9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Read the eyewitness accounts. One engine hit a wall or generator and blew apart. There's one down. GE also makes engines, and I never heard anything about someone asking them if it would fit one of their engines.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Read the eyewitness accounts. One engine hit a wall or generator and blew apart. There's one down.

Yes a engine "suposedly" hit a generator next to the pentagon. So like you say one down 1 to go. Where is the other 9ftx12ft engine? So if that massive engine was destroyed on impact, how can a smaller engine survive?

GE also makes engines, and I never heard anything about someone asking them if it would fit one of their engines.

Powerplants: Two Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B engines rated at 43,500 lb or Two Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engines rated at 42,600 lb (189.4 kN)

As far as I know only RR and P+W made engines for the Boeing 757-200. No other companies were involved in the making of engines for a Boeing 757-200. Did you know the Pentagon HAD anti-aircraft batteries. If ANY aircraft comes within a certain distance of the pentagon the batteries AUTOMATICALLY retaliate - Friend or foe. Remember how the transponders was some how deactivated. So that means the pentagon systems would not know wether or not this was a friendly or not. That means the batteries would be released long before the aircraft hit the building. If they released automatically then it would have to be military officials who disabled or deactivated the defense system. Maybe thats what they don't want us to see. That fact the pentagon defense system was inactive. Yet another flaw in the official story. Peace

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas There were 2 engines 9ft in diameter. Where are they? Thats all I want to know. The "little" engine found at the pentagon crash was NOT recognised by pratt and witney who then past the request onto Rolls royce they also did not recognise the engine as a part for ANY AA plane made by them.

This is a pretty good question, but you're a little off in your engine size, they're actually more like 6.5 feet in diameter at the front. The problem is, people have a preconception that a 757 engine is large enough for a man to stand in -- this is because one (or two, or three, or ten...) of the conspiracy sites shows a picture of a RR Trent 800 or a PW4000 with a man standing inside the cowling inspecting the blades -- but the caption with that photo implies that it's a 757 engine when in fact it's a 777 engine, or they imply the 777 engines are like 757 engines which again is flat out wrong (size-wise). 777 ENGINE - NOT a 757 engine, not even a 767 engine like it's caption states... Seems like some conspiracy sites will do anything to mislead you and support their story. The engines of the Boeing 757 are substantially smaller than a 777 (over 9 feet, as a reference). The 757 can be fitted with either Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series or Rolls Royce RB211 turbofans. The maximum diameter of the RB211 is 6 ft 2.5 in (1.9 m) while that of the PW2000 series is 7 ft 0.5 in (2.15 m). These are exterior measurements. [As of Feb 2004, American Airlines had 124 757-200s using RB211-535E4 engines and 24 757-200s using PW2037 engines.] The RB211-535 is a three-shaft high-bypass-ratio engine, what this means is it has a large turbofan on the front that generates a large volume of airflow, at reduced noise (in comparison to a similar engine that would be used on a non civilian aircraft such as a figher plane). Here is a link to another (large turbofan with smaller engine) RR engine (Trent1000) but by viewing this you can get a much better idea of how a high-bypass engine is designed to work, and you can also see where the majority of the work is done by the other sets of blades inside the engine (rotating view). While the cowling/shroud around the turbofans of the engine are indeed 6 ft 2.5in (if they were RB211's), the engine itself is not that big. The engine is actually substantially smaller. RB211-535 engine You can see that the 'core' of the engine is significantly smaller than the front part that people equate with being the actual engine size. The large part of the engine that you see from the outside is just the turbofans surrounded by a kevlar ring (the ring of kevlar is designed to stop a broken fan blade from penetrating the aircraft cabin should one detatch - ring in above images is yellow/tan). You can go to RollsRoyce website and view a rotatable graphic of the RB211 powerplant (without the large 6 foot turbofan section attached like it would have in aircraft use) if you're not sure I'm accurate in saying the engine isn't as big as people assume. I'd embed the graphic here but I can't do IFRAMEs in this forum. An RB211-535 in service, being inspected An RB211 after a non-fatal crash (Air Britannia). Engine detatched from wing after 757-204 slid off runway in a thunderstorm. - (click either photo for large versions) Notice how much of the turbofans remain after this crash (you can click the above link to view other images of the 757 including images of the 757 body as they cut it up to remove it.) This plane was going slower than 150mph when this engine sustained damage. Also notice how much of the larger front ring of the engine is just "gone" (you can see parts of it remain, while most of it is torn away and into pieces). This should help anyone with questions regarding how the blades "vanished" in the Pentagon crash. This engine didn't hit a wall at 500mph... One of the issues I have with the vast majority of conspiracy sites is they keep up the same claims that just aren't accurate, and they just don't fit with the photographc evidence at the impact site. There are indeed two engines photographed at the Pentagon. It just hasn't been clearly displayed by any of these sites I guess. But here, I'm more than willing to try and show you both engines. Engine inside the building Another engine apparently from the Pentagon grounds (I've seen other images where a lot of the individual items are apparent, I'll try to find that image collection again - I haven't put much effort into gathering images of the Pentagon lately, it's pretty much a done issue for me) That's two engines... And, btw, if you view this RollsRoyce RB211 PDF document you will see a photo (right side 6th page) where an engineer is working on an RB211 fan assembly. Remarkably, the disk right in front of him (if you pop out the blades) looks exactly like the disk seen in front of the Pentagon. (I referred to the piece beside this disk as "possibly an APU" in my original artice -- the black disk by the man's leg in the FEMA photo is what I'm referring to here.) So, I suppose I found the identity of the "mystery" part after all this time... people must not have been looking very hard. Now, I realise this pdf is from the RB211 industrial energy generating section of the RollsRoyce website, but it does show internal parts that correspond to the disk in photographs from the Pentagon. And it is an RB211 engine. Here are the two parts for comparison: It was a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, everyone just needs to grasp that and get past it and, most importantly, get to the real story...

