9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

The hole that was punched into the side of the Pentagon has the same dimensions as if you where to sit a 75 in the grass with its landing gear folded up. Considering the aircraft was travelling at nearly top speed, it would not surprise me if the tail were ejected. Now, if that was the tail, then what is that sticking off of the back of the fueselage?

Example.

Let's say that you are driving a car at 100 miles per hour towards a brick wall. Now that wall is stationary, it's not gonna move unless something heavy hits it. When your car hits that wall, it's going to wad up like a piece of aluminum or explode into pieces. Good case, you might be in and I.C.U. for a while, worst and most likely case, you are dead right there(D.R.T.).

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
So where is the right wing and engine?

I know I said I was going to get uninvolved, but this just cracks me up so bad…

So again, what happens to an aircraft engine that has been severely damaged? What is it constructed to do? How does it exit the aircraft?

As has been quite thoroughly shown above, an engine is designed to exit over the wing as it disintegrates, not still be sitting all nice, full size and pretty below the wing. What is so difficult to understand about this particular aspect of the situation?

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
And this doesn't even look like the correct angle/trajectory, or the right height for that black mark that was supposed to come from a 757 left wing.

It’s most certainly incorrect. The reason that it comes out this way is because you are trying to fit in a graphic so that the body passes directly over the spools, which was most likely not the case, and still shows that engine attached under the wing, which would not be the case.

Ps… did it say “Aircraft Right” or what? There is a difference you know since when you marshal an aircraft and are facing it your directions are opposite of those in the cockpit. Its best to refer to the wing by engine number so you don’t make any mistakes on that aspect. Personally I think you have the your rights confused.

Originally posted by ChapaevII
So, now I have to believe you can walk up to a Boeing plane and put a hole in their jetliners with a simple screwdriver and a "good push". (Of course I apologize as this whole line ignores that the gentleman was referring to a steel and titanium engine and you are talking about the body of a jet) Should they make planes from spools then for better strength? Have you told Boeing of this flaw?

As to this ignorant remark, can you pierce a car door with one? There are areas where the spars of the frame are far enough apart that you can make the skin flex (just like your car door) by just pushing on it with your bare hand. I have personally seen a light weight aluminum baggage can slice right through that skin with little to no effort, so what do you think these heavy spools would have done?

Now are all the areas like this?
No.
It depends on how many spars are in that area and how close together they are. The areas that are exposed to the ground equipment (Passenger doors, Cargo Doors), and the bottom are far more hardened areas then many other areas of the skin.

Should they make the skin from spools?

Yeah they should, that is, if they want to loose their ability to carry passengers and freight since the skin of the aircraft would overweigh the airframe and it would never get off the ground.

You do of course understand that aircraft are built to be light weight, so they can carry as much as possible, not to survive being rammed through buildings...

Have you told Boeing of this flaw?

Nope!
No need, they already know more about it then you do!
This is an absolutely ignorant remark….

Why do you think that aircraft, both military and civilian come with “No Step” written all over them, hm?

You think that maybe its because there are spots on the skin that you can damage simply by putting your weight on it?


Well I am going to go back off and try and ignore this thread of Ignorance Embraced again, but you all have fun…




[edit on 1/30/2006 by defcon5]

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
The hole that was punched into the side of the Pentagon has the same dimensions as if you where to sit a 75 in the grass with its landing gear folded up.

You forgot to add, with the landing gear re-tracted and the engines non-existant

Did you notice how low that hole is? Hell of a pilot to hit that low and not mark the grass from the engines dragging

And Defcon I used to work on aircraft that had No Step written on them as well, guess what? We used to step all over that with no problems. They're not as flimsy as you seem to think. No Step is just a precausion, doesn't mean you're gonna put ya foot through

I bet you don't take tags off of matresses do you?

[edit on 30/1/2006 by ANOK]

Anok you used to work on Military aircraft, they are generally a bit tougher to handle being shot at. They can handle having more weight in the skin since their powerplants usually kick out way above what the load out of the aircraft is.

Still if an empty Aluminum baggage LD-3 can pierce one, then why not a heavy steel spool? You claim to have been a mechanic, don’t just argue with me for the sake of winning, in all fairness what is the skin like on a KC-109 for example? Can you just barely bump it with a tug and put a big hole in the plane? Can you push on the skin between two spars and make that skin flex?


This is what I meant referring to a “baggage can”:

www.baworldcargo.com...


