Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on

A place for fun discussion of common interests we have besides Fieros

Moderator: ericjon262

eHoward
Banned
Posts: 2162
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:45 pm

Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on

Post by eHoward »

COPY PASTE!

Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

by "CatHerder", Member, AboveTopSecret.com/forum

September 11th, 2004



[font=Verdana,sans-serif]EDITOR'S NOTE: Three years after the catastrophic events of 9/11/2001, many questions still surround this defining moment of the post-cold-war world. Among the many questions are the various speculations that the Pentagon attack was by some other means than a hijacked passenger airliner. This excellent contribution from a member of our discussion board seeks to put these theories to rest.[/font]

I've decided the best way to do this is to state the evidence, and facts, and come to a conclusion. Everything I list here as evidence includes links to sources, names of individuals, and notes if I have added any comments or visual aids to any photos.

I may repeat some information and images in this post (from images and information previously posted), and I apologize for the length of the information, and for the size of some of the photos, but I can see no other way to provide the information without losing clarity and quality and most importantly accuracy. It is apparent that without the entire collection of evidence people quickly forget something outlined on a previous post. I will freely admit in this post that I was incorrect on some facts in my previous posts, and I will correct these mistakes here. I will also try to link every image to its original source, unless it is an image I have added comments or visual aids to.


Did a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11

First let�s start with the factual information available on hand.

The 757-200
As we can see from the freely available information for the Boeing 757 (from the Boeing website). The 757 is a midsized commercial airliner designed for short haul and medium haul routes (Medium Range Transport (MR-TR)), although since its release, and the subsequent discovery of the Wake Vortex it leaves behind the FAA has classified the 757 as a "Heavy" aircraft; the FAA places the 757 in the Geometric Design Classification IV, and an ATC Operation Class C. (source)

The 757-200 dimensions:
Tail Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.6m)
Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)
Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in (38.05m)
Body Exterior Width: 12 ft 4 in (3.7m)
Fuel Capacity: 11,489 us gal (43,490l / 43,490kg)
Maximum Takeoff weight: 255,000lb (115,680kg)
Typical Cruise Speed: 0.80 Mach (573.6mph / 956kmh)
Engines used on a 757: Two 166.4kN (37,400lb) Rolls-Royce RB211-535C turbofans, or 178.8kN (40,200lb) RB211-535E4s, or 193.5kN (43,500lb) RB211-535E4-Bs, or 162.8kN (36,600lb) Pratt & Whitney PW2037s, or two 178.4kN (40,100lb) PW2040s, or 189.5kN (42,600lb) PW2043s. (source1)(source2)
Auxiliary Power Unit: Honeywell GTCP331-200

Click here to ->take a walk around inside a Boeing 757.

Image
left portion: source1 right portion: source2 (height and width notation to graphic added by me)


Next, let�s look at the Pentagon.

The Pentagon

The Pentagon was designed in the early 40's and was completed in only 16 months on Jan 14, 1943. The shortages of materials required for war production raised many design and construction problems. The use of reinforced concrete in lieu of formed steel for the building made possible a saving of 43,000 tons of steel, more than enough to build a battleship. The use of concrete ramps rather than elevators further reduced steel requirements. Drainage pipes were concrete; ducts were fiber, interior doors were wood. An unusual wall design - concrete spandrels carried to window sill level - eliminated many miles of through-wall copper flashing.(Source1) (Source2)

Recent renovations and upgrades to the building were nearing completion on the side hit on 9-11 and performed reasonably well considering they were not designed to withstand aircraft impact. On September 11, when an American Airlines Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon, home of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), about 20,000 people were at work in this, the largest office building in the world. Yet according to the DoD casualty update on October 1, only 125 Pentagon employees were killed along with the 64 from the fated airliner. (source - Architecture Week) <- Click for full article

The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in place for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds to escape. "Had we not undertaken this effort," said Evey at a press briefing on September 15, "this could have been much, much worse."


Now, I'm sure everyone can agree that the above information is a matter of public record, and none of it is incorrect, altered, or misquoted in any way to support either side of the case. It is all merely factual information that we will refer to in the following sections.

[Note: I was unintentionally misleading in a previous post when I said the Pentagon didn't use a steel beam construction - while that is still true for the original design, it was reinforced in various areas during the upgrades to include steel beams and columns in some areas of the renovations.]

Quoted from ArchitectureWeek.com:
In addition to major overhauls of the mechanical and electrical systems, the Wedge One renovation included the fire sprinklers, automatic fire doors, and the steel which saved many lives on the day of the attack.