If the government could pull off 9/11 itself, and of course it very easily could if anyone believes al Qaeda could, then I don't understand how they couldn't plant this stuff at the Pentagon. You have to admit possibility here, and even in some cases, likelihood. I don't know if this has been addressed yet in this thread, but the one conspicuous piece of debris left on the Pentagon lawn was almost certainly planted. Why, you ask? Three possibilities as to where this came from: A) It landed there after the alleged 757 slammed into the face of the Pentagon. B) It landed there after being sheered off from hitting a light pole. C) It was planted. The problem with A is that there are no singes, dark marks from heat around the edges, etc. It's cleanly cut, and shows no sign of ever being near the kind of heat the impact of the 757 into the Pentagon would've produced. Clean-cut, cool, shiny metal, that would've originated from a strange part of the fuselage to be so unscathed considering the fate of the rest of the thing, no? The problem with B, is that quite frankly I would need a very convincing essay on how the hell hitting a lamp post could carve up a piece of metal like that, and further, how in the hell it came from the part of the plane that displays that decal. I don't know of any such problems with C. So, again, I don't see what would really stop the government from planting the 757 junk at the Pentagon site. They likely did it with particularly media-friendly scrap, so who's to say they would've fly a couple 757 engines in to make it even more convincing? And I don't suppose anyone here has any explanation as to why the batteries around the Pentagon failed to operate on 9/11. [edit on 21-7-2005 by bsbray11]

www.airdisaster.com... www.airdisaster.com... Here are just two pics of plane crashes where the plane either did a nose dive, or impacted a hill, exploded, and burned, but if you look at the debris there are no scorch marks, or burn indications. The first one even looks pretty clean cut. Plane wreckage does weird things after impact. I saw an FB-111 that went through two buildings, then impacted a hill and still had several large portions that were recognizable as having come from an FB-111 if you didn't know what it was already.

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Originally posted by defcon5 Look all this talk about the release of security tapes is off topic for the most part, there could be 10K reasons why they would not wish them to be released. Could be that they don’t want personnel being identified or their vehicles. The same way that a bunch of web sites were shut down for showing photos of undercover federal agents about a year ago.

So what about all the people walking and driving around the pentagon, if they didn't personel identified. How about all the pictures taken right after the hit. That is a pointless theory.