Wide body aircraft. Half width lower deck container.
Compatible aircraft: Boeing 747-400 Boeing 767 Boeing 777 Boeing 747-400F Boeing 747-200F Boeing 757-200F MD11F
Volume: 150 cu.ft. (4.2cu.m.)
Tare Weight: 72kg/158lbs
Max Gross Weight: 1588kg/3493lbs
External Dimensions: 79" x 43" x 64" x 61.5" x 60.4"

Note the empty weight is only 158 LBS, yet I have seen these pierce the side of an aircraft, no problem…


This hole is from a bird strike:
www.airliners.net...

Scrapes and frame damage from a Lavratory Truck driving under the plane at low speed, the cost to fix this was over $1 Million:
www.airliners.net...

These two are from a fire truck that ROLLED, as in no power, simply rolled into a 757:
www.airliners.net...
www.airliners.net...


Here us damage most likely along the lines of what your spools would have caused:
www.airliners.net...
www.airliners.net...


Look at the damage to this engine just from overshooting a runway, they inside of the cowling is literally eaten away:
www.airliners.net...

Picture of an A-320 showing how much of the engine cowling is in fact not part of the engine.
www.airliners.net...


Again going to go be quite now...

It seems appropriate for a summary of the points raised so far.

Recently, we've had a flurry of activity because of Joe Quinn's article and a regular progression of people claiming AboveTopSecret.com is some kind of COINTELPRO operation because one popular post from one member attempts to debunk one attribute of a popularized conspiracy theory. Initially, linking to and discussion of Joe Quinn's article was disallowed because of intellectual property violations, but as a seeming show of faith, this thread was allowed. Let's see how it turned out.

First, as I've mentioned here, Joe Quinn's presentation is laced with acidic accusations and unprofessional commentary. If we are to gauge his credibility as a journalist (or even professional writer of conspiracy issues), his regular regression into caustic prose harms any credibility in his potential facts and research.

In addition to Joe Quinn's tone, we experience a few occasions of extreme exaggeration of the points raised in the "A 757 Hit The Pentagon" article, or even outright fabrication of new erroneous points. As examples, he claims CatHerder minimized the size of the 757 and implied the "wings folded up and flew inside the building". In both of these examples, no such statement or implication was written in CatHerder's post.

There are numerous other attributes of Joe Quinn's article that have been discussed in this thread that remain in doubt. Here's a short list of the more pertinent issues:

1.) Joe Quinn claims that simply because we see no damaged caused by the tail section of the 757, a 757 must not have been involved. He makes this claim without any supporting engineering or impact analysis.

2.) Joe Quinn insists the notorious cable spools are "clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft", but cannot provide any supporting photographic evidence for such a definitive statement.

3.) In one portion of Joe Quinn's article, he states that, "There appear to be no pictures of the Pentagon facade immediately after the attack that show a clear picture of the exact extent of the damage." While this is admittedly taken somewhat out of context, the statement is essentially true. With this in mind, there has been no clear answer to how Mr. Quinn can then be so certain of his analysis.

4.) Joe Quinn recognizes that items within the photographic evidence of the debris look like pieces from a large aircraft (engine and landing gear parts for example), but refuses to accept that a large aircraft struck the building. I can't fathom how this is indicative of the techniques of a professional researcher or writer.

5.) In combination with Joe Quinn's refusal to accept the evidence, and habitual exaggeration (or fabricated attribution), he claims CatHerder "categorically" asserted the photographic evidence indicated parts of a 757. This is not true. In the original piece, CatHerder constantly used phraseology like "appears to be" or "looks like".

These are but a handful of the examples of the issues with Joe Quinn's article we've discussed here in this thread. If he is to be successful in his claim that CatHerder is fraudulently attempting to present false evidence in "support of the official story", then his work must be of unimpeachable quality and accuracy. It is not.

Indeed, we find reason to doubt his altruistic motivations for writing his article. He and the website he represents are tied to a for-profit venture that relies on promoting the idea that something other than a 757 attacked the Pentagon on 9/11. His disingenuous rebuttal can now only be seen as an attempt to protect the revenue stream of misinformation.

Early in Joe Quinn's introduction, he compares the issue of the 757 to a murder investigation. This is one area where I heartily agree with him. However, when a murder investigation reaches an impasse, professional investigators will adapt by shifting tactics and approaching the mystery for different angles. We have such an impasse. It's time to shift away from the impasse of insisting we spend our time on the issue of the 757 and the Pentagon.

This recent incident on AboveTopSecret.com began as one group of conspiracy theorists (signs-of-the-times.org and the "truth movement") became angered with CatHerder's post and ATS's seeming promotion of the post. What resulted was two groups at odds, engaged in a war of words as aggressive members joined and belittled the years of work being done here. Inevitable escalation of rhetoric followed and we continue to have two divided "camps of thought".

