9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

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.

So the hollow body of the plane is somehow better able to penetrate those walls then a 6 ton titanium engine travelling at a few hundred miles an hour huh ? And whomever said there was damage from the wings, I still haven't found that picture in the original post.

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.

Dude, I think we understand that the buildings were not made of the same freaking stuff. I want to see this alleged damage from the wings, and I don't want to dig through 80-some pages to find it. I've seen plenty of photographs, and I have seen no damage from the wings. Is this such a hard request to fulfill?

I have some more kicking around Pg4 Supposed wing damage Pg4 Pg22 Pg2 Does anyone see a jet in there, along with both wings and a tail. For Audios, Photographs and Videos of September 11, 2001: [edit on 20/8/2005 by Sauron]

Nice comeback. Glad to see we can have a serious discussion.

The point is your "proof" of impact isn't proof just because someone can draw an outline, I can outline anything there with some resizing and cropping, wont make it fly around the pentagon now will it ? First you're telling us (or it has been said) that the wings didn't leave any impact, then that changed because somehow a wing seemed to fit 2 marks on the wall. But, I'm still wondering where those engines went. Cause surely if wings leave an impact, engines should too. Not to forget that this is only one side of the impact hole. [edit on 20-8-2005 by Shroomery]

if you read the few words in my post you would see it is alleged proof and not by me. "bsbray11" ask for some shots of the wall and I provided some. I am of the belief that a Global hawk or some other craft flew into the pentagon and fired off a missile before impact. [edit on 20/8/2005 by Sauron]

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

why do people allow themselves to be fooled and then support the foolishness? step out your conditioned mind and allow some new information to ooze in and make your own conclusion, it's quite refreshing to be critical.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

They survived the initial impact with the WTC, but after impacting against the building they shattered. Otherwise you wouldn't have had the fuel explostion. It's not that hard to understand that the wings are fragile and aren't going to survive an impact against the ground, or a building.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

They survived the initial impact with the WTC, but after impacting against the building they shattered. Otherwise you wouldn't have had the fuel explostion. It's not that hard to understand that the wings are fragile and aren't going to survive an impact against the ground, or a building.

No, I believe your exact words were:

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 don't know how much "most" is, but I'm guessing it's at least an exaggeration. Suffice it to say I'm not impressed. Even if you could somehow prove that the wings did do that, look at the angle at which they must've tilted! The other side of the 757 would've been dragging the lawn well before impact. You're going to have to come up with something better than that.

LOL you think those pic's strange if one believes that those are marks are from the wings, how did the wings get sucked into the hole along with the engines. and If that could not happen why are there no piles of aluminium ash along the outer wall where the wings should have been lying along with one engine after they sheared from the body of the jet. uhm [edit on 20/8/2005 by Sauron]

Originally posted by bsbray11

The wings DID leave a mark on the Pentagon

Where?

Ray at least have the common courtesy to READ the previous posts that show and outline the wing impacts before posting your typically rediculous tripe. Seriously. Quit being a troll and show the users here that you are decent enough to read the material provided by dozens of individuals before posting oneline garbage that has already been covered multiple times in previous posts in the same thread. Page 4 with Wing Impact photos The starboard engine and wing (*as you would know if you read ANYTHING about the crash in this thread) hit the generator first and was more than likely bent or sheered off in an upwards angle relative to the fuselage. The impact damage to the port (left) of the entry hole is limited to the first floor where ALL the facia (4 inches of solid rock) is smashed off. You show this in your own photo you posted here, but I guess it's too hard for you to see and comprehend? Left wing impact and penetration damage outlined. Note that the thick rock face of the Pentagon is missing only from the bottom floor (left of the primary impact hole) where the wing hit. We can see that almost the entire port (left) wing entered the building and only the wing tip (thirty feet or so) smashed off the exterior rockface of the five or six columns (column 3 to column 7). The orientation of the aircraft at impact is no leap of faith or mystical revelation, it lines up just fine. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. I guess you just can't live with the reality of the fact that a 757 was flown into the Pentagon, just like airliners were flown into the WTC towers?