Well one would think so, but it's not really the case. Go drive to that gas station and see if you can buy gas there (or even get access to it with your car). You'll be in for a suprise, it's apparently not open to the public (and never was). That gas station services government agencies at and near the Pentagon only. It is possible that somebody was caught on video that works in the dark, but it's highly unlikely that would be the reason the video hasn't been released. The pictures "taken right after the hit" isn't an exactly accurate statement (I see where you're coming from though). The gas station was designated as the Joint Information Center for the media after the Defence Department had allowed the media to set up their trucks there (source). That is why you have a significant number of photos and video footage from that location later in the day. The most common images you see online from that location are the ones from Dan Bielefeld. I'd say the reason the video from the gas station hasn't been released is one of the following, or a combination of a few of the following: 1) it's the government, they move slowly and don't do anything unless they're made to (court order); 2) it's the government, nobody knew if there actually was a video initially, and when it was internally "found" by that point it would mean egg in the face so they're dragging their feet until they "have" to release the video (court order); 3) it's the government and there were multiple agencies involved and nobody is certain who is responsible for the chain of custody of the video and they're dragging their feet until they're forced to relase it (court order); 4) the video didn't show anything; 5) the video shows the aircraft and the DOJ isn't releasing it because they feel the FOIA excludes them from having to Three and five make the most sense. When subpoenaed for the video tape from the Sheraton Hotel, the FBI said they had no such "documents" or that no such documents could be found and then passed the buck to the Department of Justice who then responded with wording that after talking with the FBI, and initiating a search, the documents were located, but they would not be released under the FOIA persuant to 5 U.S.C. subsection 552 (b) (7) (A). If you look at the FOIA, and review what 552 (b) (7) (A) means: (source) § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings (b) This section does not apply to matters that are— 7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, So, in essence the DOJ feels that releasing the videos could hinder their investigation or prosecution of whomever is responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon on 9/11. Now, before you get all out of whack on that response.... it could mean that they're refusing to release evidence that might hinder their prosecution of terrorists. OR... it could mean that they're refusing to release evidence that might show that some other government agency is responsible for the attack and releasing the evidence could hinder their investigation and/or prosecution of those people. Remember, not everyone in the government is part of some grand conspiracy to rule the world... there are indeed lots of Fox Mulders out there. The Washington Post (I think) is the other lawsuit (again another FOIA request) that is after the gas station video. The only one I know directly about (as far as parties involved and dates of papers) is regarding the Sheraton Hotel video and has to be answered on or before July 31st 2005. We'll see what happens with the Sheraton Hotel documents order then. [edit on 21-7-2005 by CatHerder]

The reason they DIDNT use a real plane to hit the pentagon is because people would of become suspicous seeing a pile of rubble for a plane half hanging out of the pentagon with NO passengers laying dead around it.. If the engine hit the cannister prior to slamming into the pentagon, that then says to me that the damage we see , MINUS the damage from the exploding Cannister means that a plane slamemd into a concrete structure and CAUSED even LESS damage that is currently thought. The pentagon when it was hit didnt collapse.. it took around 2-3 minutes I beileve for that section to break down and collapse... if u see there is no MAJOR structural damage on the 2nd INNER ring ... so, this boein plane, slammed into the outer ring.. in thsi tiny dammaged section, dicintergrated.... without pushing into the second ring... and without hitting the lawn... yeah right!

Originally posted by Zaphod58 www.airdisaster.com... www.airdisaster.com... Here are just two pics of plane crashes where the plane either did a nose dive, or impacted a hill, exploded, and burned, but if you look at the debris there are no scorch marks, or burn indications. The first one even looks pretty clean cut. Plane wreckage does weird things after impact. I saw an FB-111 that went through two buildings, then impacted a hill and still had several large portions that were recognizable as having come from an FB-111 if you didn't know what it was already.