The blast-resistant windows were nearly two inches (5 centimeters) thick. Some of them remain remarkably intact and in place adjacent the point of impact. Some were popped out of their frames by the force of the exploding jet fuel, but they fell without breaking or splintering.

Also on the exterior walls, between the steel columns, the renovation crew had placed Kevlar cloth, similar to the material used for bullet-proof vests. This had the effect of holding together building materials so they wouldn't become deadly projectiles in an explosion.



Looking At the Big Picture

From facts contained above, we can all agree that:
[li]The length of the outside wall on any side of the pentagon is 921 feet.
[li]The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.
[li]Now, everyone can agree that 921/125= roughly 7.4 right?
Image

Given the size of the 757, and the size of the Pentagon, the damaged area fits in peftectly with the dimensions of both the aircraft and the building.


Look at the hole in the building
Image Image
Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.

Image
Also, as I showed earlier: Here is an L1011 (it's a larger plane than a 757 - but the basic design of how a plane body is built is the same) being scrapped, you can see that almost ALL of the support structure is in the bottom 2/5 of the plane. This is the part that punched the hole in the Pentagon, the rest of the thin, hollow, top of the plane just shredded into chunks, some of which are laying on the lawn and around the rescue vehicles. Most of a commercial airliner is just a thin aluminum shell, insulation, a thin plastic inner liner, some carpet and seats. They're designed to be as light as possible so they can carry more cargo and more people while using less fuel and at the same time remain "safe".

It is a given that the majority of mass is going to be in the bottom half of the aircraft - the primary structure and heaviest parts are all located there, as is the luggage and any freight.

But lets reinforce this as fact with a photo of a 757-300 being built. (Remember, the only difference between a 757-200 and a 757-300 is the length of the body, and the wings on the 757-300 are reinforced and slightly deeper - the height and width and wingspan remain identical.)
Image
(source) We should also make a note of the yellow primer used on the interior of the rear section.
Image
This image shows the light green primer used on the primary structure components in the 757 (Boeing uses the same yellow primer and the same green primer on almost every single part of every single 757 and 767 built).

What does the green or yellow primer have to do with anything? Well, we'll take a look at the aircraft parts from the Pentagon wreckage photos below.
Ok, but how did a hollow tube, made of mostly aluminium, manage to punch through the Pentagon? I'm happy to try to help explain it with the aid of the good folks at Perdue University. We'll get to that in a moment.


Examining Ground Debris

Landing Gear Evidence

Rim photographed in the Pentagon wreckage. You can clearly see it is a double bead design as required by the NTSB, and you can also see it has had 90% of the rim edge smashed off in the crash.
Image
Image
Some people have tried to claim that the rims are different from a 757 rim - well here (bottom) is a 757-200 rim from an American Airlines 757, I've outlined the exact same symmetrical holes. I think perhaps some people are thrown off by the balancing led weights attached on the rims in the bottom photo? Have you never taken your car in for a wheel alignment and tire balancing? This is clearly the same kind of rim found on a 757. (The hub-covers/grease-covers are not present for obvious reasons - to remove one you pop it off with a flathead screw driver... so how would you expect it to stay on in a 400mph impact with a reinforced concrete wall?)

Landing gear strut - appears to be from the nose gear - note how charred the area around it is.
Image

The next photo is from the cover from one of the conspiracy sites that demands "where is the plane?" -- they must not have looked very hard, there are 2 obvious chunks of it in the photo. Another rim from the airplane on the right, and a large chunk of bulkhead on the left.
Image

Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.
Image


Below, another photo of a tire with the same pattern as ones used on a 757, found in the Pentagon wreckage.
Image


Engine Evidence
Let�s take a look at some of the ground debris that appears to be related to an aircraft engine. Many different sites and posts have reported that the 757 uses Rolls-Royce engines [RB211-535E4B] - however it should be noted, for the sake of thuroughness, that American Airlines also use Pratt & Witney engines [PW2037] in many of their 757 fleet. You can also view this information on their website. (The 757 fleets around the world actually use over six different kinds of engines.) The 757 that is reported to have hit the Pentagon was using RB211-535E4B engines.

Here is are photos of some apparent engine parts from the Pentagon crash site.

Image
Image portion cropped from (source) - Another View

What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above �It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I�m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.� (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military�s unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman�s subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.


