9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by pccat we are discussing an RB211-535 aren't we???

Are we? What engine was on Flight 77?

well officially I have no idea.. neither do you.. but.. according to a site that I rely on as being one of the most objective.. it was a Rolls Royce RB 211-535.. or hasn't that been clear the past four years this thread has been up.. once again, here goes.. www.aerospaceweb.org... ps. you do realize it wasn't me with the beer can analogy don't you?

Originally posted by pccat well officially I have no idea.. neither do you.. but..

Correct since no official reports have been released.

according to a site that I rely on as being one of the most objective.. it was a Rolls Royce RB 211-535..

What year was the RB211-535 first built? What is the RB211-535 constructed of?

What year was the RB211-535 first built? What is the RB211-535 constructed of?

1978.. the engine entered service in January 1983 not until 1988 did AA order any.. I could not find out the construction details.. but according to everything I have been reading on this, this design was supposed to be lighter and more fuel efficient.. the gross weight of the heaviest, 535c is almost 1200lbs lighter than the 9400+lbs of the lightest RB211-524.. and it is only about 7 to 8 inches shorter than the 524.. so some of that weight may have had to come from the composite of the casing.. I will look more tomorrow~pccat [edit on 21-9-2008 by pccat]

not to take away from the current RELATIVE exchange of info and analysis, but there are many more points that stand out in both the WTC event and the Pentagon impact which simply dont stack neatly with the official story, like the experience of the pilots for one, which is a huge one in my book, for two, the flight path the official story suggests doesnt match up with the physics behind the reconstruction of events based on evidence left behind, such as impact angle, speed, objects left unscathed in the clear and plain view THROUGH the SINGLE impact crater in the pentagon and ofcourse not forgetting the ridiculously vast amount of varying and contradictive testimony by all the witnesses at the pentagon and wtc.For the WTC first I'll suggest taking a look at all the recorded evidence of firemen and police personnel in the building reporting explosions going off, the STRAIGHT collapse of not only the two towers but building no.7 aswell which sustained no collision other than debri impact and lastly the familiar debate about the jet fuel burning hot enough to decrese integerity of the steel support beams encased throughout the buildings.And with the Pentagon you have the newly added testimony of the pentagon cops who like a fraction of the rest of the witnesses say the plane if it truly was a plane came from a different direction than we have been given by the official story....its not just the engines folks its an entire collage of contradictive evidence which in my opinion stands to outnumber whatever evidence which has been manufactured or manipulated to supposedly be conclusive in the favor of the official story... [edit on 21-9-2008 by Averysmallfoxx]

Originally posted by pccat 1978.. the engine entered service in January 1983 not until 1988 did AA order any..

So the engine was built not long from the date of the information i posted. I guess i will have to get the information on the construction.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 The fan casing was changed to steel and titanium

That's true. However it was made to minimize the damage in case fan blades will decide fly apart for whatever reason and it was limited to the the fan blades plane. They didn't made the whole fan duct out of steel or titanium. Just a small outer ring surrounding the blades.

Originally posted by Kellter Wow Cathearder, Outstanding research and your post is laid out perferct. You've convinced me a 757 hit the Pentagon, now you just have to convince me that someone who learned how to fly by Microsoft Flight Simulator managed to pull off such a precise hit. I believe the pilot did spend time in a professional flight simulator but theres two problems with that. 1. His instructor didn't have high marks for him. 2. He couldn't practice the approach to the Pentagon on the professional software as it would have really raised some flags. Again, outstanding job Cathearder, my other issues are for another thread, thanks for all your woek.

Hani was so bad he could not land a small plane. He was refused rental after some flights at an airport near the Pentagon. Would not rent him a plane solo, until he received more flights. When you think about his mission, why does he need to land. He was aiming at a small 40 foot wide runway for practice; he was not up to their standards; The Freeway Airport, about 16 miles from the Pentagon area. Look at the airport and the Pentagon, which is easier to hit? If we dig deep enough on Hani, we see the chief instructor agrees, even though they did not rent to him, he would have no problem hitting a building with a 757; as in he could hit a building. (given the plane was already flying) These guys prepared for years, they had tech manuals for the 757/767, both plane models are so similar they are essential identical to fly save a few differences. The question should be how could he miss? The little runway, harder than the big building to hit.

Originally posted by syeager9 They didn't made the whole fan duct out of steel or titanium. Just a small outer ring surrounding the blades.