Considering this particular crash (at the Pentagon), I'm not convinced this could happen the same way. I don't understand how this particular piece of debris came into being if it was not planted. I see pieces of debris shooting off in the air in the first two pics, but notice where the fuselage would be at this point. This raises another question: what exactly would cause such an unusually-cut piece of metal to fly off from the fuselage? It's plain to see the scrap of metal had quite a specific cut to it, not as if it were ripped or torn or blew away from force, but as if it were sheered off by something moving in a unusual, irregular path. I don't think that's consistent with anything that a head-on collision with a building would produce, and then send across the lawn. This would have to be further explained for me to buy it. This further raises the question, why would debris be planted if a 757 did hit the Pentagon? [edit on 21-7-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11 This raises another question: what exactly would cause such an unusually-cut piece of metal to fly off from the fuselage?

You mean, apart from a high-speed impact with a reinforced concrete object?

It's plain to see the scrap of metal had quite a specific cut to it, not as if it were ripped or torn or blew away from force, but as if it were sheered off by something moving in a unusual, irregular path. I don't think that's consistent with anything that a head-on collision with a building would produce, and then send across the lawn. This would have to be further explained for me to buy it.

Do you mean that it shouldn't have looked so crumpled after hitting a wall at 520 mph? Have you ever seen crash test footage of cars? Also, the location of the piece is entirely consistent with the 'alleged' crash of the 757. The plane hits the wall at an angle of something like 45 degrees. The piece rips off and 'mirrors' off the wall at roughly the same angle. Physics 101. Speaking of mirrors - how on earth did you come to the conclusion that the top of the 757 is painted sky blue? It's not. It's polished aluminium, and is merely reflecting the colour of the sky. Sometimes I really wonder where you guys developed your perception of the real world.

Originally posted by CatHerder This is a pretty good question, but you're a little off in your engine size, they're actually more like 6.5 feet in diameter at the front. The problem is, people have a preconception that a 757 engine is large enough for a man to stand in -- this is because one (or two, or three, or ten...) of the conspiracy sites shows a picture of a RR Trent 800 or a PW4000 with a man standing inside the cowling inspecting the blades -- but the caption with that photo implies that it's a 757 engine when in fact it's a 777 engine, or they imply the 777 engines are like 757 engines which again is flat out wrong (size-wise).

Boeing Specs

757-200 Engines Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 or Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B or Pratt & Whitney PW2037 or Pratt & Whitney PW2040

above is an RB211-535E4. posted on the RR website. Does that engine look small?

777 ENGINE - NOT a 757 engine, not even a 767 engine like it's caption states... Seems like some conspiracy sites will do anything to mislead you and support their story.

I will not be led by conspiracy sites. I use them as a reference. Not as absolute proof.

The engines of the Boeing 757 are substantially smaller than a 777 (over 9 feet, as a reference). The 757 can be fitted with either Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series or Rolls Royce RB211 turbofans. The maximum diameter of the RB211 is 6 ft 2.5 in (1.9 m) while that of the PW2000 series is 7 ft 0.5 in (2.15 m). These are exterior measurements. [As of Feb 2004, American Airlines had 124 757-200s using RB211-535E4 engines and 24 757-200s using PW2037 engines.]

And you got this information from........????

While the cowling/shroud around the turbofans of the engine are indeed 6 ft 2.5in (if they were RB211's), the engine itself is not that big. The engine is actually substantially smaller.

Ok the actual engine is small but that doesn't mean it can dissapear.

An RB211 after a non-fatal crash (Air Britannia). Engine detatched from wing after 757-204 slid off runway in a thunderstorm. - (click either photo for large versions) Notice how much of the turbofans remain after this crash (you can click the above link to view other images of the 757 including images of the 757 body as they cut it up to remove it.) This plane was going slower than 150mph when this engine sustained damage. Also notice how much of the larger front ring of the engine is just "gone" (you can see parts of it remain, while most of it is torn away and into pieces). This should help anyone with questions regarding how the blades "vanished" in the Pentagon crash. This engine didn't hit a wall at 500mph...

Even going slower than 150mph will cause damage. And travelling at 500mph into a reinforced concrete wall will cause ALOT of fatal damage, as quoted before one of the engines hit a generator outside the pentagon. Where are the parts for this engine? Hitting something that fast would it not cause the engine to detach from the rest of the wing?