Below is a significant portion of a badly smashed RB211 engine in the Pentagon wreckage - what appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, one of the pumps remains partially attached, some hoses and the familiar webbed wire wraps (to the right of the main ring) and some of the Boeing yellow primed support structure is lying beside it (left, with rivets - again: note the yellow primer, we'll cover that further down).
Reference: Image of the engine used on the 757 (it's the rightmost one, top row) Rolls-Royce
Image
Image
Another engine part, bottom right.

The hit lightpoles, and damaged vehicles in the flightpath (click for larger images)
Image Image Image
Image

The debris field of small chunks of plane witnesses said debris "rained down for minutes after the crash". (click for larger images)
Image Image Image

The wreckage with the markings
(click to view original enlarged image)
Image
Some people have said "Yeah but how big is it?" (Again some people have a hard time judging distances in a photo without a reference object - well, here's a reference object - a 3/4 ton truck driving right behind it...
Image
Image Image
We can see that the part is approximately 3.5 to 4 feet long; the truck has either a 17 inch or an 18 inch wheel as a reference and is about 2 feet behind it; only cars or light trucks have 14, 15 and 16 inch wheels. I think it's conservative to say that the part is 2 times as long as the truck's tire (36 inches).

Here is another angle of the exact same piece in question - notice the people standing off to the right of it. More importantly, notice all the other small bits of the aircraft skin laying around.
Image
Both (larger) Photos by Journalist 1st Class Mark D. Faram.

Even the black boxes have been recovered, the reason given for not playing the flight voice recorder for the media was that it wouldn't serve any use other than to cause more emotional pain to family members (I agree with them frankly).


Image
Area of fence to the right of the impact area partially flattened by the right engine of the plane. Note how a couple of the poles are bent right over, some are sheered off at the top, yet the pole and fence portion on the left is untouched (obviously the right engine took out the fence to the right of those poles) and the entire back side of the fence has been torn away. The generator was hit by the right wing and engine before the 757 hit the building - the damage is evidenced by other photos of the crash area.

Closeup of generator smashed in the front and gouged on the top - hard to image a missile accomplishing both of these. But if the right engine of a 757 hit the front of the generator, part of the wing could gouge the top. At the very least, something very large, and very heavy smashed into this extremely heavy desil generator.
Image Image
Click the image on the left to view a large top-down image of the impact area, including the large desil generator which is visibly damaged, and actually spun ~45 degrees from the impact! Most importantly it is spun ~45 degrees towards the building - if this was a missile or a bomb, the explosion could ONLY have spun it away from the building.
Image



The Gate Camera
Some people don't seem to see perspective correctly. I've zoomed in, and compared the two frames over and over - here is what I see as the airplane. I will repeat, however, that this is terrible evidence due to the horrible quality of the original images. I do believe, however, that the white smoke in the images is caused by one or more damaged engine from the impact with the multiple light poles on the way in (as seen in the above image).
Image
I stuck in a 757 that was at relatively the same angle - except it's banking slightly to starboard instead of to port - hence the ONE wing is out of place. If it was banking slightly to port it would fit perfectly... However, once again - this is entirely subjective and the image quality from the released surveillance camera is not good enough to form a factual opinion.

Lets look at the physics involved

Image
Engineers, computer scientists and graphics technology experts at Purdue University have created the first publicly available simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what theoretically happened when the Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon last Sept. 11

Using simulation software called LS-Dyna, the smart folks use the physically accurate simulation results as input to animations and visualizations to produce a vivid reenactment of the impact of the aircraft on the Pentagon building and provide the larger team with the necessary data to construct these using 3D Studio Max, AutoCAD, and research tools.

Now we can see, through a very competent and valid simulator, what happened in the attack on the Pentagon. Click here to view a video generated by the simulator. Or, click here to read the white paper.

In layman's terms the crash dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.

Plane hitting WTC (another example of crash fluid dynamics) - RealAudio Required - note how the 767 "liquifies" and flows through the WTC tower.

Please do read the information on the Perdue website yourself - I don't do it justice with my one paragraph of paraphrasing!

Pentagon photo taken by satellite on 9/07/01 - - Pentagon photo taken by satellite on 9/12/01
Image Image
(click either image for larger version) Source: Space Imaging



Eye Witness Testimony

Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to people who saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw an airliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because they looked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building, etc) to see it actually hit the building.


