9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas Do you think you can fly a Boeing 757 a couple of feet above the ground without touching the lawn. Can you show me a picture thats shows without doubt it was flight 77 that hit the pentagon. Wings, tail, fuselage, wheels, landing strut, engine parts, luggage, people etc. Or even the plane itself before it hit the pentagon. Peace

[edit on 25/7/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Absolutely. Have a look at other airplane crash photos. You have almost always (i.e. always) larger pieces of the plane, i.e. engines, aft, parts of the fuselage. Nothing like that here. Where is the remainer of the plane? OK, I got the photo wrong. Let's take this one, okay? Again: if the animation is right, there should be two large slots to the left and right of the hole. Maybe I need new glasses but I see no slots. So we may take it as given that the plane did not enter the building farther than the wing roots (sp?). This means that at least 50 to 80 tons of the plane must have stayed outside of the building, plus most of the fuel in the wings and parts of the fuselage. The amount of rubbish before the building does not sum up to 50 to 80 tons of shreddered metal. Where are the wings? Where is the aft fuselage? Where are the rudders? C'mon. If this is 50 tons of shreddered aluminium that we see, the plane did something else that just crash into the building. I agree that something hit the pentagon. But this presentation clearly shows that either it was no 757, or it was something that carried some parts of a 757, or it was a 757 which was detonated. Look again at that hole, and then look at the plane. The hole is directly on the ground. The engines extend about 10-12 ft. down from the lower level of the fuselage. If a 757 had hit the building there, causing this very hole, the engines would have ploughed two long trenches into the lawn. There are no trenches on the photos. Were the engines lost before the crash? Where are they? Next the fuel. The plane was enroute only for a short time, and it had plenty left within the wings and the fuselage. At least the fuel in the wing tanks could not have entered the building (no slots from the wings, remember?), so it must have burnt outside. Most of the rubbish before the building doesn't exactly look like it was BBQ'd at nearly 1000°C for some time. The presentation does not convince me. Some things are really well researched but the overall article leaves too many questions. As does most of the 9/11 thing.

Where is the remainer of the plane?

About this other image, I think the debris seen in the right side of the image would be the frame of a door.

That little dowel is't that close to upper corner. At pentagon it seems to be in kinda middle, but on the picture of door it's 3 times as far from upper corner than lower.

Airplane wings are hollow aluminum tubes with very little reniforcing structure built into them. Then don't survive crashes, and they don't leave slots when they hit things. They tend to disintigrate, and leave small pieces of wreckage. A fuselage is a cylinder with a lot of reinforcment added to it. The shape of it allows it to put more force into the impact than with the wings. You're talking a small cylinder as compared to a long flat surface. Wings are NOT going to survive an impact in any sort of shape. Look at pictures of ANY plane crash out there, and you won't see impact marks from the wings, or even large pieces of wing left in MOST of them.

I do believe that a 757 hit the pentagon. I just dont believe that a arab hi-jacker was flying it. The lift caused by ground effect would have been too much for anyone without experience to overcome. John Lear called this a "feat of airmanship" and stated that he could not have done it without simulator time. The hi-jackers had never before flown a jet let alone something so large and modern as a 757.

Found a collection of photos from an incident in 1997, where a 727 collided into a terminal building at taxi speed. This should be very informative with regards to the strength or crashworthiness of an airliner fuselage: www.airdisaster.com...

. Weren't there construction spools and other ancillary stuff around? Wouldn't it be relatively easy to pre-plant smaller pieces of twisted airliner wreckage under construction tarps then uncover them either very shortly before or just after the supposed airliner impact? .

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Airplane wings are hollow aluminum tubes with very little reniforcing structure built into them. Then don't survive crashes, and they don't leave slots when they hit things. They tend to disintigrate, and leave small pieces of wreckage. A fuselage is a cylinder with a lot of reinforcment added to it. The shape of it allows it to put more force into the impact than with the wings. You're talking a small cylinder as compared to a long flat surface. Wings are NOT going to survive an impact in any sort of shape. Look at pictures of ANY plane crash out there, and you won't see impact marks from the wings, or even large pieces of wing left in MOST of them.