One of the issues I have with the vast majority of conspiracy sites is they keep up the same claims that just aren't accurate, and they just don't fit with the photographc evidence at the impact site. There are indeed two engines photographed at the Pentagon. It just hasn't been clearly displayed by any of these sites I guess. But here, I'm more than willing to try and show you both engines. Engine inside the building Another engine apparently from the Pentagon grounds (I've seen other images where a lot of the individual items are apparent, I'll try to find that image collection again - I haven't put much effort into gathering images of the Pentagon lately, it's pretty much a done issue for me) That's two engines...

Firstly the first picture you use is from a "conspiracy" site. That second picture you posted I was intrigued by as I have never seen that picture from the pentagon and it looks awful rusty. So I decided to see where it came from and had a gander at the site you posted from but I couldn't find the page which said its from the pentagon, in fact the the pictures filename says "CF6.jpg" so again I done a little search on google for CF6 and this is the first page I found. GE

Found on these aircraft: Airbus A300/A310/A330 Boeing 767 Boeing 747 MD-11 DC-10 E-4 KC-10 Boeing 767 Tanker Boeing 767 AWACS Airbus 330 Tanker CX Japanese Transport Introduction: 1971 Thrust Range: 40,000-72,000 lbs

As you can see, that engine you "suposedly" thought was from the pentagon is not. It did not belong to any 757 built. I would say that picture is NOT from the pentagon. Although the engine does look slightly alike.

It was a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, everyone just needs to grasp that and get past it and, most importantly, get to the real story..