"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001

That's just a small smattering of people who have gone on record as seeing the plane, and the plane hit the Pentagon. I could have included the dozens of people who saw the plane, but didn't see it hit (because it went behind a bridge, a hill, or some trees), but I choose only to post the ones that sounded the most valid and actually saw the plane hit the building. (I included the one firechief who states he saw some plane wreckage during firefighting/rescue attempts.) There are most likely twenty times more that either haven't been publicly recorded as seeing the crash, or simply don't want the attention. You can't honeslty sit there and deny the witnesses, the photographs, the facts, the science, and the reality that there was a terrorist attack on the Pentagon if you look at everything available and not one single tidbit of information at a time.

911 Tape of EMV responding to the Pentagon - includes video outside and inside the building in some areas. (Real Audio Required)


Conclusion
I highly doubt that local firefighters would be involved in any sort of a coverup. I highly doubt that local police officers would be involved in any sort of a government cover up. Cops and firemen are just average Joes like you and me, who go home to the wife and kids, and just try to make a living and have a good life for their families (I have many friends in both professions - of course the firemen are usually more stable marriage-wise because of their job but that doesn't make the cops any less human than you or I). The men and women who pulled over a hundred people (dead and alive) out of that building would more likely than not have noticed somebody carrying over 60 bodies into the middle of the fire they were fighting. To say that the plane that hit the Pentagon was not filled with every single person who died in this terrorist attack (not counting the unfortunate people inside the building) is one thing and one thing only - ignorant.


Review the facts
[li] Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
[li] Rims found in building match those of a 757
[li] Small turbine engine outside is an APU
[li] Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
[li] Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
[li] Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
[li] Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
[li] Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
[li] Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
[li] Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
[li] Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
[li] Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
[li] 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage


You cannot dispute the facts, a 757 hit the Pentagon killing everyone onboard and many inside the building. It was a terrorist attack and the only fault with the government here is with their failure to prevent or stop it.



This post is part of the main AboveTopSecret.com content archive. It has been moved from the static archive and integrated with the discussion board to allow our members to comment on the material.

The content can be seen here on ATS: abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
DiggityBiggity

Post by DiggityBiggity »

Just as credible as anything I've posted that opposed this theory... so once again, let's stray from something we can't prove either way, and focus on the smoking gun... WTC building number 7... why did it fall??

Your paranoid leader

DiggityBiggity
User avatar
Shaun41178(2)
Posts: 8464
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: Ben Phelps is an alleged scammer

Post by Shaun41178(2) »

I knew diggity wasn't going to like this one bit.

Actually its much better put toghthor then the links you posted. You linked to a video that had loud violent like music playing to it with the scenes flashing by so fast you couldnt' really anylize what you were looking at before it switched to a different picture or subject. they kept that video fast paced so that you didnt' have to to sit and think about what you were looking at but just to assume taht what was put togethor is fact when its really nothing but propoganda.

And once again when real proof comes that a plane did hit, people like you try to quickly change the subject. Like you trying to talk about building number 7 falling. It had to large buildings fall on top of it. Thats why it collapsed. However no rebuttle of all the photos of plane fuselage laying everywhere.

People said they saw a plane but at the same time they were quoted as "it sounding like a missle" One more thing taken out of context to further your case. If you had a plane buzzing your head at 400 miles per hour and 100 feet over your head you would probably say it sounded like a missle too but that doesn't mean it was one.

You also insist that you can see a bomb on the bottom of one of the planes but yet you or anyone has been able to post a pic of that.

Dude There was no bomb on the bottom of any plane and a plane hit the pentagon and not a missle, and building 7 fell because 2 billion tons of steel fell on it.

Let it go dude.
FieroPhrek working on that ls4 swap for 18 years and counting now. 18 years!!!!! LOL

530 whp is greater than 312
zonyl
not really
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:58 am

Post by zonyl »

A government that can handle NOL so well, yet can pull off a near perfect conspirousy involving thousands of people... Seems unlikely.

The only thing I think we covered up (and plausible) was the shoot down of the PA plane.
EBSB52
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:30 am

Post by EBSB52 »

OK, I’ll meet you in the middle; it was a 757 with a missile pod that shot the missile and then rammed into the Pentagon.

As a lifelong acft mech, specializing in airframe structure, that info is very factual, correct and comprehensive. With that I’m not convinced either way. It is likely that it was the 757 that smashed into the Pentagon, but the conspiracy really lies within the possible knowledge that the US gov had that something was about to happen that day, or that something was impending. There was at least apathy, possibly negligence, and maybe absolute knowledge.

