757 Engine Impact Not Noticeable at Pentagon

reply to post by Zaphod58

It wasn't a brick wall, it was kevlar reinforced concrete, designed to withstand a truck bomb, filled with over a ton of C4 touching the wall
.

and what I hear from what you're saying is .. this .. blah blah blah .. because basically .. it's not NEAR the structural strength of the twin towers.. and yes.. you should a little research before going blah blah blah .. weld 3-5 inches of iron and then go .. blahblah blah ..

Strange.
After 12 years the conspiracy side has never been able to produce experts that will say a 757 could not have created the damage at the Pentagon.

Plus the conspiracy side has never been able to explain how all that aircraft debris got spread around the site.

reply to post by liejunkie01


Pay attention everybody....
We go by the first videos that reporters showed on national tv........
At the pentagon and Shanksville, go by the first reporters comments also......which in both cases was the following, and I friggin quote...." not enough debris to fill a suitcase"......lock this in, would ya.?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
One thing that concerns me about the Pentagon strike is that the engines are much more dense than the aluminium nose of the plane, yet the nose is what does all the damage to the wall at least in some of the pictures that have been seen.

The tip of a bullet is also the weakest point of the bullet, but its the point that all the kinetic energy is focused behind so its the part that penetrates the deepest. The nose of the aircraft (behind the raydome) is where all the spars meet in the front of the aircraft, so I would have to guess its also one of the strongest parts of the aircraft frame. When we push-back an aircraft we push the entire weight of that aircraft using the nose area of the fuselage.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Based on kinetic energy and density of those engines should not have something shown up as impacted. If you have ever used a titanium hammer you will understand what I am saying.

I wish that the word “titanium” had never been used by the truth movement because its misleading.

“Titanium” is actually a fairly weak and brittle metal. It is not as strong as even normal steel. Its used because of its lighter weight and corrosion resistance. I personally will not buy a titanium dive knife because in a situation where it had to be used to pry something, they tend to snap in half.

The engines themselves are held to the wing by two shear bolts. Those bolts are designed to shear off (rear one first) and cause the engine to go up, over, and behind the wing in the case of catastrophic failure. This is to prevent the engine from coming apart and tearing into the wing, fuel tanks, or passenger compartment during an emergency.

Originally posted by alienreality
They are all called jumbos at Boeing, but does it matter?

Yes, a narrowbody aircraft is not a “jumbo”, a widebody is.
757's are narrowbodies.

Originally posted by alienreality
The 757 is still big and strong enough to do a lot of damage to a building made of brick..

Fuselage diameter of a 757 is a few feet bigger then a DC-9, hence the fact that its a narrowbody.

Originally posted by alienreality
The wings are the strongest part of the entire airplane by the way...

try landing gear.

Originally posted by Komodo
.. blah blah blah ..blah blah blah .. .. blahblah blah ..

More "truther" quality comments!

Originally posted by cass1dy09
The plane would of had to fly low for miles.. There are plenty of people that could of recorded it and not one video has surfaced.

Yes, I had always wondered as well, even before I really woke up, how people who had never even landed actual planes could descend from such a high altitude and hit the horizontal and especially vertical window ( five stories high?) in one shot the first time with such a massive and sluggish airframe, after completing a complex low altitude turn.

It seemed like an extremely skillful/lucky hit, when you consider even kamikaze pilots in the second world war, highly trained or at least more trained than the supposed "terrorists", even when not hit with AA still sometimes missed hitting a whole aircraft carrier or battleship with a way smaller and way more maneuverable and slower aircraft.

reply to post by defcon5


Well, the landing gear are not even a part of the aircraft structure, they are built separately then installed as an assembly (component) The bolts and fasteners that hold the engine to the wings could even be called the strongest part of the plane I suppose..

Go ask any Boeing engineer what the strongest built part of the aircraft is and they will say the wings..

But people seem more intent on arguing over correct nomenclature here in this thread in stead of focusing on the key points.. My original post was to say a big effing aircraft was supposed to have hit the pentagon, but barely did any damage, and I say that is hogwash because it would have cut right through it regardless of Kevlar reinforced concrete or whatever simply because of the speed and the mass of the object would win and the stationary structure, (the building) would lose.

Since when did they put 757 engines on cruise missiles???