So what you're saying is wings wont leave any marks on a brick wall but they will penetrate steel without a problem as was clearly the case at the two towers. I'll grant you that finding debris of the plane might not be the best way to solve this question. But do you really believe that 2 engines, weighing 6 tons each, consisting of titanium, would hit that wall at that speed and not leave a mark ? Take a toy gun wich shoots those small lead bullets, I don't know the exact name. Hit a brick wall with it, what do you see ? It left a mark, even though the lead is easily deformed and the brick wall is not. The ONLY reason why there were no marks is because nothing ever hit that wall where the wings should've hit. Anyway, if I go trough the article from the original post all I can think is, well, this has all been thoroughly "debunked" (god I hate that word). And to be honest I'm not surprised how many now all of a sudden believe a boeing hit the pentagon. Just because you see some parts of a plane doesn't mean it really hit. Especially when the parts you show us are the wrong kind, or just figments or your imagination. Take the security cam animated gif for instance. Do you call this prove ? You gotta be joking right ? The second frame is totally different from the first one, if you look around the green outline of your boeing, then wait for the first frame to appear again, you notice that the background is somehow changing too ? But that's not all, if you look closely you see something entering the first frame (here it takes up about 1/5 of the gif, and is slightly above/covering the boeing. In frame 2 this is now about 1/2 of the image.

Another component found at the Pentagon was a wheel hub--a type made by B.F.Goodrich's aerospace division. Here, Schwarz gets very specific: "They also made the wheels for the 757 but a simple proportional check of width versus diameter will easily show that the photo (left) is not a wheel hub from a 757, which has a much larger radius than width. This radius is about the same as the width of the wheel hub, and is another clue that the ' 757-crashed-into-the-Pentagon' story is a Bush lie," he said. "If one looks very closely at the diameter versus width of the tire that was found at the Pentagon," said Schwarz, "this is the type of tire used for aircraft carrier-based and general rear wheels of smaller military planes--not commercial airlines." [The now somewhat outdated Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior "Whale" served as an aircraft carrier attack plane, capable of supporting missile platforms.]

The part here at the left--recovered after the Pentagon impact--is a "diffuser case," a component from the types of "dual chamber" turbojets represented by the Allison J33, J71, Pratt & Whitney J57 and JT8D. "It is not part of a Boeing 757 engine," said Schwarz, adding, we even inspected a 757 engine in a jet maintenance shop." The part sheet at left shows a diffuser case design for the 757 jet engines and it's quite different from the one found at the Pentagon (left). Schwarz said "the difference is between the "duel-chamber turbojet" versus the newer "high bypass jet fan" designs found on the 757 and 767 jets. The key difference between the diffuser case found at the Pentagon and a Boeing 757 diffuser case (below) is the triangular bezels around the openings. [The triangular bezel reinforcments can more easily be observed near the top of the photo below.] Note that the Pentagon diffuser case has no such opening or reinforcing points--no triangular bezels. According to Schwarz, the diffuser is built into a much larger component and not a separate component in the newer 757 type jet engines--and not a single one of these was found at the Pentagon. "This is not a component that would have melted or evaporated in any manner at all," said Schwarz, the chief executive of a corporation specializing in military remote control warfare systems.

I'm sure someone brought this all up before but I didn't feel like reading trough 88 pages just yet.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Wings are NOT going to survive an impact in any sort of shape. Look at pictures of ANY plane crash out there, and you won't see impact marks from the wings, or even large pieces of wing left in MOST of them.

You work for the government, don't you?? Do you really think that just because you show us photos of a few scraps of metal and a few plane parts, that could have come from any plane crash that we are stupid enough to believe your story. The plane is bigger than that. Your photos don't even show enough material to make a model plane. I've always believed that ATS is a government disinfo web site and your article written by the people at ATS prove it!!! Anyone who posts such extensive information such as you have, has an agenda. Most of us are satisfied to comment and express our concerns, but we don't go to the lengths that you do present so much "overwhelming" disinfo. What's your motive???