The US gov has done nothing but profit and benefit from 9/11 by way of shit like the Patriot Act, huge billion $ contracts and general shit-canning of the 4th and 14th.

Critiques/support of the post:

- Green primer. That stuff is used on all acft in manufacturing and maintenance. They called it zinc chromate, now I think that shit is EPA illegal so they use something else. I use that shit everyday in maintenance. I don’t know, but I would bet missile manufacturers use it in the production of missiles.

- How tall is the acft with gear up, on its belly? It is at least 35 feet? How tall was the hole in the building? 13 feet 6 inches; I find that suspect. If the tail was weak/vulnerable, as illustrated, where was it? It should have just broke off and laid there on the ground.

- Good point on the 1/3 lower structure being most of the strength of the airframe, as the floor water line is at that point and it is one of the strongest lateral lines of the acft. However, these acft have heavy circumferential frames every 12-18 inches, so there are other structural members that are significant. The nose is extremely well reinforced. Any door areas are extremely built with stepped doublers and tripplers. The window area has a window belt made of usually 7075T6 aluminum that is often .200 thick or more. The aft pressure bulkhead is extremely strong too.

The most important aspect that the structure would have tried like hell to stay together is that it is monocoque in design. Monocoque structures rely on each other for accumulative strength and support each other, so even weak area’s stress is carried by heavier ones.

So I conclude by standing firmly on the fence.


DISCLAIMER
By stating these assertions I’m not being sarcastic or “shittyâ€
DiggityBiggity

Post by DiggityBiggity »

Shaun41178(2) wrote:I knew diggity wasn't going to like this one bit.



And once again when real proof comes that a plane did hit, people like you try to quickly change the subject. Like you trying to talk about building number 7 falling. It had to large buildings fall on top of it. Thats why it collapsed. However no rebuttle of all the photos of plane fuselage laying everywhere.


Dude There was no bomb on the bottom of any plane and a plane hit the pentagon and not a missle, and building 7 fell because 2 billion tons of steel fell on it.

Let it go dude.
Actually.. building 7 was not hit by the falling towers... building 5 and 6 were... building 7 was the furthest away from the collapsing towers. It had two very localized fires, and Larry Silverstein admitted the building was pulled on national T.V. on a PBS documentary "America Rebuilds"

On the video with the pentagon, I was not the original poster of that video, I just commented on it. The plane hitting the Pentagon is a heated issue, with plenty to debate, and to many buts and ifs. However, building number 7 is not a diversion from the Pentagon, it's just another piece of evidence in a huge pie. However, it is the true smoking gun.

Your paranoid leader

DiggityBiggity
EBSB52
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:30 am

Post by EBSB52 »

[quote="EBSB52"]OK, I’ll meet you in the middle; it was a 757 with a missile pod that shot the missile and then rammed into the Pentagon.

As a lifelong acft mech, specializing in airframe structure, that info is very factual, correct and comprehensive. With that I’m not convinced either way. It is likely that it was the 757 that smashed into the Pentagon, but the conspiracy really lies within the possible knowledge that the US gov had that something was about to happen that day, or that something was impending. There was at least apathy, possibly negligence, and maybe absolute knowledge.

The US gov has done nothing but profit and benefit from 9/11 by way of shit like the Patriot Act, huge billion $ contracts and general shit-canning of the 4th and 14th.

Critiques/support of the post:

- Green primer. That stuff is used on all acft in manufacturing and maintenance. They called it zinc chromate, now I think that shit is EPA illegal so they use something else. I use that shit everyday in maintenance. I don’t know, but I would bet missile manufacturers use it in the production of missiles.

- How tall is the acft with gear up, on its belly? It is at least 35 feet? How tall was the hole in the building? 13 feet 6 inches; I find that suspect. If the tail was weak/vulnerable, as illustrated, where was it? It should have just broke off and laid there on the ground.

- Good point on the 1/3 lower structure being most of the strength of the airframe, as the floor water line is at that point and it is one of the strongest lateral lines of the acft. However, these acft have heavy circumferential frames every 12-18 inches, so there are other structural members that are significant. The nose is extremely well reinforced. Any door areas are extremely built with stepped doublers and tripplers. The window area has a window belt made of usually 7075T6 aluminum that is often .200 thick or more. The aft pressure bulkhead is extremely strong too.

The most important aspect that the structure would have tried like hell to stay together is that it is monocoque in design. Monocoque structures rely on each other for accumulative strength and support each other, so even weak area’s stress is carried by heavier ones.

