9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by bsbray11 Also, did anyone take a look at this page?: www.kolumbus.fi...

bsbray11 that is an excellent source you have brought to us here at ATS I would recommend all who are for and against the pentagon official story.

This may have been covered already and I think someone else did point it out, but it's no good just superimposing diagrams and photos of grounded aircraft as they are highly inaccurate for this purpose. The wings angle upwards substantially in flight, anyone that has flown a plane (which I have) or has ever been sat in an airliner watching outside will know this. They also tend to flex around rather spectacularly, they are definately not rigid. I don't know what the exact angles of change one can expect are, I will try and find out later when I have more time, but I hope they are being put into the equation. [edit on 29-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith The wings angle upwards substantially in flight, anyone that has flown a plane (which I have) or has ever been sat in an airliner watching outside will know this. They also tend to flex around rather spectacularly, they are definately not rigid. I don't know what the exact angles of change one can expect are, I will try and find out later when I have more time, but I hope they are being put into the equation.

That doesnt mean that the point where they are attached to the plane moves up or down ... that's what he's trying to point out. The wing impact damage is above the 'body' of the plane. It's funny how quickly you disprove of our images with a layer ontop but when someone starts a thread to disprove us with nothing but those overlays, everyone congratulates him on a fantastic job. First read what they are trying to say, then try to disprove that ... He has to repeat himself 5 times because you're all so fixed on what you THINK he is saying.

From August 1996 thru February 2001 I assembled the 44 section of the 757. Thats the portion of the fuselage that mates to basically on top of the wings. From Feb 2001 thru Jan 2002 I worked in manufacturing engineering for the ECS system. I built that body section that has the first 757-300 banner on it. I know alot about this airplane. Id be happy to answer questions best I can about the structures.

Well I would like to know your view on the entire crash, the evidence found, the missing debris, the impact damage. Ofcourse it's just another view but maybe you can tell us if it's at all possible for the body of the plane to penetrate through 5 or 6 walls when the wings don't even penetrate one.

Please forgive me if this has already been mentioned, I tried to follow this for sometime but gave up. One thing that comes to my mind when I see the Pentagon security vid excerpt is that the explosion immediately shows black smoke which indicates a fuel fire. I have seen several pics of warhead detonations and they show white/gray smoke unless they hit a fuel source. I have a niece who is an army MP and she was checking into Ft. Myer when the Pentagon "explosion" occured. They were issued firearms, kevlars and put on the gates. She told our family that "she relieved the MP who watched the plane fly into the Pentagon." I know that this is anecdotal info but could be verifiable. I don't know the name of the gate or even if it's possible to see the Pentagon (or the side that got hit) from any gate but again, it's something I want to check out. I beleive it was a plane.

One thing that comes to my mind when I see the Pentagon security vid excerpt is that the explosion immediately shows black smoke which indicates a fuel fire. I have seen several pics of warhead detonations and they show white/gray smoke unless they hit a fuel source.

There was a separate source of smoke at the Pentagon. I'm not saying there was no aircraft there, but there was apparently some issue with the smoke that had to be compensated. You can see there's nothing in between those two sources of smoke. There's no smoke wandering along the bottom of the lawn, then rising up, etc. They're starting from totally different points, and one of them isn't even near the impact site, but coming from a trailer. Something to keep in mind.

Originally posted by Shroomery Well I would like to know your view on the entire crash, the evidence found, the missing debris, the impact damage. Ofcourse it's just another view but maybe you can tell us if it's at all possible for the body of the plane to penetrate through 5 or 6 walls when the wings don't even penetrate one.

What 5 or 6 walls? Are you talking about the drywall partitions?

2 rings each containing 2 walls, plus one wall of the third ring.

The outer wall was reinforced with kevlar. The inner rings were simple unreinforced normal every day walls. A guy with a hammer could punch through them, let alone airplane parts at 500+ mph.

Originally posted by Shroomery 2 rings each containing 2 walls, plus one wall of the third ring.

Nope, one outer wall and the inner wall into the service drive. The rings don't start till the third floor. [edit on 31-8-2005 by HowardRoark] More

Many researchers have asserted that whatever produced the C-ring hole had to pass through six masonry walls, since it had to traverse three rings -- C, D, and E. However the exterior walls between the outermost three rings did not go down to ground level, since the intervening light-wells were only three stories deep. The outer three rings were unified on the first and second floors, meaning that the only heavy structures between the facade and the C-ring wall with the hole were occasional columns. Thus it is plausible that an engine could have passed through the three rings, missing the reinforced concrete pillars, and puncturing the C-ring wall.

911research.wtc7.net... Try to keep your facts straight, please. [edit on 31-8-2005 by HowardRoark]

Yeah, the outer wall was the only real problem. So, Howard, where were you when we were discussing the fact that the alleged 757 wing damage couldn't be correct without the top 3/5 of the fuselage failing to puncture the facade of the Pentagon, and then proceeded to vanish? Quick to jump on the trivial errors, but nowhere to be found otherwise?

