first place, would still blow up in a spherical manner, no? So most of the explosive energy would be wasted. Now, consider the kinetic energy imparted by about 200,000 pounds of mass travelling at about 500 MPH, all concentrated at one impact point. A truck bomb is not nearly as comparable. I'm afraid that people look at the Oklahoma City event, and try to draw comparisons....very different building constructions, there. KE is far more concentrated, and destructive, than a simple explosion.

Originally posted by Pilgrum That's the aviation trained witness you were asking for. A qualified observer who saw the whole thing IE AA77 impacting the Pentagon.

Only 1? But you have over 100 different statements as to what happened plus the fact of a witness stating they were told later it was a 757, Which in court would get all the witness statemtnes questioned as to who esle was told later it was a 757. Also you have dozens of aviation trained professionals who debate the official story of what happened at the Pentagon.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA.....be honest here.....are you in Law School? I mean, are you just using ATS as a possible thesis???? Or, do you have a dual major....including Psychology? Come on, fess up!!! No, I'm going to go back to MY thesis.....you're a Major in Law, with a minor in Psychology!!! Just testing the waters, eh??? Well....may I suggest the TV show 'Boston Legal'.....for the law part, see real (TV) lawyers in action!!! William Shatner (Bill to his friends) won an Emmy!!! Make it so! (no, that was Picard....) Just do it! (no, that's Nike) What was Kirks 'catch phrase' again....? I guess he said 'energize' a lot. OOPs. THIS thread IS in SkunkWorks, isn't it??? Well, a little levity don't hurt no one, no how! I always says....

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA.....be honest here.....are you in Law School?

I was a federal police officer for 12 years, have had training in court room proceedings and have testified in court.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA.....thank you, for that honesty. It is refreshing! While we sit here singing around the campfire, I will say that I have 21+ years as a pilot at a major airlline. Thousands of hours on the B757/767 too....originally as left seat, then down grade to right seat (after 9/11) then well, back to left seat B737 because it's good to be the Captain...and it pays better. But, on disability right now....doesn't mean I don't know aviation, nor do I forget easily how to fly. Having said all this, for all to see....I also say....there is a possibility for discourse, in the 9/11 debate. I just want to make sure that there is no disinfo being spread, from either side....either intentionally or unintentionally. WW

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA.....thank you, for that honesty. It is refreshing!

Sure, no problem. I was a crew chief in the Air Force for 4 years A federal police officer for 12 years for the DoD And now a data anaylist for the DoD

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA.....thank you, for that honesty. It is refreshing!

Sure, no problem. I was a crew chief in the Air Force for 4 years A federal police officer for 12 years for the DoD And now a data anaylist for the DoD

Yet you don't know how to interview witnesses. Amazing.

The Woth is my and I will Ditroet

Originally posted by jthomasYet you don't know how to interview witnesses. Amazing.

Who said anything about interviewing witnesses? Are you talking about the witnesses at the pentagon that could not verify what plane hit the Pentagon or where it hit? [edit on 21-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by weedwhacker reply to post by Markshark4

 

Third image....complete nonsense. [edit on 6/19/0808 by weedwhacker]

The government released footage of the pentagon strike that clearly shows a vapor trail. IN THEIR OWN VIDEO. Please explain that.

reply to post by Markshark4 Markshark....don't know exactly where, but as I read through the internet....I saw a link, about AAL77, that said at one point, one of the engines hit something....or even ingested something as part of the strike. Here's something you should realize....even if the airplane ingested two dozen turkeys into each engine, a few seconds before impact....the kinetic energy of the airplane was a done deal. A smoke trail might imply engine damage....barely seconds before impact. Maybe even less than a second before impact. If you understand how KE works, then I don't have to explain it do I? WW

Originally posted by weedwhacker If you understand how KE works, then I don't have to explain it do I?

But you still have to look at what materials were involved, just like the video of the F-4 and the wall it was tested on.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 But you still have to look at what materials were involved, just like the video of the F-4 and the wall it was tested on.

True, but if the KE is high enough, the materials don't matter any more. The most important variables are mass and velocity. Wasn't the infamous F-4 test on a wall much thicker than what's at the Pentagon? I know we'll end up going into the "F-4 was made mostly of steel" spiral again (which by the way has been hashed out in other threads, so no need to do it here). But will you agree that the 757 has more mass than the F-4? I can just as easily plow a 757 into an F-4 and destroy its entire airframe. [edit on 24-6-2008 by HLR53K]

reply to post by weedwhacker Quite right I saw a suggestion that one of the light poles was hit and severed by the nacelle of the right engine allowing the head of the pole including the light fitting to slam inside the engine doing the damage that resulted in the smoke trail caught in the gate cam video. There are pics of those poles with exactly that damage (tops torn off). At the speed of the plane at that point it was approximately 1 second from hitting the Pentagon wall so even if both engines cut out at that point it was still going to hit with negligible loss of momentum.

I was thinking over my last post and I'm going to make it a bit more specific. The "application", if you will, of kinetic energy has nothing to do with the material. All that matters is the overall mass of the object and the velocity it's traveling at (velocity much more so). All KE is is a energy. Whether it's from steel, aluminum, concrete, or wood doesn't matter. It's only the "receiving" end of kinetic energy where materials matter. If the receiving material has more mass or density than the object hitting it, it can absorb and deflect much more of that applied energy. If the energy's more than what the material can handle, then it breaks. Simple. I know this is quite obvious to the majority of us, but it's worth rehashing.