9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by weedwhacker Yup The Pentagon which was made of REINFORCED concrete during WWII Let's see here a plane made out of Aluminum vs 2+ feet of reinforced concrete hmm....

Originally posted by HLR53K. 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.

Originally posted by SLAYER69 Yup The Pentagon which was made of REINFORCED concrete during WWII Let's see here a plane made out of Aluminum vs 2+ feet of reinforced concrete hmm....

1. The F-4 is made of more steel and titanium for it size. Also figure in the engines becasue on the F-4 they are internal. 2. The 757 may have more mass but the F-4 would have a much smaller impact area. 3. The Wall of the Pentagon had been strenghtened with steel reinforcement and kevlar as already shown. [edit on 24-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA, could you also note that there were windows in the pentagon building? An F-4 slamming into a concrete slab....I think that was designed to show how nuclear powerplant domes are safe from aerial attacks by crashed airplanes. Never see many windows in nuclear powerplant domes.

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA, could you also note that there were windows in the pentagon building?

Did you fail to note my previous post about the windows in the Penatgon wall were replaced with thicker bomb-proof windows?

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Nope, I did not fail to notice your earlier post about the windows. Did you miss my point about how a truck bomb, for instance, would not have all of the energy blast directed in the way that KE from a fast-moving concentrated mass would have?? So, would bomb-resistant windows be able to hold up against a B757 at 500 MPH?

Originally posted by weedwhacker So, would bomb-resistant windows be able to hold up against a B757 at 500 MPH?

Well look at the photos of the Pentagon before the collapse and see for yourself how many windows survived.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA....you just wrote 'before the collapse'. What would have caused the collapse? Why were there obvious pieces of a jet, with AAL colors? Look, the CVR and DFDR were recoverable from only the pentagon and UAL93. AAL11 and UAL175, after the Towers collapsed, there was no way the Recorders would ever be found, nor would they be readable. IF the Towers had not collapsed, then the DFDR and CVR would likely have been recovered. AND, we wouldn't be having this consipiracy conversation!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker Why were there obvious pieces of a jet, with AAL colors?

But no evidence to show the piecies of jet are from AA77.

Look, the CVR and DFDR were recoverable from only the pentagon and UAL93. AAL11 and UAL175, after the Towers collapsed, there was no way the Recorders would ever be found, nor would they be readable.

But what about all the reports that state the black boxes at the towers were found? How do you know they would not ahve been unreadiable, what traingin do you have on CVR and DFDR engineering?

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Ummm....ULTIMA....I've never ever seen any source of the AAL11 or UAL175 Flight Recorders. If you've seen it, then post it, I'd love to see it. As to your second question.....well, see....I am not a qualified 'observer' of course, since I havenever worked for the FAA nor the NTSB. BUT, as an airline pilot, we are instructed as to the basic operation of the Flight Recorders. We also now the regualtions regarding the recorders. Part of the cockpit preflight includes a test of the CVR!!!! there is a small panel on the overhead, in the cockpit....about 1.5 inches by 5 inches....it is the CVR panel for access. There is an earphone jack...a small meter, and a green button and a red button. The green button is a push-to-test.....and we are supposed to see a needle in the little meter pulse four times. That is part of the 'pre-flight' test. The other test is to plug an earpiece into the plug, and make sure the audio is recording. There is a slight, about one to two second, time delay..... The red button, is the 'bulk erase' button.....only active when on the ground, and the Parking Brake is set.... ULTIMA, did you know all of these details before I just posted them????? ULTIMA....do you really know anything, or are you just faking it???

Originally posted by weedwhacker As to your second question.....well, see....I am not a qualified 'observer' of course, since I havenever worked for the FAA nor the NTSB

So then its just your opinion that the black boxes would not have survived at the towers and not any facts or evidence to support you opinion?

