9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Sure the wings are the heaviest part, but they aren't reinforced. There WAS damage along the line of where the wing hit. I saw several pictures where you could see a line of damage at the angle of the wing. There wasn't MUCH damage from the wings, but that's common. The wings ARE the weakest structural part of the plane, for all the weight they carry. In fact there were pictures in this thread that SHOW damage from the wings. Have you ever seen a picture of the fuselage, and all the reinforcement of it, plus the round shape, which gives it extra strength, then looked at a pic of the wing? The wing is simply a thin sheet of aluminum, with bracing to keep the shape of it. The only reinforcing is at the engine mount, and the fuselage mounting point. You're taking a lot of force at a small area with the fuselage, and a lot of force and spreading it out over a large area with the wing. A very simple example is take your fist and hit something soft, and see the impact damage, then take your hand and hit it and compare it. The force spread along the wing (your open hand) will cause some damage, but not nearly as pronounced as the force of the fuselage (your fist). Another thing to remember about the wings is that they're hollow. The only things in there are wiring, rubber fuel tank bladders, and a couple of fuel pumps. I can't get the bigger pics to load, but you can go to this page of a guy building a small plane and go down the page to the wings, and you can see how fragile they are. It's the same for bigger planes too. lancegingell.com... Here's a pic of a fuselage under construction. It's a small pic, but you can see the reinforcing of it. www.compositesworld.com... [edit on 3-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by ANOK Blah blah blah Zaphod... So tell me again, which part of a 757 weighs the most? The fuselage? Full of people but really not the heaviest part, no? Engines? Hmmmmm pretty darn heavy, I know I used to work on them. Or the wings, as you yourself pointed out hold the fuel tanks? Now what was that equation of yours again? You claim the weight helped the A/C to penetrate the 2 Ft. thick reinforced (Reba) concrete wall, OK... Where does the weight come from? You said the fuel 61,200 lbs.... Now, where are those fuel tanks again?

As usual, another reply without even bothering to note the facts already outlined in this thread (4th page 11th post I think). Yeah the engines "weigh a lot" they weigh, as a matter of fact, 11,900lb including struts. According to the NTSB: Data from the flight recorder showed that; the plane was traveling at 400 knots (780 ft/s) (512.9 mph) at a magnetic bearing of 70 degrees when it struck the Pentagon. It had approximately 36,200lb of fuel (5,300 gal) and weighed approximately 181,520lb According to Boeing Engineers: The weight in each wing was composed of the following: Exposed Wing Structure: 13,500 lb Engine and Struts: 11,900 lb Landing Gear: 3,800 lb Fuel: 14,600 lb Total: 43,800 lb The balance of the weight was in the fuselage. In the normal course of operation, the center fuel tank is the last filled and the first used. Thus the weight of the fuselage at the time of impact was 181,520 - (2 x 43,800) = 93,920 lb. Of this, 7,000 lb was fuel [36,200 - (2 x 14,600) = 7,000 lb]. I know that I can see that 93,920 lb is almost twice the weight of a wing, you can too right? It actually weighs more than both wings combined. Now that you have the FACTS in front of you (hey what do you know, they've been freely available in this thread since page 4 the moment I discovered the data had been released from the Flight Data Recorder) do you STILL desire to delude yourself that the engines comprised some magic massive amount of the total weight of the 757? I do not understand why you guys form these opinions, without educating yourself on solid facts before posting (if you want solid facts, this document from the American Society of Civil Engineering / Structural Engineering Institude is something you should read from start to finish). I'd be far too embarrassed to repeatedly state "facts" that were in reality just some bs I rambled on about just because it fit with MY perception of the way things should be... -=- Now for some 7th grade science! I also know that a cylinder has an immensely greater penetrating power than a long surface such as a wing, but don't take my word for it! Try this: take a potato, and 2 drinking straws - now slap the potato as hard as you can with the side of the 1st straw, I bet you saw the potato won... a straw sure isn't very strong on the side is it... Now take the 2nd straw and stab the potato dead on as hard as you can -- wow! The same 'weak' straw not only drove into the potato but if you were unlucky it might have even gone all the way through and into your hand! Imagine that... Lets expand on that slightly... Lets take the same straw, make it 13 feet across and 155 feet long. That sure sounds like a big straw. Now, lets ram that straw into the side of a building at 500mph, I wonder what would happen? I bet it wouldn't flatten like a pancake or shred out to the sides like a cartoon stick of dynamite. I bet it would ram right into that building just like an arrow, or like a smaller straw into a potato... My next post will respond to "where did the engines go". I see where, you would too if you actually read anything or looked at photos and applied the correct angle of attack for the aircraft. [edit on 3-7-2005 by CatHerder]