On Aug 5, 2005 the United States Depratment of Justice filed their Motion For Sumnmry Judgement in response to the lawsuit (FOA request for documents / video tape) filed by Scott Bingham. Here is my summary of the DOJ's response. At the bottom of this post I have linked to the pages filed for you to read for yourself. The DOJ has responded to the lawsuit, their primary reason for not releasing the video tape(s) (in particular the video tape from the Pentagon security camera, which they do admit to having; and the video tape from roof of the Sheraton Hotel -- which, in this filing, they do not admit to having) is because they feel it will hinder their prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui. The Department of Justice is seeking the death penalty in the prosecuation of Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui entered a plea of guilty on April 22, 2005. The jury selection for the trial will begin January 9, 2006, and the DOJ states that they do not want the video evidence released as they feel it could hinder their case. The filing also states that *(referring to the 5 frames from the CNN website) "Second, the images that appear on the CNN website are cropped and otherwise incomplete and mixed with other images of unknown provenance. ... The images that appear on the webstie seem to have been taken from only one of the two video cameras whos video footage comprises the computer files on the CD-ROM record of the plaintiff's request. Nor is what does appear on the website from that one camera the complete collection of images it recorded. " (Underlines added by me -- see folks, the FBI does admit that there is more than one video of the crash, and does imply that the security gate had two cameras and not just the one.) Perhaps after the trial of Moussauoi we will finally have the complete video evidence released to the public. I thought some of you would be interested in an update to this small part of the Pentagon attack story. Motion For Summary Judgement - Filing by DOJ (scans of document) Motion For Summary Judgement Page 1 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 2 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 3 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 4 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 5 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 6 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 7 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 8 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 9 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 10 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 11 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 12 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 13 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 14 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 15 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 16 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 17 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 18 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 19 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 20 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 21 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 22 Motion For Summary Judgement Page 23

Originally posted by Sauron if you read the few words in my post you would see it is alleged proof and not by me. "bsbray11" ask for some shots of the wall and I provided some. I am of the belief that a Global hawk or some other craft flew into the pentagon and fired off a missile before impact. [edit on 20/8/2005 by Sauron]

I understand that, I was replying to Zaphod rather. so CatHerder, somehow that plane folded before hitting the pentagon ? And you realize that again you're putting up a picture that shows how the windows stayed in while a plane hit ? Your other 3D image is false If you look at the (real) picture above, you'll notice the supposed impact reaching to (close to) the upper window. In the 3D picture, the wing doesn't even reach the top of the first window. Also, AS MENTIONED A 100 TIMES NOW, how 6 ton titanium engines do not penetrate a single wall. But the hollow cockpit and body of the plane penetrates how many ? 5 walls ? And you want us to believe "rubble" in the plane caused this ? The people and the seats penetrated those walls ?

Originally posted by Shroomery so CatHerder, somehow that plane folded before hitting the pentagon ? And you realize that again you're putting up a picture that shows how the windows stayed in while a plane hit ?

Your lines aren't accurate, you have the starboard wing line going up at too sharp of an angle. And yes, "somehow" the starboard wing was angled up, but then I guess you just choose to ignore the fact that it (and the starboard engine) hit a 30 ton generator before hitting the wall? That's why there's damage up high on the wall on the right side, it's from peices of the starboard wing. The primary impact of the wing is below where you outlined. The graphic I linked to here was put together by another person/group -- it does show the wing debris impact damage accurately, it just doesn't show the actual wing impact line on the wall accurately although it is visible in many photos. This is a more accurate approximation of the wing impact lines. The starboard impact line is shorter than the port impact line because the plane came in at an angle. The damage on the building prior to collapse shows evidence that supports the fact that the plane was banked to the port at impact (the tail impact on the upper floors was at an angle to the left). Remember, the starboard wing and engine (right) hit the generator in front of the building and would have sustained considerable damage (including fragments that impacted higher on the building and left the impact damage evidence).

Your other 3D image is false If you look at the (real) picture above, you'll notice the supposed impact reaching to (close to) the upper window. In the 3D picture, the wing doesn't even reach the top of the first window.

No, you're just wrong in how you're putting two and two together to come up with 5. And "my graphic" is actually a graphic created by the American Society of Civil Engineering.

Also, AS MENTIONED A 100 TIMES NOW, how 6 ton titanium engines do not penetrate a single wall. But the hollow cockpit and body of the plane penetrates how many ? 5 walls ?

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ PREVIOUS POSTS. I outlined where the engines went into the building, and where they most likely came to rest previously in this thread. Thanks for not reading a bloody word before posting your uneducated reply. I appreciate having to repeat the same information dozens of times for the lazy people on this board... But, I guess since you have a hard time reading and comprehending posts prior to feeling compelled to type out your uninformed responses, here it is again... Go read my post on Page 82 it's a quarter of the way down (Post Number: 1511078) and it answers all your questions regarding the engines. WHY DIDN'T YOU READ THIS BEFORE POSTING?

And you want us to believe "rubble" in the plane caused this ? The people and the seats penetrated those walls ?

That's just a daft assertion and a really stupid question (seriously). The plane punched into the wall, the people/seats/luggage/etc were all moving at 514MPH when they hit the wall. The mass of the plane and it's contents made the hole, not one individual thing.