Do you understand how big the fan blade and compessor section of the engine are?

not to pick on syeager but, I'm pretty sure just in this thread alone enough outside sources have been posted to show otherwise reguarding the composition of the engines casing and components. Time to stop squabbling about facts already proven and start discussing more important topics like above with the capability of hani to fly the 757. I still disagree that he could hit such a point given his speed and approach....I mean in my opinion after hearing so many different pilots discuss the physics and points of interest involving handling a plane so smoothely I would disagree with the gentleman above. If trained, tried and true pilots say its a very unplausible scenario I have follow the opinions of those who have years of military and civilian experience in handling such big birds.

reply to post by Averysmallfoxx So, would you accept the words of military pilots that were there that day and know exactly what hit the Pentagon then? Because there are quite a few of them that witnessed it that day.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx... capability of hani to fly the 757. I still disagree that he could hit such a point given his speed and approach....I mean in my opinion after hearing so many different pilots discuss the physics and points of interest involving handling a plane so smoothely I would disagree with the gentleman above. ...

0.01 percent of all pilots have the opinion that Hani can't do it. Are most of those in some truth movement group. Most of the quotes I see from them are not telling the truth, the 330 degree turn was done slower than a professional pilot, not tighter, but 5 miles wide! Not tight. If we have all pilots vote, you will have 0.01 percent of the vote. But evidence shows nothing precludes Hani flying the mission. Kids can do it. Not everyone can fly, but the kids I had in a large jet simulator were able to hit runways the first time. Women who never flew, were able to fly a real plane, 265,000 pounds, flying and they were able to aim at things without a problem. I suggest you go for an introductory flight and try to aim at a runway. Flying is fun if you don't throw up a lot. If you prefer to listen to the opinions of 0.01 percent of all pilots who have an agenda or some ego problem saying a licensed pilot, Hani, can't hit the one time biggest building in the world. Go for it.

reply to post by beachnut I'll addresse beach first, I think the important to thing to ask regaurding your responce is, exactly where are you pulling such exact numbers from? .01 percent of pilots? riiight, so you just so happen to have taken a tally of every pilot, military and civilian alike whose offered an opinion, sorted them by an agenda moved disposition you may or may not be able to confirm and provided a nice measely fraction that coincidently happens to lean in favor of your opinion on the facts regaurding the event in question? I think it goes without saying that when you start throwing numbers out there providing sources for such is mandatory otherwise how are your numbers credible? Mind you I'm not being snippy I'm just saying...its just like in college, you start siting info like that and you have to provide sources otherwise its just as easy to assume your pulling numbers out of your magic hat. [edit on 23-9-2008 by Averysmallfoxx]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999 I would say that those who spoke on behalf of the military itself should not be, and those who say they saw what hit and are military fall within the same category. The problem we keep running into is, IF its a cover up how can we trust the military to offer up the kind of investigation that would unravel the "coverup"? To answer specifically I would say I'd be more inclined to accept the opinions of veteran pilots,commercial and perhaps ex-military, those who have only previous ties with the military but enough experience and hours on similar birds so as to make the 757 and its path as well as the experience of the pilots in question all points of objectivity viewed with experienced eyes and not influenced ones.

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx reply to post by beachnut

 

I'll addresse beach first, I think the important to thing to ask regaurding your responce is, exactly where are you pulling such exact numbers from? .01 percent of pilots? ...

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Averysmallfoxx]

Do the numbers. I could only find 0.01 percent of all pilots believe what you said. I have flown for 35 years; I was Operations officer for a flying squadron, and chief of training for over 200 crew members. Out of 100 pilots none of them agree with you. Of the thousands of pilots I have worked with over the years, not one agrees with you. Out of all the Captains on the 757/767 I have met personally and worked with, not one supports your ideas on Hani. I have flown with 757/767 Captains, they don't agree with you. My first squadron I worked with over 100 pilots, none of them agree with you. At NATO I worked with over 100 pilots, none of them agree with you. I worked at a base with over 15,000 people, none of them agree with you, and out of 15,000, over 100 more pilots worked with me who do not agree with you. I can't find one pilot I have worked with in 35 years who supports you. We all agree, after the plane was airborne Hani could hit the one time biggest building in the world. I can't find anyone I ever worked with in flying in 35 years who supports your ideas on Hani. It comes down to evidence. When a pilot says Hani did a tight turn, 330 degree, and say an impossible maneuver for a pilot like Hani; I look at the turn, it took 3 minutes, should have take less than 2 minutes, and the TIGHT turn was really 5 miles, FIVE miles wide. A five mile wide turn is not called tight, it is called loose! Who thinks a 5 mile wide, 300 KIAS, 330 degree, 3 minute turn is a maneuver that requires more than a rookie pilot? It is clear the terrorist took over the plane! As soon as they did, that was the last time ever 77 held a constant altitude (proof a professional pilot was not flying) When the terrorist took over the plane: The last time the airspeed was stable. The last time the heading was stable The last time the pitch was stable. The last time the roll was stable. The last time anything was stable. The terrorist pilot arrive over the DC area too high; pushing over from 7000 feet straight to the Pentagon may of ensured the 757 broke apart going MACH 1.3 before impact. So the terrorist pilot does the thing all new pilots and poor planning brings on; a turn to loose altitude. There is not one thing 77 did that required skill, or a good pilot. If you ask real pilots in person, you will find over 99 percent disagree with you. Good luck. How many pilots here support you? I know 3 that don't. One has flown 757/767. ] [edit on 23-9-2008 by beachnut]

Originally posted by beachnut ....... There is not one thing 77 did that required skill, or a good pilot. If you ask real pilots in person, you will find over 99 percent disagree with you. Good luck. How many pilots here support you? I know 3 that don't. One has flown 757/767.

