9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by bsbray11 Well, since you didn't notice the part about me posting it several times by now..

I've noticed you posting questions that are already answered / covered by many different people in this thread. I guess you just don't care to read facts and just want to keep on spouting your ideas and not investigating if any of them are grounded in facts.

Follow that line of alleged wing damage back to the impacted region of the facade. Notice that almost all of the damage to the facade falls below this line, that is allegedly damage from the left wing. In fact, where there is damage to the facade above this line, there are still freaking windows in place. Yet, below the line is where the fuselage would have went.

Yeah, isn't it amazing how well bomb resistant windows, which are 2 inches thick and are set in place using steel frames can withstand a huge force hitting them? Or did you not read any of that factual information about the Pentagon contained in this thread in many locations? Did you read the ASCE's Pentagon Performance Report? I'd say no based on your question here...

By contrast, most of the fuselage of a 757 is above the wings, obviously. Was your 757 flying upside-down or something?

You really need to go read the rest of this thread. All of this has been answered many times already. Have you read much of this thread? No, you've said so many times already and your questions here display that you have not. The bottom part of the fuselage is where all the primary support structure is for modern airliners. See page 1 of this thread... The top 3/5 of the aircraft is a hollow shell consisting of thin aluminium, sheets of insulation, and plastic/fibreglass liners. It is not at all suprising that the majority of the damage to the building would be where the base of the airliner impacted. And, if you look at the photos, golly gee that is exactly where the majority of the damage is located. Seriously, you really need to learn how an aircraft is built/designed before any of your posts will contain common sense ray.

Yeah, isn't it amazing how well bomb resistant windows, which are 2 inches thick and are set in place using steel frames can withstand a huge force hitting them?

Not really. The amazing part is how you claim the part of the 757 below the wings was what knocked the wall out of the ground floor, while all of the fuselage above the wings apparently did very little damage at all, and then, I guess, was sucked into the hole like the wings.

The bottom part of the fuselage is where all the primary support structure is for modern airliners. See page 1 of this thread... The top 3/5 of the aircraft is a hollow shell consisting of thin aluminium, sheets of insulation, and plastic/fibreglass liners. It is not at all suprising that the majority of the damage to the building would be where the base of the airliner impacted. And, if you look at the photos, golly gee that is exactly where the majority of the damage is located.

Actually, if you look at the photos, golly gee, most of the damage appears to be from the ground to the top of the ground floor, roughly. The alleged wing damage is totally above this damage. You can see in this pic that the wings are connected at the very bottom of the fuselage. There's not much more fuselage under the wings to blow out the wall of the bottom floor (let alone 2/5 of the fuselage under there) while the top 3/5 of the fuselage magically disappears or is sucked into the hole. And again.. where the hell did the top part of the fuselage go? Was the length of it sucked into the hole as well? Seriously, it does not take a genius to look at those two pics and visually calculate that there is a problem with your theory.

ray

*Bray Ok, SheepHerder?

All of CatHerder's data lines up. For God's sake, it's a damned plane crash, it's not going to be perfect! [edit on 25-8-2005 by Herman]

Course it's not going to be perfect, what do you expect if the story and the facts use 2 different airplanes. Whenever someone brings up a perfectly good point CH starts shouting "read the whole thread". Well excuse me, but if you really think you have proven something with those pictures then you're wrong. Maybe you all need to look at the area around the pentagon again, now imagine flying there with a boeing, not the most manoevrable plane in the world btw. You're flying at the speed of 2 football fields a second (correct me if I'm wrong). So you have a split second to steer a boeing over those lightpoles, then dive down into the very bottom of the pentagon. But not only that, the penetration of the 5 or 6 walls shows us that whatever did impact at the pentagon, was in pretty much a horizontal flight. Wich is also shown on the security cam. It's very unlikely that a boeing dove down behind the poles, then pulled up again for a horizontal impact inches above the ground. Don't you think ?

Originally posted by Shroomery It's very unlikely that a boeing dove down behind the poles, then pulled up again for a horizontal impact inches above the ground. Don't you think ?

Absolutely right. He didn't pull up at all. He would have hit the ground before the pentagon wall at his shallow angle of attack, but interstingly enough there is something in flight physics called ground effect that makes it extremely hard to contact the ground while flying an aircraft at higher speeds. That force pushing the wings of the airliner upwards is the reason the plane didn't bounce off the ground. It wasn't going 180MPH like most air planes are going when they crash (they're all trying to not crash or are trying to perform an emergency crash landing at minimum velocity), this plane was going throttles up with the sole intention of ramming into the building. But, of course, you'd know about Ground Efffect if you read anything in this thread. Right?

So, CatHerder, are you going to admit that you're claiming that the top "3/5" of the fuselage above the wings did very little damage to the facade and was then sucked into the hole created only by the part of the plane beneath the wings? Or are you going to claim that the wings magically moved up the fuselage? Or maybe you'll finally admit that those marks can't possibly have been wing damage from a 757. I doubt this last one, though. [edit on 25-8-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by CatHerder But, of course, you'd know about Ground Efffect if you read anything in this thread. Right?