Congratulations, you have become the COINTELPRO disinformationists you abhor. You are playing the game of "divide and conquer" that has become the operational tactic of the manipulators. You have successfully been a party to deflecting discussion and research of important issues of motive, target, and benefit.

And Joe Quinn, when you had the opportunity to elevate your topic above the pedantic and acidic rhetoric typical of "alternative media", you either could not, or did not. If you "could not" then perhaps you need to refine your craft. If you "did not", then you are playing the game and laughing at our expense.


(edit to fix typo and improve format)

[edit on 31-1-2006 by Grimm]

Originally posted by Grimm
It seems appropriate for a summary of the points raised so far.

Recently, we've had a flurry of activity because of Joe Quinn's article and a regular progression of people claiming AboveTopSecret.com is some kind of COINTELPRO operation because one popular post from one member attempts to debunk one attribute of a popularized conspiracy theory. Initially, linking to and discussion of Joe Quinn's article was disallowed because of intellectual property violations, but as a seeming show of faith, this thread was allowed. Let's see how it turned out.

First, as I've mentioned here, Joe Quinn's presentation is laced with acidic accusations and unprofessional commentary. If we are to gauge his credibility as a journalist (or even professional writer of conspiracy issues), his regular regression into caustic prose harms any credibility in his potential facts and research.

In addition to Joe Quinn's tone, we experience a few occasions of extreme exaggeration of the points raised in the "A 757 Hit The Pentagon" article, or even outright fabrication of new erroneous points. As examples, he claims CatHerder minimized the size of the 757 and implied the "wings folded up and flew inside the building". In both of these examples, no such statement or implication was written in CatHerder's post.

There are numerous other attributes of Joe Quinn's article that have been discussed in this thread that remain in doubt. Here's a short list of the more pertinent issues:

1.) Joe Quinn claims that simply because we see no damaged caused by the tail section of the 757, a 757 must not have been involved. He makes this claim without any supporting engineering or impact analysis.

2.) Joe Quinn insists the notorious cable spools are "clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft", but cannot provide any supporting photographic evidence for such a definitive statement.

3.) In one portion of Joe Quinn's article, he states that, "There appear to be no pictures of the Pentagon facade immediately after the attack that show a clear picture of the exact extent of the damage." While this is admittedly taken somewhat out of context, the statement is essentially true. With this in mind, there has been no clear answer to how Mr. Quinn can then be so certain of his analysis.

4) Joe Quinn recognizes that items within the photographic evidence of the debris look like pieces from a large aircraft (engine and landing gear parts for example), but refuses to accept that a large aircraft struck the building. I can't fathom how this is indicative of the techniques of a professional researcher or writer.

5) In combination with Joe Quinn's refusal to accept the evidence, and habitual exaggeration (or fabricated attribution), he claims CatHerder "categorically" asserted the photographic evidence indicated parts of a 757. This is not true. In the original piece, CatHerder constantly used phraseology like "appears to be" or "looks like".

These are but a handful of the examples of the issues with Joe Quinn's article we've discussed here in this thread. If he is to be successful in his claim that CatHerder is fraudulently attempting to present false evidence in "support of the official story", then his work must be of unimpeachable quality and accuracy. It is not.

Indeed, we find reason to doubt his altruistic motivations for writing his article. He and the website he represents are tied to a for-profit venture that relies on promoting the idea that something other than a 757 attacked the Pentagon on 9/11. His disingenuous rebuttal can now only be seen as an attempt to protect the revenue stream of misinformation.

Early in Joe Quinn's introduction, he compares the issue of the 757 to a murder investigation. This is one area where I heartily agree with him. However, when a murder investigation reaches an impasse, professional investigators will adapt by shifting tactics and approaching the mystery for different angles. We have such an impasse. It's time to shift away from the impasse of insisting we spend our time on the issue of the 757 and the Pentagon.

This recent incident on AboveTopSecret.com began as one group of conspiracy theorists (signs-of-the-times.org and the "truth movement") became angered with CatHerder's post and ATS's seeming promotion of the post. What resulted was two groups at odds, engaged in a war of words as aggressive members joined and belittled the years of work being done here. Inevitable escalation of rhetoric followed and we continue to have two divided "camps of thought".

Congratulations, you have become the COINTELPRO disinformationists you abhor. You are playing the game of "divide and conquer" that has become the operational tactic of the manipulators. You have successfully been a party to deflecting discussion and research of important issues of motive, target, and benefit.