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA....yes, if you wish to play the game of witness on the stand....it is my considered opinion that the Flight recorders from AAL11 and UAL175 were unrecoverable, due to the devastation of the buildings collapses. I state this, for the record, knowing that the recorders are installed in the rear of the airframes, witht he assumption that that is the most survivable area, in any anticipated crashes. This concept is based on historical data, collected from many, many previous airliner crashes, when the reason FOR the crash was wished to be determined. (This always assumed the pilots were dead, and could not testify). This is such a basic concept, I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet. As I stated, had the two Towers not collapsed, then it is possible the Flight Recorders would have been recovered from AAL11 and UAL175. But, as we know, that is not the case. All four Recorders were irretievably lost in the mass of the building's collapse. Just to put a picture.....in November, 2001, AAL587 crashed just after takeoff from JFK, the wreckage mostly in Queens, New York. There were numerous fires, but BOTH Flight Recorders were recovered!!! AND, they were read out.... Point is.....four airliners were hi-jacked on September 11, 2001. Three found thier intended targets. One was delayed during departure from Newark Airport (a very common occurence, I can attest to that!!) and because of the extended taxi delay before take-off, the 'Plan' was thrown off...oh, and there were FIVE on the other airplanes, but only FOUR on UAL93. What's more, because of the time delay, and unbekownest to the four Arab jerks on UAL93, the people on board had time to be informed of what had transpired, in NYC. Also, the airplane was equipped with the 'Airphone'. AND, as the Arab hi-jackers were flying back towards the DC area, they were down low.....and people's cellphones could get signals. See, cell-phone towers are designed not to transmit or receive 'Upwards'....but they transmit and receive laterally....it's called "line-of'sight" That's how VHF works....it needs line-of-sight. If we head up the band, into UHF.....still needs Line-of-Sight. The shorter the wavelength, the more line-of-sight is needed. Long wavelengths, like HF....or some may know it as 'Shortwave'...a misnomer, causes confusion.....longer wavelengths can propagate around the Earth's surface, bouncing off of the ionosphere to be received by the station, if if not in line-of-sight. Hint....HF frequencies work best during nighttime, since the Sun has an influence in disrupting them. This is not news....it should be understood by anyone with a brain, and a desire to learn...... So....I have held the witness stand probably well beyond my time limit....and, since it is a diatribe, one at a time.....no one could 'object' to interrupt my testimony. So, I thank you for giving me this forum, to express what I know..... edit only to add....I did use paragraph spacing....seems this thread is not formatting properly.... [edit on 6/24/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Markshark4 here is the video.. www.youtube.com... and a pretty convincing 10 minutes here.. www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ULTIMA1 For the F-4 vs. 757, the F-4 may have a higher percentage of titanium (8.5% versus 5%), but you have to account for that percentage towards their empty weight. At 8.5% and an empty weight of 30,328 lbs, the F-4 has 2,577.8 lbs of titanium. At 5% and an empty weight of 127,810 (with RB-211 engines), the 757 has 6,646.1 lbs of titanium. An F-4 is going to crash into a 757 nose-first and the ejection seat malfunctions. If you had to be strapped into one of the two, which would you pick? I can definitely say that in that mid-air collision, there will be more human occupied space of the 757 surviving than the F-4. Steel reinforcement, I can see helping. But do you really think kevlar's going to stop an airplane (or whatever you think hit the Pentagon)? As far as I know, it's only there to offer protection against gunfire and shrapnel if there is a bomb that goes off. You know, the little objects. Especially if you factor in that the kelvar's not one huge sheet. It has cut-outs for the windows and thus already loses its strength as a "whole object". If anything, they would be installed as panels and would just topple as a massive object rammed through them. [edit on 24-6-2008 by HLR53K]

reply to post by HLR53K HLR....I like your attempt, but if I may jump in......I don't want to be strapped into either cockpit, in your example, sorry. I would, if forced to choose, pick the B757 in one of the aft lavatories. If I were choosing survival, that's where I'd be, in THAT showdown!!! AND....I'd pad as many pillows and blankets as I could find, to provide cushion. I might even pull down a liferaft out of the overhead, if I had time. WW

Originally posted by HLR53K I can definitely say that in that mid-air collision, there will be more human occupied space of the 757 surviving than the F-4.