Originally posted by ANOK I mean think about it, if a regular unarmoured-civilian-commercial-aircraft could punch through reinforced concrete and cause that much damage, why would the military spend millions on high-tech weaponry? They could Just launch cheaply made aircraft full of fuel and remote fly them into the targets. Think of the savings, you might even get a tax cut...tongue firmly in cheek

Japan, World War II, kamakazi. Need I say more? And, even though it's an entertaining comment you've made, you do realise that a 757-200 goes for around $68-74 million right? F-16's go for around $45 to 49 million each (as a package deal which includes ordinance and maintenance/refitting materials), but a more applicable "attack craft" such as an F-18 which go for ~$28 million each would be something more along the lines of "hitting a building with a bomb" type aircraft. Or, if you were more about show than functionality you could go all out and get an F-22 for a mere $87.5 million each. But that's all besides the point. You couldn't ("you" being the US government) suddenly go with all cheap drone craft over night. You wouldn't get money to run for office from the special interest groups (defence contractors make up a huge chunk of the US economy you know). But it actually is happening slowly, within 20 years there will probably be 15-20% of the airforce using unmanned aircraft with pilots safely sitting back in the command center. And while you still think it's laughable for a 90.7 ton object to go through a wall while travelling in excess of 500 mph, the next time you see a car go through a brick wall while travelling 40mph be sure you stop to see where the drone automobile/missile combo is lying around so you can snap some photos to post on ATS!

it's amazing how bogged down in details everyone gets. not that we don't NEED to look at details, we do, but because the events of the day are a very complex system, it is important to keep all facts in context with all other facts. why did the plane do a difficult turn, and then hit the (mostly) unnoccupied side of building and once again

"We have radar up there watching to see if any planes are coming into the building." And he said, "We have photographic equipment and look at the skies with the videos and we're going to be taping your demonstration."

so it seems, catherder, that they thought of using planes as weapons way back in the seventies. in fact, the pentagon and norad were running a simulation of that exact terror scenario on the morning of 911. you 'debunkers' are also guilty of editing out uncomfortable data from your reality bubbles of comfort. have you forgotten that they were running that drill? i'm sure someone must've mentioned it by now. do you know who grover norquist is, catherder? are you ignoring PNAC's goals and voiced method's, ie. 'we NEED a new pearl harbour'.

OK guys, so where are these mysterious pictures of the wing damage you talk about. Show mw the pic. Just telling me you saw a pic "somehwere" of the damage from the wings don't work. close.batcave.net... Another simple question, how did a guy who had very limited flying experience even find the Pentagon to crash into it? Let alone manouver the 757 the way they would have had to. Look at the flight path it took... 911research.wtc7.net... It just doesn't add up!

Well, there's this thing called GPS now, where if you know about where you want to go, you put in the coordinates, and it will get you to wherever you punch in, and then you can take over and fly around looking for your target.

Not that I think you'll believe it, but if you look on page 4, there is a nice line of damage that's angled along the line of the wing, when the plane impacted. The rest of the damage around it is massive, but there are a couple of beams that have damage on them, one slightly higher than the other like something angled impacted it. About as much damage as I would expect from something "minor" like a wing impacting.

