9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 Actually there is quite a bit of dobt. Before the hole collapsed, you can clearly see no place where the engines either entered or even damaged the buiding in any way. A white scuff mark seems like a bit little to prove a wing going the same speed as the rest of the plane. But I can conced the wings if you can show me where the engines entered the building. Where are those penetration holes?

Even 911 research ( a CT site ) accepts that a 757 hit the pentagon. Here's their description of the exterior damage: about 96 feet wide across the first floor about 18 feet wide across the second floor about than 26 feet high in the center 911research.wtc7.net... Here's their page of debris all over the lawn, and others. 911research.wtc7.net... And another CT site that they use as evidence, great photo analysis : 911review.com... Best composite photo of the damage from there. Looks a little bigger than just a scuff, eh? : 911review.com... And a diagram of the building and 77 you can use to confirm the dimensions: 911review.com... Note that these are CT sites saying this. [edit on 29-9-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 Actually there is quite a bit of dobt. Before the hole collapsed, you can clearly see no place where the engines either entered or even damaged the buiding in any way. A white scuff mark seems like a bit little to prove a wing going the same speed as the rest of the plane. But I can conced the wings if you can show me where the engines entered the building. Where are those penetration holes?

Even 911 research ( a CT site ) accepts that a 757 hit the pentagon. Here's their description of the exterior damage: about 96 feet wide across the first floor about 18 feet wide across the second floor about than 26 feet high in the center 911research.wtc7.net... Here's their page of debris all over the lawn, and others. 911research.wtc7.net... And another CT site that they use as evidence, great photo analysis : 911review.com... Best composite photo of the damage from there. Looks a little bigger than just a scuff, eh? : 911review.com... And a diagram of the building and 77 you can use to confirm the dimensions: 911review.com... Note that these are CT sites saying this. [edit on 29-9-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Bur I do not care what other CT sites say or what other people say. I still see absolutely no evidence of those engines piercing that wall. I am not interested in the theory of whether or not a plane hit, or if CIT agrees or not. I simply do not buy any of what I have been told by MSM and I need to see some stuff that makes sense to me. Just think of the logic there, other CTers believe it was a plane so I should too. OK, other OTers believe the wings folded in and the engines went into the fuselage. So, there is disagreement on both sides and I just need to see myself evidence of those engines brraking through that wall. There is one hole. Not 3 right? in fact, here I will post some pictures too. Can you spot the place where the engines went into the building in the above pictures? And here is some lawn debris And this would all be really great evidence if it were not for the fact that A) the tire used for comparison is not the same B) Rolls Royce already said that is not the engine that would have been on F77. So, they have debris that does not match a 757 and ONE very small hole. Can you blame me for asking questions here? [edit on 9/30/08 by MorningStar8741] [edit on 9/30/08 by MorningStar8741]

reply to post by MorningStar8741 Well, I think we just discovered the source of your confusion. You hilariously believe that the punch-out hole from C-Ring opening into A-E Drive was the point of impact! The hole in the photos you linked to is identifed is as "EXIT" in the above photo.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 And this would all be really great evidence if it were not for the fact that A) the tire used for comparison is not the same B) Rolls Royce already said that is not the engine that would have been on F77. So, they have debris that does not match a 757 and ONE very small hole. Can you blame me for asking questions here?