Originally posted by alienreality
Well, the landing gear are not even a part of the aircraft structure, they are built separately then installed as an assembly (component)

But they are the most hardened part of an aircraft as they are intended to take strike after strike of all the weight of the plane, plus all its contents.

Originally posted by alienreality
The bolts and fasteners that hold the engine to the wings could even be called the strongest part of the plane I suppose..

Engines are on shear bolts that are designed to fail a certain way in a known pattern to cause the engine to separate from the wing in a catastrophic engine failure.

Originally posted by alienreality
Go ask any Boeing engineer what the strongest built part of the aircraft is and they will say the wings..

Wings are designed to take vertical forces, not horizontal ones. They are strong, but they are flexible. You have to bend a wing greater then 45 degrees to make the main spar snap, but only on that axis. So the problem here is in labeling any part of the aircraft as being the “strongest” because each piece is engineered to tolerances that are specific to forces that will act upon that part of the structure. Wings are not built to take a hit form the front, because that is not a tolerance they are designed to endure under normal usage.

Originally posted by alienreality
My original post was to say a big effing aircraft was supposed to have hit the pentagon, but barely did any damage, and I say that is hogwash because it would have cut right through it regardless of Kevlar reinforced concrete or whatever simply because of the speed and the mass of the object would win and the stationary structure, (the building) would lose.

And I know from the NW flight that crashed on Middlebelt Road in Romulus Michigan, that is not the case. That aircraft went through multiple pilings of an overpass and bridge trestle, that would be very similar in strength to the pentagon, and there were similar results. Nothing left of the aircraft but confetti from the point it hit the pilings... Little to no damage to the pilings or bridges themselves.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE


If they never landed a plane explain how they were all certified as commercial pilots, and Hani Hanjour was type rated as a 737 pilot.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If they never landed a plane explain how they were all certified as commercial pilots, and Hani Hanjour was type rated as a 737 pilot.

Come on, you know how facts like those confuse some people, as it destroys their conspiracy!

reply to post by Komodo


Oh of course, because we all know steel is the strongest material on the planet and can withstand anything at all. That plane should have just bounced off it, and the one at the Pentagon should have left a Looney Tunes imprint on the wall.

reply to post by alienreality

My original post was to say a big effing aircraft was supposed to have hit the pentagon…

Give this video a quick listen and explain how anything other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. It's the air traffic control recordings of the C-130 that followed the 757 to the Pentagon and the control tower at Reagan airport, it's only 3 minutes long.

Originally posted by alienreality
If a jumbo jet hit the pentagon at 500 MPH, it would have gone in to the wings, then the wings would have cut right into that building like a sword blade, but nothing like that happened, so a jumbo jet never hit the building..
And yes, the engines have a lot of titanium parts and they are really heavy of course, that would have made a nice big hole as well, but there wasn't any damage like that..
Just my opinion of course...

The problem with that is the wall construction the Pentagon is DESIGNED to withstand a certain level of attack!

The following annotated photos show exactly the locations of impact damage on the Pentagon E-ring facade. The outer limestone facade was breached between column lines 8 and 18, producing a hole spanning approximately 96 feet. Additional impact damage can be found between columns 5 and 8 and between columns 18 and 20. The entire width of impacted facade measured at least 140 feet, as indicated by the building plan in the Arlington After Action Report.

We see that the entire left wing damaged the building, and almost the entire wing except for the wing tip entered the building. The right wing just a little past the right engine also entered the building. However the rest of the wing, about two-thirds of the length of the wing, did not.

the picture of used by conspiracy sites claiming a small hole in the wall.



Another view not hidden by the smoke and spray in the picture above.

Originally posted by cass1dy09
The plane would of had to fly low for miles.. There are plenty of people that could of recorded it and not one video has surfaced.

And this is what has bugging me about the 757.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Prove that it had to fly low for "miles" before impact.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
www.davesweb.cnchost.com...&plane.jpeg

edit on 8/2/2013 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)

Reminds me of a time how some Republicans were desperately trying to disprove the 9/11 conspiracy theories with these same arguments.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by cass1dy09
The plane would of had to fly low for miles.. There are plenty of people that could of recorded it and not one video has surfaced.

And this is what has bugging me about the 757.

Just who was carrying video cameras back then?

Look at the 'best' cell phones of the day.
here
and
here
None of which had cameras built in.
You can't apply todays standards to 12 years ago.