You really missed the point about the F-4 having a lot smaller impact area and would do a lot more penatration if it hit the Pentagon the the 757. Yes the 757 has a lot more open space to be destroyed in a crash where the F-4 is built a lot more heavier and sturdier. Just look at the airframe that hit the small tress and the amount of damage that was done becasue of all the open area and the thin aluminum airframe of the airliner. This photo is a what happens to a thin aluminum airframe that just slide off the runway and hit some small trees. Imagine what hitting a reinforced steel wall would do. i114.photobucket.com... [edit on 25-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 You really missed the point about the F-4 having a lot smaller impact area and would do a lot more penatration if it hit the Pentagon the the 757. Yes the 757 has a lot more open space to be destroyed in a crash where the F-4 is built a lot more heavier and sturdier. Just look at the airframe that hit the small tress and the amount of damage that was done becasue of all the open area and the thin aluminum airframe of the airliner. This photo is a what happens to a thin aluminum airframe that just slide off the runway and hit some small trees. Imagine what hitting a reinforced steel wall would do. i114.photobucket.com... [edit on 25-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

No, no, I did not miss your point. I know that a denser object will penetrate further into a mass. As far as I'm still concerned, my long-time friend who works for Boeing confirmed with an Air Force friend that the airframe of the F-4 was mostly aluminum. Believe what you will, but I trust him more at this point. However, if it is true that the F-4 is "mostly steel", then wouldn't the steel structure have to be even thinner than the aluminum equivalent? The F-4 only weighs 30,000-odd lbs and to keep that weight, the steel would have to be much thinner than an aluminum equivalent. Otherwise, it would end up weighing 60,000 lbs like the MiG-25. Remember, us engineers design to reduce the weight of the aircraft as much as possible. Every pound we save in the structure is another pound of cargo / weapons that can be carried. If the F-4 was mostly steel (even though you quote 40%), then those frames must be even thinner. After all, we both agree that steel is stronger, but heavier, and we don't need as much in thickness for the same loading. Don't confuse the skin with the airframe structure. The skin may be thin (usually .060" thick), but the structure itself is made of beams of significant thicknesses (upwards of .2" in critical places). How thick depends on the type of loading it will undergo.

Originally posted by HLR53K However, if it is true that the F-4 is "mostly steel", then wouldn't the steel structure have to be even thinner than the aluminum equivalent?

You did not read my post where i also stated the extra steel and titanium i was talking about made up the F-4 was including the engines since they are internal and not external like the 757.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 ULTIMA, just to clarify. YES, the JT-9D engines on the F-4 are 'internal' in the sense that they are mounted close to the centerline of the airframe. But even the two wing-mounted engines on the B757 will have a level of KE at the speeds of impact on that day. As an analogy to the F-4, though, is the APU, mounted in the aft fuselage. It is a small jet engine in it's own right, thus it would have weight and energy during the impact sequence. I just hope people don't underestimate the destructive power of KE. Look at pictures of hurricane or tornado aftermaths.....wooden 2X4s that pierce concrete??? And thes are at wind speeds of, what? 200 MPH???

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA, just to clarify. YES, the JT-9D engines on the F-4 are 'internal' in the sense that they are mounted close to the centerline of the airframe.

The engines on an (Americen) F-4 are mostly GE J-79. (Rolls Royce on the British version)

Look at pictures of hurricane or tornado aftermaths.....wooden 2X4s that pierce concrete??? And thes are at wind speeds of, what? 200 MPH???

Comparing apples to oranges again. [edit on 25-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker ULTIMA, just to clarify. YES, the JT-9D engines on the F-4 are 'internal' in the sense that they are mounted close to the centerline of the airframe.

The engines on an (Americen) F-4 are mostly GE J-79. (Rolls Royce on the British version)

Look at pictures of hurricane or tornado aftermaths.....wooden 2X4s that pierce concrete??? And thes are at wind speeds of, what? 200 MPH???

Comparing apples to oranges again. Sorry for pulling a full quote, from your post. ULTIMA....not sure why have brought up GE J-79 engines in the F-4, then refer to the 'British version' as being RR. WHY would the USA sell F-4 Phantoms to the British, but use RR engines??? Perhaps you are slightly confused, and meant to reference the B757 and the engine options. In the case of the B757, there were two engine choices presented to customers. The RR RB-211 and the PW....sorry I don't know the designation. My airline has the RR, I have jumpseated on UAL and they use the PW. BUT, I feel safe in saying that AAL11, the B757, used the RR RB-211 engines. I'm very sure anyone who wishes to research can draw their own conclusions as to who is correct. OK, ball is in your court now..... [edit on 25-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]