A- It is the same type wheel. www.aerospaceweb.org... B- The guy quoted (Brown ) is a RR spokesman, NOT an engineer, so he wouldn't know. PLUS, that engine even isn't made where he works (Indiana), but in England............ Since this article was first published, we have received several comments from readers citing a quote from Rolls-Royce spokesman John W. Brown who said, "It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I'm familiar with..." The critics go on to suggest that this statement disproves all of our analysis indicating the disk is a compressor stage from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535. However, a simple review of the source of this quote shows just the opposite. The material is from an article titled "Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts Can't Explain Photo Evidence" written by Christopher Bollyn that appeared on the pro-conspiracy website American Free Press. The article describes John Brown as a spokesman for Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, Indiana. This location is home to the Allison Engine factory that builds the AE3007H turbofan used aboard the Global Hawk. Brown's quote regarding the mystery wreckage states that, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." Furthermore, the article correctly notes that the RB211 is not built in Indianapolis but at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby, England. Since Brown is a spokesman for Allison Engines, which was an independent company that only became a subsidary of Rolls-Royce in 1995, it stands to reason that an engine built in the United Kingdom would be one he's not "familiar with." The article even goes on to point out that Brown could not identify specific parts from one engine or another since he is not an engineer or assembly line technician who would be familiar with the internal components of turbine engines. C- What he said - you're looking at the "punchout hole", rather than the entrance hole. Look at my links again. They have wide panoramic views of the front of the Pentagon that 100% refutes the idea that the hole you believe to be the entrance hole to be correct. Asking questions is a good thing. Ignoring answers backed by explanations ain't.

reply to post by Seymour Butz OK, that would be fine except I can identify several parts of that tire that are not similar at all. So, is this the only guy from RR that can talk? I would think that if someone from the company were making such inflamatory claims and the company could quite easily quiet this all with an official statement retracting his...where is it?

Originally posted by discombobulator reply to post by MorningStar8741

 

Well, I think we just discovered the source of your confusion. You hilariously believe that the punch-out hole from C-Ring opening into A-E Drive was the point of impact! The hole in the photos you linked to is identifed is as "EXIT" in the above photo.

Yup. Sure seems like that was the perfect opportunity to show just how stupid I was by presenting the pictures that show where the engines went in. We have all seen the entry hole over and over so you know darn well I do not even need to post. I guess I was just hoping one of you would show me how wrong I am with a picture of what you claim happend. I guess those engines just sealed the wall back up behind them on the way in then?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 Yup. Sure seems like that was the perfect opportunity to show just how stupid I was by presenting the pictures that show where the engines went in.

This is absurd! I showed you a picture demonstrating where the engines went in on the previous page. You ignored it. Here, let me show you again. Click on the image to view in full. The hole is over 90 feet wide!

We have all seen the entry hole over and over so you know darn well I do not even need to post.

So why are you posting photos of the C-Ring punch out hole and claiming that they are of the initial impact site?

I guess I was just hoping one of you would show me how wrong I am with a picture of what you claim happend. I guess those engines just sealed the wall back up behind them on the way in then?

You have been shown, but you refuse acknowledge what you are looking at. And from reading between the lines of your post, are you still really saying that the C-Ring punch out hole is the initial impact site? Really?! This has to be a joke! [edit on 1-10-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

OK, that would be fine except I can identify several parts of that tire that are not similar at all.

You can't even identify the initial impact site at the Pentagon, but please, show us your analysis. I'm ready for another laugh.

Originally posted by discombobulator You have been shown, but you refuse acknowledge what you are looking at. And from reading between the lines of your post, are you still really saying that the C-Ring punch out hole is the initial impact site? Really?! This has to be a joke!

There's only 2 possibilities at this point.......... 1- he's a troll of the now-banned Ultima1 type, and will just post nonsense in order to get a response............2- he's a hopeless sheep that refuses to look at any evidence that would shatter the delusional world he's apparently living in............. Neither deserve a response.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz 1- he's a troll of the now-banned Ultima1 type

I appreciate this is off topic, but is there any information on why ULTIMA1 was banned? I am very much an ATS newbie and I don't know where to go to look this up, if the information is even publicly available.

reply to post by Seymour Butz Actually, it is just pointless to argue with anyone on these boards in any logical or normal manner anymore. If you would like to stick to good old fashioned "show me the proof" then fine. Has anyone shown where the engines went into the building yet? Or have you spent time figuring out which pictures I really posted and deciding to question my tire identification skills. Ok fine, throw anything you feel is trolling right out. Let's go back to the beginning. Where did the engines go again? And this time can you answer with some proof, evidence, or anything other than a guess? You can call me names and pour over my nonsense all you like but that has failed to put two engine holes in the building. In fact, I will make it as simple as i can. I asked where the engines went. I got two contradictory answers from two people that supposedly believe the 'official' story. Are there two official stories? Is one of you wrong? Did either of you present even a tiny bit of evidence to back up your explanation? Does it help if I ask again? Where did the engines go and can you present just a little evidence of that? [edit on 10/2/08 by MorningStar8741]

