9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by HowardRoark I have serious doubts about the "accuracy" of those "denials." As we saw in the Seismic data thread, the people who write articles for American Free press start out with a preconceived idea and tailor their reporting to fit those ideas. I especially have problems with the "anonymous" sources that they use. There are tons of mechanics out there who are certified to work on those powerplants. Why don't you try to find a few www.jal.co.jp...

That's the point. I'm not really qualified. Why hasn't someone who is already found some experts to ID the debris? The fact that it should've been job #1 in the investigation, and apparently hasn't been done, is disturbing.

Why? It's not like they are trying to figure out why a plane crashed. We know why it crashed. It wasn't a mechanical malfunction.

Why? It hasn't been positively identified as a 757! What do you mean, why? Even if it is a 757, if that part did not come from a 757, we should know, shouldn't we? Can you really be that apathetic? Any and every other plane crash in the history of plane crashes has been more thoroughly investigated than those of 9/11, IMO. If that part is from any other plane, then it's not as clear as you think it is. That alone is "why". [edit on 17-1-2005 by Damned]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Damned Not to beat a dead horse, but supposedly, there are three engines that could be in the 757-200. Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, or Rolls Royce. All three manufacturers have denied that the pictured debris is a part from any of their engines. Isn't it important that this part be positively identified? It shouldn't even be a problem to figure out exactly who made this, and what type of engine it came from. [edit on 17-1-2005 by Damned]

I have serious doubts about the "accuracy" of those "denials." As we saw in the Seismic data thread, the people who write articles for American Free press start out with a preconceived idea and tailor their reporting to fit those ideas. I especially have problems with the "anonymous" sources that they use. There are tons of mechanics out there who are certified to work on those powerplants. Why don't you try to find a few www.jal.co.jp...

But why is it that when this same situation comes up to support all that CH posted,it is accepted People are back peddling when it comes to this stuff and it's really funny. I think it is safe to say that we all agree we need to find out WHY and HOW this could happen,but at the same time,we cant turn a blind eye. In the beginning,those statements above were accepted when it supported what CH posted.Now that it was looked at again,it doesnt supprt those people and now they dont accept it.I see something very wrong with that. We may never know the truth,we can only hope to expose it any way we can. Too many cover ups in this Pentagon case and some are willing to call the bluff.I am one of them.

Here: www.informationclearinghouse.info... Please be aware that the version shown appears to be the first version, where a second version now can be bought from www.inplanesite.com where mistakes in the first movie has been corrected. Still, this only has to do with 1 mistake about the plume of smoke seen in pictures and movies being credited the collapse of building 2. This is proved in the second version not to be so. The first version will still show why no Boeing ever hit the pentagon. Sincerely Cade

The post-attack cleanup at the Pentagon shed some light on the fact that it was not a 757, but exactly what the part recovered was has not been easy to find or locate. It is not a "turbofan" component, it is in fact a "turbojet" component from an US Air Force/Navy vintage type of jet engine technology that was used on just a limited number of fighters, bombers and reconnaissance planes. This new evidence has been hand-delivered to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. www.onlinejournal.com... Any comments you'd like to make on this article Catherder?

I believe the part you mention has been identified as the generator engine in the tail of the plane, not the main engine.

When you don't answer my questions but just move along answering others, is it because you don't understand what I'm asking or because you don't have an answer? I certainly do not myself have answers to all the questions that can be put forward to me in a forum, but I think that if I should choose to simply ignore them all together, it would not help to establish an image of a fair and balanced investigator, but rather someone out to prove the least painful explanation to my beliefsystem. "the people who write articles for American Free press start out with a preconceived idea and tailor their reporting to fit those ideas." Sincerely Cade [edit on 2-2-2005 by Cade]

I'm sorry, but I haven't been following this thread to cloesly lately. What question was it?

djohnsto77 Quote: --------------- "I believe the part you mention has been identified as the generator engine in the tail of the plane, not the main engine." --------------- Well, djohnsto77...of course you are quite welcome to believe whatever you wish, however wishing does not change the facts. There has been much debate on the web related to the parts photographed at the pentagon and many have claimed that it is part of an APU. It is quite clear if you examine photos available of the tail APU assembly on the web, that the parts at the pentagon are not similar at all. Perhaps you should read the article again, and view the photos on the page... www.onlinejournal.com... from the article... "This type of turbojet engine has never been used on a Boeing 757, so the debate on "type of plane" can end there. This is a jet engine component with fan, not an auxiliary power unit (APU) as some have speculated or dropped into the conversation as disinformation." K.W.B.Schwarz

As I said before, rather than relying on incomplete drawings and obscure photos, I would rather hear from a certified jet engine mechanic with experience in with all applicable powerplants. And no, I don't wantthat to be an anonmmous source either.