Yeah, infact I have, but I was certain you wouldn't pull another ridiculous claim out of your ass that's all. Ground effect doesn't work like that if you point the nose down and dive for a building. But even if it did, there simply wouldn't be any time for a plane that big, at that speed to level out horizontal over such a small distance (poles to pentago) no matter how many air-lift there is. But, ofcourse, you'd know about that if got off your high horse and stopped assuming you're the bringer of light to some us, right ?

You mean the poles that were knocked over in the parking lot? Those thin little light poles that were found laying on numerous cars after the attack? Those poles?

Yes exactly, those poles that got knocked backwards ..nice try

Really? Then what about the pictures of them being knocked sideways, or forward and landing on cars, smashing them? And the eyewitness reports that don't mention ANYTHING about any poles being knocked backwards? Or the eyewitnesses that talk about a 757 flying over the parking lot knocking poles over? Or is everyone that says they saw a 757 making it up, or on a government payroll?

Again with the eye-witnesses ? I can bring up as many witnesses from the pentagon that said it WASN'T a boeing.

And what about pictures that show the poles snapping sideways and forward, and landing on the cars?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Really? Then what about the pictures of them being knocked sideways, or forward and landing on cars, smashing them? And the eyewitness reports that don't mention ANYTHING about any poles being knocked backwards? Or the eyewitnesses that talk about a 757 flying over the parking lot knocking poles over? Or is everyone that says they saw a 757 making it up, or on a government payroll?

Hmmm how reliable are eye witnesses? Remember Jean Charles de Menezes, guy the police shot in London after the bombings there? Eye witnesses saw wires sticking out of his shirt; another said he had a "bomb belt with wires coming out". Some said he jumped the barriers, he didn't. Nor was he wearing a bulky jacket as told by "eye witnesses" "I saw these police officers in uniform and out of uniform shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out and people were panicking and I heard two shots being fired." In fact all he was doing was running for a train and was sitting down when he was grabbed by the cops (or military?) antagonise.blogspot.com... So how many people do you think could instantly recognize a plane flying overhead as a Boeing 757? Or did they just come to that conclusion after the incident when they were told it was a 757 by the authorities via the media? Or maybe they were just made up stories? Can you confirm any of these "eye witnesses"? My point is you can't trust "eye witness" reports, especially when they are reports taken from a newspaper. It will take far more than "eye witnesses" to convince me that it was a 757 that hit the pentagoon. I guess as long as it fits your belief of the official story you will except it. But any witnesses that contradict the official story are ignored. [edit on 26/8/2005 by ANOK]

Fine, leave out the eyewitnesses, but there was still photographic evidence that shows lightpoles having been snapped off in the direction of flight of the aircraft, and landing on cars, smashing them.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 And what about pictures that show the poles snapping sideways and forward, and landing on the cars?

That doesn't prove it was a Boeing 757 now does it? A global hawk would do the same, no?

I'm not trying to prove that it was by that statement. I'm rebutting his statement that the poles were thrown backwards. But there's a lot of evidence that it WASN'T a Global Hawk besides that. The landing gear is wrong, the speed factor is WAY wrong among other things. [edit on 26-8-2005 by Zaphod58]

Ok, I'm not getting into those poles, we have nothing on them besides some shoddy pictures wich tell nothing. I heard in some docu that they were knocked back. You might be right about their direction, but there's still so many things wrong with the theory that a boeing knocked those over. But I wanna know though, where's the evidence that shows that weelhub was not from a globalhawk (not that I believe a hawk hit, could be anything). But I'm pretty sure it wasn't a weelhub from a boeing. I have a video that shows one of the weels in New York, I'll see if I can find a picture of that, but there you'll see reference material so you can clearly guess the size of that thing. Something that is almost impossible to do with the pentagon evidence.

Originally posted by Shroomery But I wanna know though, where's the evidence that shows that weelhub was not from a globalhawk (not that I believe a hawk hit, could be anything). But I'm pretty sure it wasn't a weelhub from a boeing. I have a video that shows one of the weels in New York, I'll see if I can find a picture of that, but there you'll see reference material so you can clearly guess the size of that thing. Something that is almost impossible to do with the pentagon evidence.

maybe these will help. The wheel in New York and, a 757 landing gear

The different models of 757s had slightly different landing gear, which explains the discrepency between the pictures of the 757-100, and the -200 landing gear. Same airplane, slightly different version, slightly different landing gear. I'm still curious though how someone can say that the colors of the debris on the grass were all wrong for American Airlines. I see them every day at work and they sure look like the same colors they use to me. As to the registration number, it's a one use deal. You can reregister an aircraft, with a different registration number, but you can't use a number that was stricken from the books, which is what happens with a plane crash. It would cause entirely too much confusion as to which airframe you were talking about.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 The different models of 757s had slightly different landing gear, which explains the discrepency between the pictures of the 757-100, and the -200 landing gear. Same airplane, slightly different version, slightly different landing gear.

I'm not talking about the holes in it or anything. The picture from the pentagon shows the weelhub in a bunch of unidetifyable debris, so you can't really tell how big it is.