9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

What about the tail section? The initial photos show no impact zone for the tail section on the upper floors. Go to y0utubeterrorstorm on youtube and watch 9/11 In Plane Site.

Respectfully, this is basically a bunch of garbage. The photos, especially the one of the perfectly cylindrical hole in a wall looks more like a missle to me. The supposed "aircraft parts" are so small and unidentifiable - they could be anything. Where's the wings? Where's the tail section? Where's any piece lager than a breadbox with an airline logo on it?? I've seen hundreds of photos of aircraft crashes and burns in my lifetime - and this ain't no aircraft crash site. Very similar to the 9/11 carch in western PA - no plane in sight -no parts even? And where are the survivors??? There have been plenty of plane crashes much worse then these and people have survived. Odd that every single person on all four planes is deceased and never seen again//!!! I see that I must enter the word - area51 topost ,y comment - very typical of weird folks.......

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS Respectfully, this is basically a bunch of garbage. The photos, especially the one of the perfectly cylindrical hole in a wall looks more like a missle to me. The supposed "aircraft parts" are so small and unidentifiable - they could be anything. Where's the wings? Where's the tail section? Where's any piece lager than a breadbox with an airline logo on it?? I've seen hundreds of photos of aircraft crashes and burns in my lifetime - and this ain't no aircraft crash site.

This is what a proper aircraft crash scene investigation should look like. i114.photobucket.com... [edit on 6-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Omygod....ULTIMA???? You actually post THAT picture, and thnk it's relevant??? Seriously?? OK, get a grip, and start thinking clearly, because you need to think clearly....clearly!!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker You actually post THAT picture, and thnk it's relevant??? Seriously?? OK, get a grip, and start thinking clearly, because you need to think clearly....clearly!!!!

I bet if i show photos of aircraft investigation scenes they will look more like the photo i have posted then the 9/11 scenes. If you can please show me other wise.

Of course they will. And that won't prove a damn thing. Because not one of them was flown into a reinforced concrete building at high speed.

reply to post by verfed Then tell me, what could those reasons possibly be? To have the ability to cause speculation?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Of course they will. And that won't prove a damn thing. Because not one of them was flown into a reinforced concrete building at high speed.

But thats where you are wrong, their have been planes that have flown into buildings before. Please show me a photo of a proper aircraft crash scene investigation at any of the 9/11 crash sites.

Yes there have been planes that flew into buildings before. Almost every one of them low speed, and none of the buildings reinforced enough to withstand a truck bomb sitting next to the wall. And not one of them nearly the size of a Boeing 757.

this may have been stated before but: This is the aftermath of a B-52 "Billy Mitchell"bomber after it crashed into the Empire State building in 1945. Travelling at an estimated speed of 225mph. 14 people died and 25 were injured. Any aviation experts or anyone who would know, what is the capacity of fuel the B-52 could carry in 1945?

B-25 actually. A B-52 is MUCH bigger, and powered by 8 jet engines. Normal fuel load for a B-25 is 974 gallons. It could be increased to a maximum of just under 1900 gallons. However the one that hit the Empire State building was attempting to land at the end of a flight. That means it would have been much lower on fuel than that maximum capacity.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 B-25 actually. A B-52 is MUCH bigger, and powered by 8 jet engines. Normal fuel load for a B-25 is 974 gallons. It could be increased to a maximum of just under 1900 gallons. However the one that hit the Empire State building was attempting to land at the end of a flight. That means it would have been much lower on fuel than that maximum capacity.

Ahhhh thanks for that Zaphod I was scanning over an article I read sometime ago and thought i'd share. Guess you heard about it too! haha thanks for confirming the capacity

A B-25 not a B-52. Huge difference! I'd guess somewhere between 800-1000 gallons on fuel load. So maybe 1/25th of the fuel load of the B767. The B-25 wingspan would be about the length of one wing for the B767.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Almost every one of them low speed, and none of the buildings reinforced enough to withstand a truck bomb sitting next to the wall.

So you would agree then that even a 757 would have a hard time penatrating a reinforced wall built to withstand a truck bomb? jnocook.net...

When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by _Del_ I'd guess somewhere between 800-1000 gallons on fuel load. So maybe 1/25th of the fuel load of the B767. The B-25 wingspan would be about the length of one wing for the B767.

jnocook.net...

When the B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945 the fire damaged several steel beams but the impact did not take out one steel column.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 How do you get "a 757 would have a hard time penetrating a reinforced concrete wall" from "none of them at high speed into a reinforced concrete wall designed to withstand a truck bomb right next to it"? No it WOULDN'T have trouble penetrating it. The forces the wall was designed to withstand are totally different. The sheer mass and speed of the 757 hitting it would guarantee that it would punch right through it.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 I think you need to do a little more research on the B-25 crash. There are a number of differences between that crash and the WTC crash: PLANE SIZES: B-25 - length: 52ft 11 in wingspan: 67ft 6 in loaded weight: 33,510 lbs Cruise speed: 230 mph Max speed: 275 mph 767 - length: 159 ft 2 in wingspan: 156 ft EMPTY weight: 176,650 lbs Cruise speed: 530 mph Max speed: 568 mph The 767 DWARFS the B-25. Impact speeds into the buildings were dramatically different too: B-25 impact speed estimated just over 200mph 767 impact speeds were 443mph and 542 mph It is almost inconceivable that people would try and compare the two incidents. Apples and oranges. Photo of external damage by the B-25. www.evesmag.com...

reply to post by ULTIMA1 I think you need to do a little more research on the B-25 crash. There are a number of differences between that crash and the WTC crash: PLANE SIZES: B-25 - length: 52ft 11 in wingspan: 67ft 6 in loaded weight: 33,510 lbs Cruise speed: 230 mph Max speed: 275 mph 767 - length: 159 ft 2 in wingspan: 156 ft EMPTY weight: 176,650 lbs Cruise speed: 530 mph Max speed: 568 mph The 767 DWARFS the B-25. Impact speeds into the buildings were dramatically different too: B-25 impact speed estimated just over 200mph 767 impact speeds were 443mph and 542 mph It is almost inconceivable that people would try and compare the two incidents. Apples and oranges. Photo of external damage by the B-25. www.evesmag.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58 reply to How do you get "a 757 would have a hard time penetrating a reinforced concrete wall" from "none of them at high speed into a reinforced concrete wall designed to withstand a truck bomb right next to it"?

Please explain to me how a nose cone made from graphite composite would penatrate a reinforced concrete wall, interior collumns and walls, oh and the rest of the cockpit made from thin aluminum.