So I conclude by standing firmly on the fence.


DISCLAIMER
By stating these assertions I’m not being sarcastic or “shittyâ€
User avatar
Aaron
I just wanna ride my motorcycle
Posts: 5957
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:15 am
Contact:

Post by Aaron »

I never realized there was any doubt...

So, is there?

What is(are) the other theory(s)?

It was caught on Pentagon Security cameras hitting the building, is this not proof enough?
88GT 3.4 DOHC Turbo
Gooch wrote:Way to go douche. You are like a one-man, fiero-destroying machine.
User avatar
crzyone
JDM Power FTW
Posts: 4654
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:40 am
Location: Whitecourt, Alberta, Canada

Post by crzyone »

It was obviously a 757 that hit the pentagon. I can't believe the lame ass conspiracies that say it was a missile....

A jet engine isn't as heavy and strong as you guys might think it is. I work with turbines, the combustors are fairly thin walled and the compressor and turbine sections are also very thin metal. Turbines don't operate on extreme pressure so they don't have to be very heavily built. The highest pressure in a turbine engine is the outlet of the compressor section, and the compressed air isn't that high of pressure. Then the fuel is burned in the combustor, it accelerates the gasses but does not increase pressure, and the high velocity gasses spin the turbine blades.

The engines won't make the impact you think they would. They are mostly hollow, and thin steel. Hitting a solid concrete wall would obliterate the engine and maybe make a small hole in the concrete.

Crash a car going 350mph into the pentagon, I doubt it would make much of a dent either, and the car is much heavier built than a jet engine.
EBSB52
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:30 am

Post by EBSB52 »

crzyone wrote: It was obviously a 757 that hit the pentagon. I can't believe the lame ass conspiracies that say it was a missile....

A jet engine isn't as heavy and strong as you guys might think it is. I work with turbines, the combustors are fairly thin walled and the compressor and turbine sections are also very thin metal. Turbines don't operate on extreme pressure so they don't have to be very heavily built. The highest pressure in a turbine engine is the outlet of the compressor section, and the compressed air isn't that high of pressure. Then the fuel is burned in the combustor, it accelerates the gasses but does not increase pressure, and the high velocity gasses spin the turbine blades.

The engines won't make the impact you think they would. They are mostly hollow, and thin steel. Hitting a solid concrete wall would obliterate the engine and maybe make a small hole in the concrete.

Crash a car going 350mph into the pentagon, I doubt it would make much of a dent either, and the car is much heavier built than a jet engine.
There was once common thinking that the world was flat, so lets be intelligent and not make assumptions. Also, the words, "proof" and, "fact" are also words that are eaten. Science generally doesn't use these words, whereas religion might be motre inclined to do so. Medicine is now finding that women can vary the number eggs that a woman can produce in her lifetime, whereas common thinking before was that there was a predetermined number of them at birth, hence a late bloomer of puberty would be fertile for more years before menopause. Medicine is now debunking that logic.

Science doesn't proove things but attemots to disprove them so we can eliminate them from possibility. If they cannot dispoven various elements, then the assertions are considered theories with various degrees of relevance. Bottom line in science is that everything is up for grabs and to say that something is proven is absolutley unscientific, even if it turns out to be probable.

It was obviously a 757 that hit the pentagon. I can't believe the lame ass conspiracies that say it was a missile....


And there were WMD's, no doubt. If you were there and you were an objective person I might consider that assertion credible, but since neither are true I dismiss both.

A jet engine isn't as heavy and strong as you guys might think it is. I work with turbines, the combustors are fairly thin walled and the compressor and turbine sections are also very thin metal. Turbines don't operate on extreme pressure so they don't have to be very heavily built. The highest pressure in a turbine engine is the outlet of the compressor section, and the compressed air isn't that high of pressure. Then the fuel is burned in the combustor, it accelerates the gasses but does not increase pressure, and the high velocity gasses spin the turbine blades.

And titanium isn't very heavy, but it has corrosion properties and high strength to weight attributes. I'm not saying that turbojet / turbofan engine cases are constructed of titanium, but I don't accept the argument that low weight/thin gauge = weak.

What is the skin thinkness of an SR71 that can travel Mach 3+? Construction engineering makes possible the use of lighter/thinner gauge materials. How about this, why is it that most acft crashes yield an engine laying around in pretty recognizable condition? I'm not talking the UPU either, but the flight engines.