Wow, It was a Boeing 757. Thats what you believe "maybe" others believe differently. Most importantly I think the pentagon need to release the video cameras. It is a united states government agency that removed the evidence. No investigation cannot be 100% reliable without ANY camera footage. The only way to prove a 757 hit the pentagon is to show all of the video footage of that day. Peace [edit on 21/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Things to think about: 1. If the confiscated videos from the Hilton and the Gas station show ANYTHING which could comprimise Pentagon security, they would NOT be situated where they were full stop. The fact the FBI were there within minutes to take those tapes proves that the Pentagon knew of their exsistance prior to the attack and they were familiar with those camera's line of site and knew what those cameras could have possibly caught. They probably do know what security cameras around that area are seeing for their own security, that's not surprising and it makes sense since the FBI were able to think quickly to get those tapes as if they had pre-meditated or a procedure in place to get those tapes knowing their line of sight. In that case, If the tapes don't show anything but an explosion in the distance or even nothing at all but a timestamp, why not release them? Why not discuss them? There's no reason for a 'no comment' or complete lack of acknowledgment of those tapes if they do not contain imagies which compramise the government's story because otherwise they are either irrelevant or in favour of the governments story - two perfectly good reasons to release the tapes to help the government build a stronger case, or atleast legitamise their current story. That is why they are important. 2. If comparing plane crashes of different planes in different scenarios in order to prove the level of damage of a plane hitting the Pentagon is legit evidence because both are similar therefore should yeild similar results - it also MUST be acceptable to introduce building fires of other steel framed buildings which didnt cause a collapse to prove that it should not have happened on 9/11 with 1,2,7WTC which are the first in history to have fallen from fires alone. Since NIST have declared that it was not the jet fuel or the impact but the fires which burned after both events, ie. office fires, which brought down the WTC, by Pentagon Theory it's acceptable to sight other steel framed buildings which have suffered severe, much much more severe fires than on 9/11 and which still stood. This includes a building that burnt for 24 hours and it also includes the WTC which suffered a 6 floor fire in 1975 and obviously, did not collapse then. The designers of the WTC said the building was designed to stand even after a hit by a 707 (which although slightly smaller than a 757, actually has more thrust and would of been going faster) and to have the majority of it's core taken out and to still stand. The government was involved on 9/11 and it can be proven outside the crash at the Pentagon and WTCs without looking at one video or photo, this has already been established. Read the book "Crossing The Rubicon", it's all there. When you look at 9/11 as business it makes a lot of sense and 'blood lusting extreemists' is laughable. The involvement on 9/11 was done in a way in which it can't be uncovered as absolute solid hard fact without major people breaking loose and coming forth. Slowly as time moves us further away from the event, we are having more and more important people come forth which helps build the case against the government but we won't ever get a 'confession' because those who hold that knowledge are the ones who made the plans, they don't confese because no one is above them to administer a punishment. There are very few people who would know all elements of 9/11 from conception to completion because there's very little reason for many people to know the complete plan. It's really quiet simple. There's a smoking gun with the 3 NORAD wargames, 1 CIA running on 9/11 and a FEMA drill planned for Sept 12th which just happened to have FEMA in NY on Sept 10th. The drills used 'live' hijacking scenarios, they used false radar injects, they sent a lot of the USA's defense up north of Canada over the ocean, they delayed reaction time. The words 'is this part of the drill' was repeated more than once by high up in NORAD when confronted with a real hijacking being confirmed. They didn't need to know. With all these wargames and drills being run that morning of Sept 11th, compartmentalisation of knowledge becomes much much easier. When you can inject flights onto flight radar as part of a 'drill' being run by NORAD on that morning which confuses between what is real and what is a drill, you've just eliminated the need for a lot of people in NORAD and FAA involved on 9/11 to have to know there is a real hijacking going on in the midst of their 'drills', it will certainly slow reaction time. Did the Terrorists know of these drills and planned their attack around them without being caught or did the government plan the drills around the attack?? Can 'coincidence' really be a valid conclusion? I don't even think Bush needed to know. I'm sure he was told something was going to be happening that day amongst the cover of the drills but i'm sure the maestro's didn't need Bush to know on what scale. He's a figure head and he's the one responsable - ie, he's expendable. "Let one hit, stop the rest" was written before 9/11 by a spy who has since been whitewashed as a 'con-artist' by the CIA and Government. It was written amongst other information regarding 9/11 and was given to a prison gaurd for safe keeping as this spy was in prison at the time in Canada for which he states is for charges that are not real. His story is that he uncovered this information in Russia in regards to a covert operation in America by intelligence agencies (nothing to do with Russia being involved, infact Putin did give very detailed warnings prior to 9/11 which the government ignored). Believe him or not, it's your call but it's FACT that he did write a prediction prior to the events which came very true on that day. "Let one hit, stop the rest" was probably something similar to what Bush was told would be the scenario, that it would be one WTC which could be rebuilt and it will fighten the public enough into accepting the already planned out war for Iraq. They told Bush the attack was ready, the hijackers were ready and the drills and wargames have been running all week, the cover is in place. They told Bush the hijackers believed the leaders who recruited and trained them that they were in controll but in reality the shadow government is in complete controll and will infact be assisting in the success of the attack. They told Bush the wargames will be the cover for HOW the attackers made it through our net. They told Bush that on May 8th he will effectively hand control of the country to Dick Cheney for when the government is running anti-terror wargames and drills, he will have full communication access to ALL agencies via a communications bridge. They told Bush on his way to the school on Sept 11th that Cheney was in the command centre and had full control of what was about to happen under the guise of controlling the war games. Bush saw the TV images of the WTC on fire and was confident in forefilling his photo op and decoy op by reading to the school kids and fluffing off the news of the WTC fire with the excuse that it was probably due to a 'bad pilot' and a terrible accident. He knew that he could act like it was an accident because it will be a few hours atleast until it can be proven to be purposful by which time his alibi of sitting amongst innocent children reading storybooks and being Mister Rogers would be well established in the press. He thought he was clean and all had gone to plan. He thought there was an understanding that it would be "Let one hit, stop the rest". He froze like a rabbit in headlights when he was told the second WTC building had been hit and America was under attack because he knew at that moment he had NO CONTROL over what was happening and what will happen. He realised he was a puppet. He realised it was right when he was told there are powers well beyond President. This is a man who has just been shown he is not in charge. This is the reaction of someone realising they are also on the puppet masters strings. This is the humbling of the president. This is Bush understanding why they had him read a book about goats to children in front of the cameras and press. This is a rabbit in the headlights. This is Bush remembering the Skull & Bones ritual symbolising they are 'bound by the balls' to their brotherhood. He did lie in a coffen with a string around his balls and forced to tell his darkest secrets to the brothers or have his nuts pulled. This is a bonding ritual of Skull & Bones which symbolising they are bound together in their plan by the dark secrets they share. [edit on 21-7-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Awesome post, Shroud. I need to buy that book. I've seen it before and read excerpts at Amazon.com, and it does indeed look like a good read.