The upper portion of the fuselage above stringer 17 is very thin. In the 43 section (fwd of the wings) and the 46 section(aft of the wings)- the skin is as thin as .050-.060. The 44 section skin panel ranges from nearly .375 at the base(near the ring roots and stringer 18a) to about .187 at stringer 10 above the window belt. The floor beam grid is exceptionally rigid. Section 11 where the wings mount to is mounted to the 44 section- the upper and lower skins of section 11 range to .500 in thickness. Anyone remember the Ahola airlines 737 that the crown panels blew off in the 43 section? Using that as a reference you can see that the upper portion of the fuselage is not very substantial.

Even if it somehow did not leave a mark on the facade after a 500 mph impact, and even when the wings allegedly did, there would still be the problem of accounting for the remains of the whole length of the top 3/5. This bit has been posted many times by now, graphics and all. I find it hard to believe that 54.43 meters of the top 3/5 of the fuselage of the 757 was either totally destroyed or else was sucked into the hole in the first floor that it would not have fit into judging by the "wing damage." Only the bottom 2/5 from the wings and below apparently caused that damage, according to the official story, or at least as CatHerder has presented it here. [edit on 31-8-2005 by bsbray11]

While your on the mission, you can also find all the parts of the Helios crash too, becasue most of that seems to have suffered the same fate

Originally posted by bsbray11 Even if it somehow did not leave a mark on the facade after a 500 mph impact, and even when the wings allegedly did, there would still be the problem of accounting for the remains of the whole length of the top 3/5. This bit has been posted many times by now, graphics and all. I find it hard to believe that 54.43 meters of the top 3/5 of the fuselage of the 757 was either totally destroyed or else was sucked into the hole in the first floor that it would not have fit into judging by the "wing damage." Only the bottom 2/5 from the wings and below apparently caused that damage, according to the official story, or at least as CatHerder has presented it here.

Utter and complete bullshit. You twist facts to suit your story like any shoddy Michael Moore type of presenter... Do not quote me out of context (or change the facts I've presented to suit your story) if you're going to quote me at all. I *never* once said only the bottom 2/5 of the aircraft caused all the damage. I also *never* said that only the bottom 2/5 of the aircraft damaged/entered the building. Even the graphics I supplied show that around 4/5ths to 9/10ths of the aircraft fuselage fits into the bottom floor. How you've arrived at this ludicrous fantasy of yours is beyond me. I mean you cant even grasp that the wings are in an upward angle orientation and are attached to the bottom of the fuselage -- in all your examples you shove the wings 5 feet higher than they actually are (and you also randomly choose the very top of the port wing impact damage on the Pentagon facade to futher skew the truth to fit your nonsense). I only said that bottom 2/5ths of a modern airliner is where the majority of the structural strength is located and where the majority of an aircraft's weight is located. It is not at all amazing, incredible, or even a leap of faith to assume that most of the top portion of the aircraft was deflected downwards and into the building. Certainly some of it was torn up and scattered around the grounds (you can see literally thousands of small peices of aluminium on the grass in quite a few photos). But, I guess some guys just can't deal with facts and just have to come up with sensationalized nonsense instead of figuring out the truth... It makes me very sad. I really wonder what people are going to say when the two videos of this crash (attack) are released after the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in January of 2006.

Is that a definite CH? It will be good to see the theories laid to rest at last. I didn't realise there was a trial happening, which would explain why the evidence is witheld until after.

CatHerder, While not saying it explicitly, you certainly imply it with your claim of that black streak across the facade being is damage from the left wing of a 757. I've already shown what that implies as far as the impact of the fuselage goes. You say 3/5 of the fuselage is above the wings, and yet above that black line there is not only a lack of damage, but that top 3/5 of the fuselage is nowhere to be found, either, unless you think it somehow went into the hole below the wings, because it certainly did not puncture its own hole to travel through above the wing damage. And I don't see 50-some meters of fuselage flying through the air there, either. [edit on 1-9-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by AgentSmith Is that a definite CH? It will be good to see the theories laid to rest at last.

Read the Government filing at www.flight77.info -- the only reason they give for withholding the evidence is the trial.

You can see there's nothing in between those two sources of smoke...one of them... coming from a trailer

Good observation, though I would think that trailer smoke was the trailer burning in someway due to "flash" from the primary pentagon explosion. I'm NOT a fire expert, just damage control training in the Navy. I have fought some fires while a repair locker member on two carriers. We were taught four classes of fire. Alpha-combustable materials such as wood, paper, cloth, etc. burns with a white smoke. Bravo-fuel related fires or fuel based products such as plastics, burns with a black smoke until fire starts coming under control. Charlie-electrical fire burns with blue smoke unless masked with a secondary alpha or bravo fire. Delta-combustable metals such as magnesium.. it justs BURNS! Cover with sand or pitch over the side! so based on my limited experience and knowledge, I was prompted to think "Bravo fire" when I saw the vid of the plane purporting to strike the Pentagon. I can't prove that warheads only produce white/grey smoke but pics I have seen show that. I do think that a true "missile" so to speak would have left an exhaust plume behind it. Cruise missiles obviously don't but I think the security vid would have shown a "cruiser" hitting. Just my thoughts.