Also, an engines gross weight is massive. I don't know the number, but I'm guessing at least 5k lbs for a 757. BTW, I'm an AP/IA/Pilot, so give me empirical numbers/weights w/o bullshit. I think we know turbojet/fan engines are very well constructed and survive crashes with at least recognition.

The engines won't make the impact you think they would. They are mostly hollow, and thin steel.

Steel is one of the heaviest (most dense) metals on earth, so what is your point? BTW, what is the engine case made of? What are the turbine blades made of? I think they are somewhat exotic metals or an alloy that makes them exotic with forging and heat tempering that make the materials hard as fuck.

The engines won't make the impact you think they would. They are mostly hollow, and thin steel. Hitting a solid concrete wall would obliterate the engine and maybe make a small hole in the concrete.

The shaft is hard shit that is pretty dense and fair diameter. Again, most crashes yield an engine that is recognizable.

Crash a car going 350mph into the pentagon, I doubt it would make much of a dent either, and the car is much heavier built than a jet engine.

That's kind of apples/cadillacs. A jet engine is much harder than a car made of plastic and mild steel. I totally disagree with that statement.


Again, I'm not saying this was a conspiracy and that the 757 didn't really hit the Pentagon. I think the best place to look for conspiracies is with the chimp and the elitist MF's that make this country crap. I think there was at least general knowledge of this event, and possibly absolute knowledge.
User avatar
crzyone
JDM Power FTW
Posts: 4654
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:40 am
Location: Whitecourt, Alberta, Canada

Post by crzyone »

Say a turbine does weigh 5k pounds. Its not a rigid object, and at 350mph hitting a concrete wall, its going to flatten like a pop can, or crumple like a car hitting a wall. Doesn't matter what its made of, titanium and steel become pretty pliable with that much kinetic energy.

I agree, in most crashes a turbine remains fairly intact, but mosh crashes don't involve hitting 5 foot thick concrete walls.

People saw a jet hit the pentagon. There is a hole in the pentagon. There are a bunch of dead people that were on that flight. Why do some people have to immediatly question the facts? I've seen the conspiracy theory on the pentagon, their facts are selective.

Another thing, does it matter wether it was a jet or a missile? The US government and media would still blame it on terrorists and still go to war.
DiggityBiggity

Post by DiggityBiggity »

Aaron wrote:I never realized there was any doubt...

So, is there?

What is(are) the other theory(s)?

It was caught on Pentagon Security cameras hitting the building, is this not proof enough?
I wrote an entire blog about this subject on my myspace account... check it out if you want... I still think building 7 is the more important piece to the puzzle... but this raises questions.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... 3556962921
Kohburn
FierHo
Posts: 4748
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:15 am
Location: Maryland on the bay
Contact:

Post by Kohburn »

crzyone wrote:People saw a jet hit the pentagon. There is a hole in the pentagon. There are a bunch of dead people that were on that flight. Why do some people have to immediatly question the facts? I've seen the conspiracy theory on the pentagon, their facts are selective.
people believe what they want to believe - and it makes it a lot easier for them to disregard the information when they don't grasp the mechanics/physics behind the end result.

it was a plane..

if there is a conspiracy to be had it should be did the goverment set the whole thing up to justify going to war.
User avatar
Aaron
I just wanna ride my motorcycle
Posts: 5957
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:15 am
Contact:

Post by Aaron »

diggitybiggity wrote:
Aaron wrote:I never realized there was any doubt...

So, is there?

What is(are) the other theory(s)?

It was caught on Pentagon Security cameras hitting the building, is this not proof enough?
I wrote an entire blog about this subject on my myspace account... check it out if you want... I still think building 7 is the more important peice to the puzzle... but this raises questions.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... 3556962921
I feel like an idiot for having read that.

The tape that shows the plane hitting is from a servailance camera. Having dealt a lot with these with OSU Police, they don't flow smoothly. The chop, much liek a flash movie. The small tape I saw of the crash showed the plane going into the building, and yes, it was chopy, I'd be worried if it wasn't. This is as much proof as you can ask for.

I mean good try, but your efforts would be much better focused on the conspiracy that we never landed on the moon.
User avatar
crzyone
JDM Power FTW
Posts: 4654
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:40 am
Location: Whitecourt, Alberta, Canada

Post by crzyone »

Diggity... Your conspiracy blog blows my mind...

You really think the WTC came down with controlled explosives? Dude.