You mean, apart from a high-speed impact with a reinforced concrete object?

That's exactly my point in how this piece of debris coulnd't have been from the alleged plane.

Do you mean that it shouldn't have looked so crumpled after hitting a wall at 520 mph?

Not like that, it shouldn't have. Is there any evidence of any such crash resulting in a piece of debris that looks like somebody took time out to sit down and carve it themselves? Because it doesn't exactly look like something naturally-occuring from a head-on impact.

Have you ever seen crash test footage of cars?

Yes, and I don't recall ever seeing such a piece of debris fly off of from the car. It would be the equivalent of a small piece of the hood detaching itself, twisting and folding itself in several directions in an irregular shape, and then landing in plane view conveniently for cameras, and being the only such visible piece. It would also simultaneously be a part of the car's logo, conveniently conveying what car just crashed.

Also, the location of the piece is entirely consistent with the 'alleged' crash of the 757. The plane hits the wall at an angle of something like 45 degrees. The piece rips off and 'mirrors' off the wall at roughly the same angle. Physics 101.

Any piece of debris laying in that general area would be consistent with the crash in terms of where it landed. What I'm saying is that that piece is particular is extremely unusual in how it was created so irregularly and then thrust outward, the whole time never being singed. Again, if you have any evidence of any other such pieces of debris being created from head-on collisions, twisted and folded so many times while not being burned, and then escaping from the rest of the debris, I'd like to see it. The only other pieces of plane debris posted here all seemed more reasonable and in no way resembled this piece.

Speaking of mirrors - how on earth did you come to the conclusion that the top of the 757 is painted sky blue? It's not. It's polished aluminium, and is merely reflecting the colour of the sky.

Not my graphic, but if you look at the close-up of the photo you can see pretty much exactly what color it is. 'Sky blue' doesn't appear to be that off, or at least not so grossly off it should really illicit an attack of its own, lmao. Further, considering its position and how 'mirror'-like it is, what do you think it would reflect exactly, from the top of the plane? The ground? Ground-green? Nah, maybe the sky. Hm. But I don't really see what this has to do with anything, lol.

Sometimes I really wonder where you guys developed your perception of the real world.

That's understandable, considering your current position. Pretty much, we can argue whether or not an impact caused that all day. It's a matter of opinion until you can post evidence that this could happen anywhere else in the same way it did at the Pentagon. Personally, looking at that piece, I can't see how. But like I said, if you want to attack that view, please provide some evidence to contradict me, because proving this negative would likely require nothing short of extremely sophisticated computer simulations. I have a hunch though, I suppose you can say. So if you have some evidence that this can happen elsewhere in the same irregularly-cut, multiple-fold, singular and unsinged fashion, show it. If it's so common then it really shouldn't be that hard to show, right?

Ever see pictures of the American Eagle ATR that did a nose dive into a corn field? The entire tail second survived intact. Or several flights that flew into mountains, that had large pieces come off and show no or little damage. I've seen it happen before, and it will happen in the future with other crashes. It's hard to find an example of a piece coming off like this since this is the first time a plane has been flown into a reinforced concrete building.

Yeah, I'm not saying there won't be large pieces still intact. I'm just saying I find it hard to believe that such an odd-shaped piece of metal could be the product of this particular incident. It would be hard to prove it couldn't have been, but it seems it'd be easier to prove the statement incorrect.

Originally posted by bsbray11 Not like that, it shouldn't have. Is there any evidence of any such crash resulting in a piece of debris that looks like somebody took time out to sit down and carve it themselves? Because it doesn't exactly look like something naturally-occuring from a head-on impact.