The socalled terrorists could not fly man, and they wouldn't know how to punch in the GPS courdinates, look if what the gov said was Legit then U.S. would have put 150,000 in Afgahnistan not Iraq and if Iraq was semi-behind 9/11 and had WMD's then U.S. would have found them, thats the "plain and simple" truth the reason non of this happend is because it was all a lie it was a Gov operation this 9/11 thingy, look at all the evendence, U.S. Gov says Pilot of the Air National Gaurd F-15 that was to intercept the Pentagon plane disobeied orders to "head for Washington" and decided to go towards the Atlantic because he thought "the Soviets" were coming, HAHAHA on Sept 11, 2001 it has been more than 9 1/2 years scince the Soviet Union was disolved no U.S. Pilot would have thought AND did such a thing, the real reason that story was "cooked up" is to explain why the Pentagon plane was not stopped, if such a pilot existed he would have been "court marsheld" the very F-15 pilot that the Gov talks about doesn't exist. It's mighty funny how in 1997 Bush Jr and represetatives of "UNICAL 76" meet with the Taliban twice to get a pipeline built the Taliban answer both times was "NO" 3 years later Bush steals the election 1 year later all of a sudden boom 9/11 "Terrorist attack" any one who has any type of brain can see this was a gov thing. AS late 2003 the very same Pipeline Bush & company wanted to build back in 97 was completly constructed and pumpin oil MAN!! www.vialls.com... [edit on 3-7-2005 by SiberianTiger] [edit on 3-7-2005 by SiberianTiger] [edit on 3-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Thanks for another laugh Siberian. *snort* You know if you're going to use your usual page, you should email him and tell him to at least get the dates right. The two biggest pieces of disinformation wittingly peddled by the 9-11 Commission are the claims that four 'hijackers' were filmed checking in for Flight 77 at Dulles Airport at 0718 hrs on 11 September 2004 You don't have to be able to fly a plane to be able to control one. You have to know how to turn on the autopilot, punch in coordinates, and turn knobs. I bet even YOU could do it. What pipeline? I don't remember hearing about a mysterious pipeline. Due to its location between the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan has long been mentioned as a potential pipeline route, though in the near term, several obstacles will likely prevent Afghanistan from becoming an energy transit corridor. During the mid-1990s, Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad-Donmez gas basin via Afghanistan to Pakistan, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998. The Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) plan, with periodic talks held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan on the issue, but little progress appears to have been made as of early June 2004 (despite the signature on December 9, 2003, of a protocol on the pipeline by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan). President Karzai has stated his belief that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, while creating thousands of jobs in the country. www.eia.doe.gov... Yeah, it's been pumping oil since 93, despite the fact that in June of 2004 they have made little progress with an agreement to build it.

Originally posted by ANOK OK guys, so where are these mysterious pictures of the wing damage you talk about. Show mw the pic. Just telling me you saw a pic "somehwere" of the damage from the wings don't work. close.batcave.net... Another simple question, how did a guy who had very limited flying experience even find the Pentagon to crash into it? Let alone manouver the 757 the way they would have had to. Look at the flight path it took... 911research.wtc7.net... It just doesn't add up!

It's really simple and only requires one word. Autopilot. Once he got overhead and could see his intended target, he realised he was far too high to attempt to just dive down into it so he banked away from the target and started a slow decending banking turn. Anybody that claims it was some "amazing piloting skills" needs to sit his misinformed ass in front of a Microsoft Flight Simulator and see just how hard a slow banking turn while decending actually is... It's NOT hard, and it's nothing amazing. The only sources that claimed it was some sort of amazing piloting skills were a few shoddy news sources looking for some additional sensationalism over their media competitors in their reports. Anyone that claims a person with 10-20 hours in a 757 flight simulator couldn't fly a real one obviously has never talked to a 757 pilot or tried it themselves. It's EASY to fly new generation airliners, it's just hard to land an airplane... but if your intent is just to fly into something why worry about landing skills? As for "how did he know which side to hit", that is one of the most ludicrous suggestions I keep hearing from all the conspiracy folk. Seriously. If you LOOK at the Pentagon, and LOOK at it like you had no clue there were rennovations going on to "bomb-proof" it (I didn't before 9.11 and I guarantee you didn't unless you worked there), you'll see a couple interesting things. (The link of the Pentagon image is from a pre-9.11 image of the Pentagon which was freely available online from multiple sources.) There are only 2 sides you could actually crash a plane into if you wanted to achieve maximum "carnage" (which is what the terrorists intent was). One side has a parking garage blocking your approach, one side has a large entranceway with supplimental entrance buildings attached, the third side has another parking garage and multiple clumps of trees (it's a park), and the 4th side (your 2nd best "attack" option) coming in from the marina/river also has a parking lot with a number of large trees that could possibly end your crash short of your target. Wow, look at that you really only have ONE side that is wide open to fly at. One side that even gives you a freeway to use to line up your approach with. One side that gives you a clear path in from a low or high angle of attack. Do you think perhaps when the Pentagon decided to start the upgrades to the building they also looked at which side was the most vulnerable? Perhaps the one with 2 entrances from the freeway, the one with a helipad in front of it and wide open access to ground vehicles? Go figure. Although they probably also choose to upgrade that side because of the helipad and the size of aircraft that land on it. Seriously though, just think about it. I mean I can look at photos of the Pentagon while sitting in front of my computer and discern this for myself. Why couldn't a terrorist group (many thinkers vs one thinker) also plan this out and come to the same conclusion? It's not a giant leap of faith here, it's just plain simple logic. You attack the side that is the easiest to attack. You also probably are completely unaware that the side you have chosen to attack just happens to be upgraded to withstand a car bomb attack -- but your attack is still highly successful because hey, you have a 200,000 lb aircraft and it is only walls, kevlar and some steel beam bracings... Regarding your picture question: I think the pic they're referring to is this one (somebody please correct me if I am mistaken). If they are referring to this photo, why haven't you seen it? It's already in this thread 5 or 6 times.Or did you not read very much before jumping to the latest posts in the thread?