Ray, do a simple google search for plane crash pictures, look at the ones where the plane flew into something, or did a nosedive, and see how much of the wing you find left. You don't get a plane shape at the impact site, just a big hole, with usually nothing sticking out to the sides. In probably 90%+ of those pictures THERE ARE NO WINGS LEFT, or if there are, it's very small pieces of them. WHY is it so hard to understand that the wings are not as resistant to impact as the rest of the fuselage? You're talking flat hollow aluminum structures, that hold rubber bags for the fuel. The wing root is the strongest part of the wing, because it's where the wing attaches, and has the main spar that runs into the fuselage. The further out on the wing you go, the thinner and weaker it gets. Wings DO NOT survive an impact like at the Pentagon. A shallow impact, or a belly landing type crash, you'll see big chunks of wing left, but a nosedive, or an impact like the Pentagon and they're going to shatter. The same thing obviously happened at the WTC, because you had a massive fuel explosion. They lasted long enough, due to momentum, to enter the building, but obviously had to have been coming apart already, because the plane had barely entered hte buildings before you had a massive explosion. 85-90% of the fuel is in the wings, so obviously the wings came apart. [edit on 20-8-2005 by Zaphod58]

If the aircraft struck the generator first, then whay do all of the graphics show the craft hitting starboard wing first? If the starboard wing hit the generator, it would have made the craft yaw in a clockwise manner, and the port side would have struck the Pentagon first. Also Zap mentioned the wing root and the wing spars. Uh yeah. The wing spars are the strength of the wing, they hold the ENTIRE weight of the aircraft. They do get prograssivly thinner the further they get to the wingtip. From the point where they attach to the fuselage, to the engine they are very strong, I feel there would have been large pieces of wings laying outside the pentagon. The spars are extremly strong from the fuselage to the point where the engines are mounted at there hard points. Zap if you do not understand how a wing is constructed please do not mislead. They ARE NOT HOLLOW with just spars going through them!!! The shape of the airfoil is held in place by cross sections of titanium that are the exact shape of the wing at theat point in the wing. Kind of like the bulkhead of a ship, and there are a LOT of these in all aircraft! Also the control surfaces of an aircraft need to be mounted at a very rigid portion, there are of course ailerons that control the roll of an aircraft. They not only have to take the forces that exert themelves that make an aircraft stable, like the dihedral in the wings. They also need to be strong enough to roll that aircraft. Then you have slats on the front of the wings, and flaps to th rear of th wings. These change the airfoil of the wing from a highspeed airfoil shape to a slowspeed airfoil shape for landing. This construction of the wings are very very very strong, yet lightweight for there size. You have made these wings sound like something flimsy, like on an insect. Believe me they are not flimsy, and there would have been large pieces lying outside the Pentagon. [edit on 20-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by bsbray11

The wings DID leave a mark on the Pentagon

Where?

Ray

Bray*

at least have the common courtesy to READ the previous posts that show and outline the wing impacts before posting your typically rediculous tripe. Seriously. Quit being a troll and show the users here that you are decent enough to read the material provided by dozens of individuals before posting oneline garbage that has already been covered multiple times in previous posts in the same thread.

I asked for some pics, and lo and behold, Sauron was nice enough to my lazy ass to post some for me. Btw, thank you, Sauron; it's much appreciated. I didn't have to dig through the better part of 2000 posts covering 80 some pages to catch a glimpse of this alleged wing damage, and now that it's right there for us all to see again, I don't see much point in continuing to beat a dead horse and gripe over how I did or did not find this information. I'm lazy. Get over it. I'm also sorry to see that my request offended you, CatHerder, and even sorrier to see that you've taken me off your ignore list only to continue to badger me with personal attacks. I swear, man, your ego is going to be the death of you. That and those squibs.

Left wing impact and penetration damage outlined. Note that the thick rock face of the Pentagon is missing only from the bottom floor (left of the primary impact hole) where the wing hit.

Sorry man, but this still doesn't convince me of anything in regards to the wings. If anything, it just raises more questions, and keep in mind that this is an issue of 9/11 that I have yet to make up my mind about. Maybe you can help me visualize how this.. ..could apparently disform its figure so that its wings may cause such damage to the Pentagon facade while the fuselage somehow went into the building below what you allege is damage from the wings. At least it appears that would have to be the case from the pics you're showing me.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Ray,