Roark Quote: ------------------ "As I said before, rather than relying on incomplete drawings and obscure photos, I would rather hear from a certified jet engine mechanic with experience in with all applicable powerplants". ------------------ Excuse me Howard, was that a response to my question above? If so, am I to assume that you reject the evidence that the engine part (referring to pics FEMA 4414 and 4415) is not actually from a 757( turbofan RB211) but rather from a (turbojet JT8D)? Do you mean that you would have to have that confirmed from a certified jet engine mechanic? If so, how do you justify accepting the statements catherder originally proposed as evidence that the part comes from a 757? Is he a certified jet engine mechanic?

Hmmmm... can't seem to get the comparison picture to post? [edit on 2-2-2005 by Foxx] Let's try it this way... foxxaero.homestead.com... [edit on 2-2-2005 by Foxx]

Your linking to an html file rather than image.....here As for your posts,awesome find! I have tried 3/4 times to point this out,but there are those that chose to ignore or have it stuck in their head that it is what was said it is in the CH post. From the start I could see it was in no way from an APU and even showed proof with images. There are just those who will not realize that it was NOT a 757. Great post

SMR Thanks, It wasn't me who found the info. Karl Schwarz and crew have been working on this 'problem' for a couple of years. Apparently, the web has been scrubbed of images of the JT8D (for obvious reasons) and somehow they were able to work through the 'blocks'. The story that it is part of an APU has been debunked long ago (2003?), just like the story that Eagar 'the idiot' put out about the 'collapsing floors theory'...Gone...vaporized by scientific investigation. Unfortunately, some people just can't seem to keep up with new information, and continue to hold fast to original theories long since debunked - perhaps because those are more 'comfortable'? How the heck do you 'link to an image'... sorry, this is a new forum-format for me.

HowardRoark It makes more sense that you look backwards in the thread just one or two pages to find my questions, rather than me repeating them and taking up space in the thread. I'm sure you'll agree. Also, I want to remind everyone that this is very hard to deal with emotionally and I wish to say to HowardRoark that we are all just concerned people who feels that truth should surface, so please don't feel bad changing your mind and joining us in our search for the truth. Remember, we all once believed the official conspiracy explanation like you, but then we saw how much evidence there is for the alternative conspiracy explanation and simply could not ignore it, and then we changed our minds. We all know how hard it can be to change ones mind, especially when one has argued to defend ones opinion. Please remember that it takes a man of courage to openly state that "in light of this new evidence I will have to change my position, thank you for clearing this up for me", and that to keep denying only misleads yourself as you can see how we have already changed our minds. "A fanatic is someone who will not change his mind and who will not change the subject" -- Sir Winston Churchill To change ones mind is a show of intelligence, and to refuse in the face of hard evidence is a show of ignorance. Sincerely Cade

After viewing the Karl Schwarz research and pictures, I believe that the "conspiracy theorists" are correct. These are not 757 parts.

SMR, Nice pictures, but just because the two ingines have similar looking parts doesn't mean much. After all, I could pull a piston out of a Chevy Malibu and claim it was really from a Ford Explorer. I could show you pictures and everything.

Question a 13 foot craft cant make a 13 foot whole can it , where are the displacement of shock firgure? look at it this way the walls had to displaced at least 6 to 8 and up to 10 feet , away from the impacting object , now here is how I get this in approx. april 2001 I responded as a brush pumper hand to an acident where a building had a car drive through the wall , now the contruction was basically the same with a few exceptions the sill is where the re-enforce concrete wall stopped the car had impacted at a speed of about 40 miles an hour the car was a large sedan if i remember right a buick sedan approx 1976 to 1980 modle now the vehicle is what 6 foot 3 inches at the widest point which is the bumper width the body is only 6 feet 1/8 based on measurement taken from my 1980s model large ford sedan which has the same width, now the whole made by the car was 12 feet 5 inches because the was folded in when it was hit as the shock was not enough to cleanly rip the rebar immediately so the rebar collapsed the wall before breaking under stress. Now given this comparison doesnt it stand to reason that connected steel beams and rebar re-enforced concrete walls would do the same. The whole seems to be to close a match to the vehicle impacting it, there should be shock dispersment right?

Originally posted by Cade

Originally posted by HowardRoark Not necessarily. The plane came in at an extremely shallow angle and a high ate of speed. At that angle and speed, the "ground effect" would have worked to keep the plane from hitting the lawn. (I beleive that this has already been discussed somewhere in this thread)

Then why did the American Civil engineering association write in their building performance report that a "wide crater was ploughed into the Pentagon lawn"? Why are so many here so gun hoe on argueing but shy about informing themselves? Why is it more fun to argue for page after page then it is sitting down and watching a documentary from a skeptic? Sincerely Cade

Well since the “American Civil engineering association” does not appear to exist, I am assuming that you are refereeing to the This report by the American society of civil engineers. I can’t find the reference that you are referring to, can you please show me, or tell me what page it is on? Drbryankkruta, Read the above report, it might answer some of your questions.