The only ones who think Hani could not fly that are those with a political agenda to fulfill or those who have not reviewed the FDR data to see how easy it was. Any time you hear someone use the word "dive" or "High G" maneuver, that is a key that they are distorting what was done. There was no "dive" and there was no "high G" maneuvering. Beachnut has illustrated that the turn was actually less bank and less G that normally used by Airline Pilots the world over. He illustrated that by the timing required to make the turn. It is further illustrated by watching the NTSB animation. Hani was a trained pilot (a very poor one), but he did what he had done hundreds of time in his training. He made a descending turn. Every single pilot in the world learns to do that from the VERY FIRST flying lesson they receive. Nothing he did was difficult at all, but he was very lucky not to have plowed up the lawn. The most difficult part of flying these types of airplanes is the Take-Off and Landing. Hani did neither of those. They had the aircraft manuals to learn what switches they needed to use, they learned the cockpit layout. They had simulator time in similar types. They didn't need anything more in order to do what they did. They grossly over sped the aircraft and they were all over the place with bank angles and G forces. Beachnut has a small graphic of a plot of G on the final leg to the Pentagon. It shows that Hani was all over the sky with pitch inputs. The passenger were likely puking because of that. It was not a smooth flight at all. In order to hit the Pentagon he only needed to aim at it like he had done hundreds of times in the past for aiming at a runway. It's not rocket science and even the Instructor who refused to rent him a Cessna agreed that he could have done it. [edit on 23-9-2008 by Reheat]

Here's the G graphic I spoke about in the above post. This is several seconds of Hani's pitch inputs on the final leg to the Pentagon. On the x axis is G. On the y axis is seconds. 1 G is normal level unaccelerated flight. This is very rough flying. It would cause passengers to be sick. That is NOT a Professional Airline Pilot flying the aircraft. It is a neophyte in what is termed a Pilot Induced Oscillation (PIO). PS. The board software is not allowing proper formatting. There are suppose to be paragraph breaks to enable easier reading, but the software is not allowing paragraphs for some reason.....

Originally posted by beachnut I have flown for 35 years; I was Operations officer for a flying squadron, and chief of training for over 200 crew members. Out of 100 pilots none of them agree with you. Of the thousands of pilots I have worked with over the years, not one agrees with you.

I like how you just bring up numbers, with no actaul proof what these pilots have stated. By the way John Lear who has one of the top aviation records around does agree.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 John Lear also believes there were no planes, just projected holograms. If you believe what he is saying, then you also agree that there were holograms involved, correct? After all, you are saying his word and experience are better than other pilots...so he must be telling the truth, right?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by beachnut I have flown for 35 years; I was Operations officer for a flying squadron, and chief of training for over 200 crew members. Out of 100 pilots none of them agree with you. Of the thousands of pilots I have worked with over the years, not one agrees with you.

I like how you just bring up numbers, with no actaul proof what these pilots have stated. By the way John Lear who has one of the top aviation records around does agree.

What evidence does John Lear have. All the flying was easy, a kid could do it, and I have taken kids in a large jet simulator and they have landed without training on a 150 foot wide runway, some crashed, some bounced, some landed nicely. So you are saying Hani can't hit a 1400 foot wide building when kids with zero time have hit 150 foot wide targets! Hani is 10 times worse? Hani had real flying experience. People have to manufacture the Hani can't fly hearsay opinions based on faulty news stories and exaggerations. Exaggerations like! Tight turn – 5 miles wide. LOL The tight turn assertion proves people do not research this topic and prefer to use hearsay and distorted news stories. It is actually funny, keep up the exaggeration, make up some better ones. Please list all the reasons John Lear knows Hani can't hit the one time largest building in the world, essentially at 1400 foot wide runway, or a 900 foot wide building side, which he can miss and still hi the other side sticking out ! Not to mention the top of the building also 1400 feet wide. A runway that sticks up! Hani was not a good pilot, he never leveled off! He never used the exact bank angles for turns, and his speed was all over the place; the only reason he could fly the 757 is it has EXCELLENT handling qualities and flies itself. If you really want some help, we can talk about flying and Hani. What is the problem you have, a specific problem. I spent 28 years serving you in the USAF, what else do you need help on? I was doing spins recoveries in flight over 35 years ago. I had a great first instructor. You have 0.01 percent of the pilots backing you. Not significant. If you have a question there are a few pilots here who can help. All this is not needed, 77 was found in the Pentagon. It is a fact, not one person has refuted 77 hit the Pentagon with facts and evidence.