*Bray

do a simple google search for plane crash pictures, look at the ones where the plane flew into something, or did a nosedive, and see how much of the wing you find left. You don't get a plane shape at the impact site, just a big hole, with usually nothing sticking out to the sides. In probably 90%+ of those pictures THERE ARE NO WINGS LEFT, or if there are, it's very small pieces of them. WHY is it so hard to understand that the wings are not as resistant to impact as the rest of the fuselage? You're talking flat hollow aluminum structures, that hold rubber bags for the fuel. The wing root is the strongest part of the wing, because it's where the wing attaches, and has the main spar that runs into the fuselage. The further out on the wing you go, the thinner and weaker it gets. Wings DO NOT survive an impact like at the Pentagon. A shallow impact, or a belly landing type crash, you'll see big chunks of wing left, but a nosedive, or an impact like the Pentagon and they're going to shatter. The same thing obviously happened at the WTC, because you had a massive fuel explosion. They lasted long enough, due to momentum, to enter the building, but obviously had to have been coming apart already, because the plane had barely entered hte buildings before you had a massive explosion. 85-90% of the fuel is in the wings, so obviously the wings came apart.

Just to be clear, and save you the trouble of rambling any more than you have already, I was referring specifically to this statement:

Look at pictures of ANY plane crash out there, and you won't see impact marks from the wings...in MOST of them.

To which my response was this photo: Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with how much of the wings were left, because they would've been inside the building anyway and we can't see them. So, by process of elimination, I would think you would be able to figure out what part of your statement I was addressing. Again, I wonder what exactly "most" means in the context in which you use it. And again, this is in no way referring to how much of the wings were left, though I'm sure the material they were made of doesn't simply disappear from the scene, either. I believe something hit the Pentagon, but (and brace your sensitive egos for this next statement, and try not to cry) exactly of what hit it, I don't think there is much convincing evidence. Despite all the theorizing of how things could or would have worked should a 757 had hit the building, the definitive proof that that is what actually hit the Pentagon, I feel, is alluding us here. Until then, I haven't made up my mind on this issue anyway, and for you guys to not jump down my throat to choke me with ego would be much appreciated. Honestly, CatHerder (and I doubt you care since you apparently hate me with a passion), this thread seemed much more civil up until your return to it.

I stand by my statement Bray. in probably 90+% of plane crashes you will not see wings left, or even wing damage. As far as the pic of the WTC, the planes that hit put a hole that size in the building, so why wouldn't a similar sized plane do as much damage as it did to the Pentagon? Boeing 767-200 stats: 767-200 - Empty with JT9Ds 74,752kg (164,800lb), with CF6s 74,344kg (163,900lb). Operating empty with JT9Ds 80,920kg (178,400lb), with CF6s 80,510kg (177,500lb). Max takeoff 136,078kg (300,000lb), medium range max takeoff 142,881kg (315,000lb). 767-200ER - Empty with PW4056s 76,566kg (168,800lb), with CF680C2B4s 76,476kg (168,600lb), operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb), with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb). Max takeoff with PW4056s or CF680C2B4Fs 175,540kg (387,000lb). Wing span 47.57m (156ft 1in), length 48.51m (159ft 2in), height 15.85m (52ft 0in). Wing area 283.3m2 (3050sq ft). Boeing 757 stats: Operating empty with P&W engines 57,840kg (127,520lb), with RB211s 57,975kg (127,810lb). Basic max takeoff 99,790kg (220,000lb), medium range MTOW 108,860kg (240,000lb), extended range MTOW 115,665kg (255,000lb) or 115,895kg (255,550lb). Wing span 38.05m (124ft 10in), length 47.32m (155ft 3in), height 13.56m (44ft 6in). Wing area 185.3m2 (1994sq ft). As you can see they are similar in size and weight, but the 767, being a widebody has about a 50,000 pound take off weight advantage over the 757.. While the Pentagon was a different construction, and stronger than the WTC, it's still gonna take quite a bit of damage from something that size slamming into it at 500mph. The fact that it IS stronger is the reason that there wasn't MORE damage done to it. The 757 being smaller would do less damage, but impacting where it did, at the bottom of the wall, would make it more susceptible for the wall to collapse, which is exactly what happened, which cause quite a bit more of the damage done. [edit on 20-8-2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 As far as the pic of the WTC, the planes that hit put a hole that size in the building, so why wouldn't a similar sized plane do as much damage as it did to the Pentagon?

You keep repeating this point over and over and over ad nauseum. When was the last time I asked why there was not as much damage to the Pentagon as there were to the Twin Towers? Oh, yeah: never. I get what you're saying; I understood the very first time you said it; it was never a problem; you can stop repeating yourself in every post now. My problem is I have yet to see any damage from the wings to the facade of the Pentagon. This is what I'm inquiring about, not why there was less damage to it. I'm asking: what damage? I have never once questioned what you have now repeated, oh, probably six or seven times at least. You can stop repeating yourself; that's not what I'm asking about.