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 reply to post by Seymour Butz

 

Let's go back to the beginning. Where did the engines go again? And this time can you answer with some proof, evidence, or anything other than a guess?

reply to post by discombobulator Thanks, that is a lovely picture. Aside from the fact that it is not after impact, it is after some collapse, I still fail to see where the engines went in that pic.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 reply to post by discombobulator

 

Thanks, that is a lovely picture. Aside from the fact that it is not after impact, it is after some collapse, I still fail to see where the engines went in that pic.

This is a composite image of photos taken before the collapse. Edit: Your trolling has been reported. I'm done with you. Goodbye. [edit on 2-10-2008 by discombobulator]

Here is a photo taken after the collapse.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 reply to post by discombobulator

 

Thanks, that is a lovely picture. Aside from the fact that it is not after impact, it is after some collapse, I still fail to see where the engines went in that pic.

This is a composite image of photos taken before the collapse. Edit: Your trolling has been reported. I'm done with you. Goodbye. [edit on 2-10-2008 by discombobulator]

Trolling because I question what you pose as proof? We both know that there are pictures from even earlier but that is beside the point. Where in your picture does it show the engines going in? Please feel free to report that I am questioning where the engines of the planes went in and refusing to accept a picture of a burned out building as proof. Am I off topic? Am I lying about something? Am I just trolling to cause trouble? I am genuinely asking where the engines went in. I have asked about 10 times now and have yet to get even a decent photo with some sort of "here is where the engines impacted" or even close. I am sorry if your inability to answer bothers you so much but that does not take away from the legitimacy of my question.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 Trolling because I question what you pose as proof? We both know that there are pictures from even earlier but that is beside the point. Where in your picture does it show the engines going in? Please feel free to report that I am questioning where the engines of the planes went in and refusing to accept a picture of a burned out building as proof. Am I off topic? Am I lying about something? Am I just trolling to cause trouble? I am genuinely asking where the engines went in. I have asked about 10 times now and have yet to get even a decent photo with some sort of "here is where the engines impacted" or even close. I am sorry if your inability to answer bothers you so much but that does not take away from the legitimacy of my question.

What exactly would you like us to do? I'm sure we can all measure where the engines were located and draw you a circle, but that is not proof in any way. The engines penetrated approximately half way between the fuselage hole and the end of the major wing penetration damage.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 Thanks, that is a lovely picture. Aside from the fact that it is not after impact, it is after some collapse, I still fail to see where the engines went in that pic.

Here's the problem here. You're assuming that the fuselage made 1 neat hole, based on your incorrect belief that the exit hole was the entrance hole for the fuselage. Then you asked "where are the holes for the engines?" Your questions are all f'ed up from the get-go. The picture from exponent is of the entrance hole. But your assumpttion that the fuselage, left engine, and right engine would make their own neat holes is wrong. Get that straight - it is wrong.... Now read this closely for your explanation. The plane breached the Pentagon wall along a +/- 90 foot length along the ground floor. There were no 3 discrete holes. It was a slash, made from roughly +/- 10 feet outboard of each engine, which also roughly correlates to where the fuel tanks (weight and mass ) were located. That's it. If you're unable to comprehend, you should step back for a moment and consider WHY you are unable to comprehend. It really ain't all that hard to understand what we're saying....

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Are you aware that they use WATER at high speed to cut through steel? Force = Mass times velocity - doesn't matter about "hard" or "sharp" or "angle".

reply to post by Anonymous ATS You forgot something in that equation. Technically speaking: F = d/dt x (m*v) = m x dv/dt dv/dt is the change in velocity over time or acceleration. And of course we have to assume the mass is constant over time for the above result to hold. [edit on 3-10-2008 by HLR53K]