A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sounds legit,cheers man.

Just one question based on the version of events that was thrust down the world's throats.

The wings of the 'planes' that hit WTC1 and 2 were apparently made of such strong material that they sliced straight through the steel columns of the buildings.
Yet a similar 'plane' that hit the Pentagon had wings made of something so fragile they disintegrated on impact and barely damaged the concrete or broke the windows.

Surely they can't have it both ways?

By their own evidence one of the events is clearly fake...If not both

a reply to: SB1969

On closer inspection of pics at the WTC, it appears that the columns weren't cut by the wings. It only looks that way because the flimsy aluminium cladding on the exterior walls was destroyed/removed at the points of impact leaving a crude silhouette of the aircraft's width. The heavier & stronger part of the planes (engine-body-engine) smashed through by breaking the column connections bending the columns inward. It's all in the pictures that abound on the net.

Pentagon was a different construction but the plane smashed through in much the same way with the outer wings totally destroyed on impact (alloy confetti).

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: pale5218

unless it went stealth

It's called flying low.....

If they turned off their transponder, TCAS etc, then it is pure radar and altitude will affect that.

Sure, in many instances this would have a huge affect but this is so close to the radar main bang it couldn't get low enough to hide.

Case in point , AAL77 had transponder off and was tracked so primary was being picked up.

The red dots around the DCA is ground clutter so in this scenario going low would not be low enough.

a reply to: Charly182

I did meet the families of those on that plane, so don't even go there DB.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
This is... Mega.

Can you explain why exactly this rules out the missile hypothesis?

Jets are missiles.

This is all very nice and detailed, but could you explain how the wings and rolls royce engines didn't make impact mark on the building? Could you explain where all of the luggage and bodies went? Can you explain the federal agents outside of the building dropping "evidence"?

originally posted by: brigand
This is all very nice and detailed, but could you explain how the wings and rolls royce engines didn't make impact mark on the building? Could you explain where all of the luggage and bodies went? Can you explain the federal agents outside of the building dropping "evidence"?

"This is all very nice and detailed" but hasn't bothered reading the previous page

a reply to: mrthumpy

You are correct, I didn't read the 16 pages prior to my post but I did read the OP.

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: pale5218

Wrong. I asked a captain at the airport waiting for a flight. He actually answered my question. I asked if a 757 could be brought down from 8000 feet to 30 feet off the ground at speeds claimed by the official report. He laughed and said the airframe could not handle those stresses. Remember the plane was supposedly going so fast it disintegrated the passenger seats and most of the plane. All BS. The hole in the wall is too small. One small hole made by the body of the aircraft? Please. The engines alone are like bowling balls hanging on the wings. Those alone would pile through cement before a hollow tube of aluminum. Force=Mass x Acceleration. What planet did you test your physics on? And if you question my numbers look at the hole in the picture. Actually looks as if the hole is ground level up.

Well like I said I'm not a pilot but those speeds aren't outside the operating speed of this aircraft.

I didn't test any physics, not part of the thread but if I did it would be on Earth

If you read the FDR analysis of Stutt and Legge, you find out that by their analysis, AA77 was almost 100 knots over Vmo as it came across the lawn. That is well outside, impossibly outside, the operating speed of the aircraft.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: pale5218

Wrong. I asked a captain at the airport waiting for a flight. He actually answered my question. I asked if a 757 could be brought down from 8000 feet to 30 feet off the ground at speeds claimed by the official report. He laughed and said the airframe could not handle those stresses. Remember the plane was supposedly going so fast it disintegrated the passenger seats and most of the plane. All BS. The hole in the wall is too small. One small hole made by the body of the aircraft? Please. The engines alone are like bowling balls hanging on the wings. Those alone would pile through cement before a hollow tube of aluminum. Force=Mass x Acceleration. What planet did you test your physics on? And if you question my numbers look at the hole in the picture. Actually looks as if the hole is ground level up.

Well like I said I'm not a pilot but those speeds aren't outside the operating speed of this aircraft.

I didn't test any physics, not part of the thread but if I did it would be on Earth

If you read the FDR analysis of Stutt and Legge, you find out that by their analysis, AA77 was almost 100 knots over Vmo as it came across the lawn. That is well outside, impossibly outside, the operating speed of the aircraft.

I think you're confusing Vmo and Vne

a reply to: Zaphod58

What? gee whilikers zaphod, hollow core??? 6 tons thrust irrelevant? hunnnnnh???? RR engines 33,250 lbf/ by 2000 is about 8.5 tons thrust, and the alleged camel jockey flying it was pedal to the metal...now if my engineering consultants are on the job, that is going to be pushing a hole into the concrete Pentagon facade at point of impact.

Yes, if a jetliner was around doing that speed, people would be hollaring bout that sight....

It would grab some attention....and we'd probably have footage of it.....and some witness would have crapped his pants and fell over at the sighting of jetliner haulin buns lookin like a friggin bolt of lightning makin like a mad Tasmanian devil through the metroplex, huh!

The airliners we see around town are doing a closely controlled 175 coz they have no brakes

Did you know the wings come off a 737 at 575 knots or so

a reply to: darkstar57

No it's not. The actual engine itself is very small. And extremely fragile. You should try learning about them, instead of just being sarcastic as hell, but I know sarcasm is so much more fun.

The turbines in those engines are going to have shattered when the debris from the wall went through them, and when they did, that 6 ton engine was going to come apart in a million pieces.

a reply to: GBP/JPY

You act like they were flying at 50 feet over downtown Washington at 600 mph. They were only at low altitude for the last bit of the flight and people DID notice it.

a reply to: SB1969

Like a knife thru butter.

Of course the pilot of a Military aircraft in what could've been a govt operation said he saw what supports the official story.

a reply to: DickBrisket

Ey DB DB

Did they arrive to the same conclusion as the official report?

Don't think so

a reply to: Salander

But wait. You claimed that the FDR was faked. You can't have it both ways. Either it was fake, and the data doesn't matter, or it's real, and the data is right.

In fact, here's a quote from you in another thread:

Bad news here. The FDR for AA77 was not assigned to an airframe, as delivered by the NTSB and analyzed by Dennis Cimino. Not only was the FDR not assigned to an airframe, it contained all sorts of silly details showing it to be fabricated. FYI Cimino worked in the electronics field, including Navy Combat Systems, radar, ECM. He was an FDR specialist working for Smiths Aerospace.

All the facts show there was no airliner, no AA77, at the pentagon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So if the data was fake and there was no airliner, what does the speed matter?

a reply to: SB1969

Column section knocked out of WTC 1 lying in street

sites.google.com...