I think these guys (for the most part) are trying to prove what they honestly believe. The discussions here wouldn't be of much value if they were simply assertions and opinions. Edit: Having said that, you do have a point in that some of the photos of debris aren't from credible sources. [edit on 19-8-2005 by bsbray11]

The wings DID leave a mark on the Pentagon, but didn't penetrate with the rest of the fuselage. As far as comparing it to the WTC, you're comparing a kevlar reinforced building designed to withstand a truck bomb going off right next to it, to an aluminum and steel building. The wings are structurally the weakest part of the plane during a crash and are far more susceptible to damage and less likely to penetrate at impact. ESPECIALLY against a building that can take a truck bomb and survive it.

The wings DID leave a mark on the Pentagon

Where?

Look through Catherders report, there are pictures where you can see small a line of damage along the building that is consistant with the wint of the plane. It wasn't a lot of damage, but about what you would expect from a wing against a building of this type of construction. The wings are NOT going to survive an impact with a building of this type, and they're not going to penetrate like a cartoon. The only reason the fuselage did was because it's a reinforced cylinder, which exerts a lot more pressure against the building than the long skinny wings would.

Maybe you can point the damage out to me? Find a better pic if you want. I don't really feel like digging through 80-some pages. I don't think I have to mention how completely convenient most of these ideas are in that they don't have to be backed up with evidence to work, because you'd be trying to prove a negative. Classic conspiracy theory logic, except coming from the side arguing against conspiracy theories. I'm still looking for hard evidence that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, but so far, I've only been able to convince myself that something hit it. Thank goodness the Twin Towers are a much more obvious case.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 The wings DID leave a mark on the Pentagon, but didn't penetrate with the rest of the fuselage. As far as comparing it to the WTC, you're comparing a kevlar reinforced building designed to withstand a truck bomb going off right next to it, to an aluminum and steel building. The wings are structurally the weakest part of the plane during a crash and are far more susceptible to damage and less likely to penetrate at impact. ESPECIALLY against a building that can take a truck bomb and survive it.

You mean a building like the WTC... which did survive a truck bomb?

You are trying to compare apples to oranges with the two buildings. You have a tall slender structure, with aluminum and steel, to a short squat structure of concrete with kevlar reinforcement.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 You are trying to compare apples to oranges with the two buildings. You have a tall slender structure, with aluminum and steel, to a short squat structure of concrete with kevlar reinforcement.

I was just pointing out your mistake. My bad man.

And trying to say that the two building were of similar construction. when they weren't. The Pentagon was a much sturdier building with the reinforcements, and the type of construction, and when the wings impacted the building they shattered, leaving a very small amount of damage.

Originally posted by Eljay You work for the government, don't you??

Well, I'm a Canadian and I pay the government just about as much of my paycheque (taxes) as I get to take home... so I guess that does indeed make me a government employee.

Do you really think that just because you show us photos of a few scraps of metal and a few plane parts, that could have come from any plane crash that we are stupid enough to believe your story. The plane is bigger than that. Your photos don't even show enough material to make a model plane.

Thank you for not bothering to read the other 80 pages of this thread before posting your comments here. It is always a pleasure to discuss a topic (any topic) with somebody too rude or ignorant to read all the material before spouting forth their uneducated opinions.

I've always believed that ATS is a government disinfo web site and your article written by the people at ATS prove it!!!

I'm not an administrator, author, writer, scholar, moderator, or anything remotely part of ATS other than I am a member here just like you are -- so I guess that makes YOU an ATS government plant!?

Anyone who posts such extensive information such as you have, has an agenda. Most of us are satisfied to comment and express our concerns, but we don't go to the lengths that you do present so much "overwhelming" disinfo. What's your motive???

My motive is/was to "deny ignorance" and to educate myself on subjects that interest me (and pass along some of this to other people who may also find it interesting and educational). If that is more supporting evidence for your paranoid ramblings about me being part of some government agenda ...then all the power to you I guess. You'll fit in here just fine; one of the card carrying lunatic fringe recruiters will be contacting you via U2U shortly I'm sure.