Well, that's the general properties of the aluminium skin. Try experimenting with some aluminium foil (i.e. throwing something through it). Here's a couple of good examples of how aircraft aluminium behaves when overstressed: www.airliners.net... www.airliners.net...

Any piece of debris laying in that general area would be consistent with the crash in terms of where it landed. What I'm saying is that that piece is particular is extremely unusual in how it was created so irregularly and then thrust outward, the whole time never being singed. Again, if you have any evidence of any other such pieces of debris being created from head-on collisions, twisted and folded so many times while not being burned, and then escaping from the rest of the debris, I'd like to see it. The only other pieces of plane debris posted here all seemed more reasonable and in no way resembled this piece.

It's perfectly reasonable that the piece wasn't singed. As we already have determined, the piece came from the front fuselage. This would have hit the wall before the wings (which contains the fuel), and just escaped the fireball when it bounced off.

I'm not trying to be a huge pain in the butt, but those pics don't really compare to what was left lying on the Pentagon's lawn. The creases indicate punctures or force from a single specific location, not just bent all willy nilly and from an irregular cut, and the material is still connected to the planes as well, contrasting to the section of debris being totally removed from a 757 at the Pentagon.

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas The Turbo fan engine found at the pentagon site DID NOT MATCH ANY engines that Rolls Royce or Pratt and Witney made.

Has anyone managed to explain this away?

Has anyone been able to actually prove that the engine part don't match?? No. Most conspiracy sites show pictures of similar engines and claim that those are what are in the picture. Since all engines have the same basic parts, it is like trying to determine what kind of car someone drives by looking at a picture of a piston.

Maybe you can save yourself some trouble and skip to another point then. Here's one: why did the Pentagon's anti-air batteries not kick in? There were at least two planes flying right over the Pentagon that day, one with transponders off and one with transponders on, and no batteries booted themselves up. Taking a break?

Originally posted by bsbray11 Maybe you can save yourself some trouble and skip to another point then. Here's one: why did the Pentagon's anti-air batteries not kick in? There were at least two planes flying right over the Pentagon that day, one with transponders off and one with transponders on, and no batteries booted themselves up. Taking a break?

Probably because there weren't any. If they shot down planes that flew near the pentagon, there would be many shot down daily. There were alot more than two planes flying in the vecinity of the pentagon that day and every other day of the year, you do realize there is a major airport almost within spitting distance of it don't you?

Unlike the White House, the Pentagon has no anti-aircraft batteries to defend against attacks from the air. "It's tough to defend such a big building," the Pentagon official said. "And the air traffic is heavy. We've got helicopters [carrying mostly Pentagon brass] coming in and out several times a day. And aircraft [from Reagan National] come in right down the [Potomac] river within a couple hundred yards of us," he added. "It's a tough nut. I mean, what do you do? Do you engage? If you do, do you end up with even more [civilian] casualties? The [gunned-down] plane could land anywhere."

www.wnd.com... [edit on 21/7/05 by Skibum]

Originally posted by Skibum Probably because there weren't any. If they shot down planes that flew near the pentagon, there would be many shot down daily. There were alot more than two planes flying in the vecinity of the pentagon that day and every other day of the year, you do realize there is a major airport almost within spitting distance of it don't you?

Why would the Pentagon shoot down planes that land at a major airport who are transmitting all the identification measures that airplanes must send to those montoring radar? Your asserting they'd shoot down anything that flies because they wouldn't have any kind of radar to determine who's a friend and who's a foe, therfore that is why the Pentagon is defensless from an air attack?? "He's a Wookie on Endor people, it does not make sense" When a plane enters Pentagon airspace after it's known there are mulitple hijackings and it's not transmitting any ID so it can be communicated with and varified, usually that's a scenario which would validate security measures in defending America's nerve centre. If ever there was reason to defend Pentagon airspace, 9/11 was it. Of course when 9/11 was staged and NORAD and FAA are busy trying to work out if the hijackings are 'part of the drill?' or not, it's much easier to allow these things to happen, claim ignorance and blame it on an ideology of which proof is only needed in the most sketchy of detail regardless of how outlandish it is, in order to satisfy the masses.