And

What was the other wall of the WTC made of, I what exact clear answers?

The wall of the WTC was made of concrete as well, but it had big gaps for windows, and it certainly wasn't reinforced to withstand a car bomb going off next to it.

This whole thread (79 pages) created by catHERDER. [edit on 3-7-2005 by ThePunisher]

What was the reenforcement of the Pentagon made of? I'm sure your going to tell me "thats classified? by the way if a 757 went into the Pentagon the last 80 feet of it should have been visable , the resaon we cant see it or pieces of it is because it was a small remote controlled plane (possiably a Global Hawk) that the U.S. Gov put threw the Pentagon.

I don't know what the reinforcement was made out of. It was probably something to do with rebar and something added to the concrete, but I'm not a structural engineer, so I don't know for sure. How do you figure the last 80 feet should have been visible? The last 80 feet of what? the fuselage? I don't think so. It would have compressed as it went into the building, and blown apart into a lot of pieces. Have you ever looked at a plane crash? The only time you ever see anything left is when it either hits the gound on its belly, or it flies into a mountain, and the back of the tail is all that's left. This building had a lot more give to it then a mountain does, so it would have gone further into it, and once it got into the steel beams on the inside it would have come part into a lot of little pieces. I've been to a couple of crash sites, and there was very little recognizeable left of the plane. Airplanes are fragile. I don't know how else to say it. It you put an airplane into a building at 500 mph you're not going to have a lot left of it. Especially a reinforced building, with a lot of steel I-beams once you're on the inside. As the plane was going into the building, it was compressing along the fuselage. Once it hit the fuel tanks, the vapor in the empty tanks exploded. There is a fuel tank in the forward part of the fuselage, the middle part of the fuselage, and the back part of the fuselage, plue all through the wings. Now when the three fuselage tanks explode, what do you think is going to happen to the body of the airplane? There ain't gonna be much left of it.

There would be evedence of a "757" that went into the building if it realy did happen. why all these awkward things been done scince 9/11 if Bush&co. didn't preplan on attacking Iraq/Afgahn using terrorism as an excuse? all these awkward things like saying wmd's in Iraq were are they if it was a legit, U.S. Gov will give fantastic excuses to cover up there tracks, it was CIA mistake, it was this it was that, anyone who believe is the most gulibale person on earth.

I just moved the post down to my latest post. [edit on 3-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]

There's TONS of evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. You have eyewitnesses, you have people picking up bodies wearing flight attendant uniforms, you have people picking up things from the galley of the plane, you have wreckage on the lawn, you have the black boxes....... What do you call all those? Oh wait, the CIA kept everyone out of the Pentagon after the impact so they could plant all that and cover it up. Or maybe the put it there first, and then flew something else into the Pentagon using a magic cloaking device to make it look like an American Airlines 757. Did you actually READ this thread, and look at all the evidence that it WAS a 757? Or did you just make up your mind, and are ignoring anything that doesn't fit your belief of what happened. [edit on 3-7-2005 by Zaphod58]

Read what I posted and learn something important, all those stories of flight attadents being picked up from the planes are lies they NEVER happend, now read that link.

That's what I thought. I'm not gonna bother answering you on this one anymore. As usual you're off in your own little world, believing that all the people at the crash site could keep a secret this big. Sorry to try to make my facts get in the way of your opinion.