The planes hit the buildings, the force of the crash blew the insulation off of the support beams. The jet fuel burned inside the building, heating the metal to the point that it couldn't support the weight of the building above it.

The buildings were designed to take the IMPACT of an airplant hitting them, but were not designed to deal with the heat from fully fueled jets.

Building #7 is suspicious, and the 4th airplane is suspicious. The rest is pretty self explanatory.

Kohburn, thats what I think as well. The conspiracy is who arranged the attacks, if there is any conspiracy at all.
The Dark Side of Will
Peer Mediator
Posts: 15629
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
Contact:

Post by The Dark Side of Will »

What about the decades old conspiracy to gradually reduce the quality of American public education to make people sufficiently gullible that they'll believe whatever they hear about conspiracy theories?
The Dark Side of Will
Peer Mediator
Posts: 15629
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:13 pm
Location: In the darkness, where fear and knowing are one
Contact:

Post by The Dark Side of Will »

EBSB52 wrote:- How tall is the acft with gear up, on its belly? It is at least 35 feet? How tall was the hole in the building? 13 feet 6 inches; I find that suspect. If the tail was weak/vulnerable, as illustrated, where was it? It should have just broke off and laid there on the ground.

The most important aspect that the structure would have tried like hell to stay together is that it is monocoque in design. Monocoque structures rely on each other for accumulative strength and support each other, so even weak area’s stress is carried by heavier ones.
Exactly because it's a monocoque, it broke into thousands of pieces. It's design to take 3-4 G's vertically and maybe 2 laterally. Longitudinally it just has to withstand the force of an air stream at 500 kts. It's like tissue paper when you throw it against steel reinforced concrete at 400 kts.

Compute the density of that aircraft, compare that to the densities of steel and concrete and you'll see that there really won't be much left of an aircraft after it strikes a building built like the pentagon.
DiggityBiggity

Post by DiggityBiggity »

crzyone wrote:Diggity... Your conspiracy blog blows my mind...

You really think the WTC came down with controlled explosives? Dude.

The planes hit the buildings, the force of the crash blew the insulation off of the support beams. The jet fuel burned inside the building, heating the metal to the point that it couldn't support the weight of the building above it.

The buildings were designed to take the IMPACT of an airplant hitting them, but were not designed to deal with the heat from fully fueled jets.

Building #7 is suspicious, and the 4th airplane is suspicious. The rest is pretty self explanatory.

Kohburn, thats what I think as well. The conspiracy is who arranged the attacks, if there is any conspiracy at all.
I'm glad you agree building seven is suspicious... this is my question to you... did you FULLY read the blogs and watch all the videos and visit the links... did you see Larry Silverstein admitting it was blown up? Did you watch that??? Do you see the insurance scandal??? What about one of the engineers of the towers themselves, on public T.V., saying these planes were meant to take hits from severel airplanes? How did they collapse so perfectly?

If you've fully watched every video that I've listed, visited every link, and listened to every sound clip, and still think I'm nuts... so be it, we'll agree to disagree...

Your paranoid leader

Diggity"That's my story and I'm sticking to it"Biggity
User avatar
Shaun41178(2)
Posts: 8464
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: Ben Phelps is an alleged scammer

Post by Shaun41178(2) »

Did you know that there was a consipiracy as to why the titanic sank?

yes its true. See the Wright brothers and investors had a lot of money invested into the future of aviation. However the shipping and boating was how many of the travelors of that time got from place to place over long distances of water. They were afraid that they would lose a lot of money if flight didnt' take off so to speak as a method of mass transit.

So the wright brothers strategically planted a crude bomb(some beleive dynamite) near the bow of the boat with a timer set on it. YES THERE WAS NO ICEBURG!!! The bomb went off and the rest is of course history. After that people stopped taking large cruise liners to cross the atlantic and more people beleived flying was better. Of course after that the airline industry started to pop up for commercial use. The wright brothers and all the investers made a ton of money at he expense of several thousand lives and of course the Transatlantic liner industry.

The reason why people beleive this is because when we were finally able to dive deep enough to check out the titanic, the people found no ice! Thast right no ice was found in the gapping hole in the boat or around the sides or it anywhere. It couldnt' have been an iceburg because there was no evidence of it anywhere. No signs it ever hit!! So thats why it had to have been a bomb

















:angel:
DiggityBiggity

Post by DiggityBiggity »

:thumbleft:

Your paranoid leader

Diggity"We need to remove the warning labels from household products, and let Darwinism weed the morons out"Biggity
Post Reply