And Joe Quinn, when you had the opportunity to elevate your topic above the pedantic and acidic rhetoric typical of "alternative media", you either could not, or did not. If you "could not" then perhaps you need to refine your craft. If you "did not", then you are playing the game and laughing at our expense.

you got my first ever way above top secret vote.


its about time sumbody stuck it to these f^ing inexperienced conspiracy jackass hacks.

we have too many babbling fools who watched a silly flash and become conspracy experts

any serious conspiracy website rejects these assinine disinformation topics

My son and I read your entire rebuttal last night and I must say, I was more than impressed!

Unfortunately none of the pictures worked on the posting. The pictures were not needed by myself as I am fairly knowledgeable about the events of 9-11 and knew what you were discussing, but others not so saavy may have a bit of difficulty.

I have posted you're response on other websites and will hammer it as far and wide as possible. I could not have said it all better.....but wish I could! LOL

Here's an interesting thing discovered through Google.

This website: 911research.wtc7.net... is often sourced as part of the "truth movement".

However, they promote this essay:
911research.wtc7.net...

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics

Conclusion

The idea that no 757-sized airliner crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01 is attractive to many skeptics because it contradicts a fundamental tenet of the official story, is supported by common-sense interpretations of photographs of the crash scene, and provides an explanation for the suspicious lack of physical evidence supporting the official account. Additionally, there is a substantial body of literature by no-757-crash theorists that appears to thoroughly examine the evidence. The complexity of some of this analysis may discourage other skeptics from evaluating the evidence for themselves.

As I show in this essay, many common errors in no-757-crash theories are easily exposed. Most of the no-757-crash arguments evaporate when scrutinized with attention to empirical data about the behavior of airframes in high-speed crashes, and the geometry of the Pentagon crash scene and vantage points of post-crash photographs. The remaining arguments are easily disposed of by assuming the crash was engineered, consistent with the presumed motives of the perpetrators to discredit the skeptics. Conversely, the abundant eyewitness accounts provide strong evidence for the crash of a 757 or similar aircraft.

In recent high-profile attacks on the work of 9/11 skeptics, defenders of the official story have consistently focused on the no-757-crash theory as indicative of the gullibility and incompetence of the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists." Researchers including myself have contributed to this vulnerability by endorsing this theory without either weighing all the available evidence (such as the eyewitness accounts) or considering less obvious interpretations for the paucity of physical evidence of a 757 crash. The Pentagon crash is an intriguing area of research because of its many unresolved mysteries. The promotion of theories about what hit the Pentagon in highly visible media do not advance that research but instead provide our detractors with ammunition with which to discredit us, and eclipse easily established and highly incriminating facts such as where the Pentagon was hit, the astounding failures to defend the 9/11 targets, and the obvious controlled demolition of Building 7.

Lyte/Merc/Narc... can you explain why someone writing for the "truth movement" would develop a well-written essay contrary to the no-757 proposition?

You have voted Grimm for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

There you go folks, right from the horses mouth you are getting a snow job.
Even the No-757 people are admitting that their theory falls apart under serious scrutiny and is being used for this reason right here:

911research.wtc7.net...
How the Issue Plays
I frequently encounter the opinion that, regardless of the errors underlying the Pentagon no-757-crash theory, its recent popularization and press attention can only be helpful to the cause of truth exposure because it gets more people to question the official story and explore evidence contradicting other facets of that story. Indeed, many active skeptics were introduced to the issue through material on the Pentagon crash.

As all of us on this side of the fence have said over and over this was all to push an agenda against this administration (even if possibly deserved) and much of it to sell merchandise.

Funny that his evidence in this article seems to go right along with things that us CONTELIPRO guys have been saying since day one, right down to what happened to the tail, and how the photos are deceiving in their scale and angles.
Should we count the seconds until that article is gone.

Well I made sure to save it myself before it disappears...

Originally posted by defcon5
here you go folks, right from the horses mouth you are getting a snow job.

It wasn't hard to find. It was right there in within the first ten returns on a Google search for 757 and pentagon.

Their own debunking right on the first page of returns. Wasn't that their primary gripe with CatHerder's article?

Originally posted by defcon5

I know I said I was going to get uninvolved, but this just cracks me up so bad…

Oh wow. Then you must be so wise and all knowing that we just amuse you. Make like a kit kat and gimme a break.

So again, what happens to an aircraft engine that has been severely damaged? What is it constructed to do? How does it exit the aircraft?

As has been quite thoroughly shown above, an engine is designed to exit over the wing as it disintegrates, not still be sitting all nice, full size and pretty below the wing. What is so difficult to understand about this particular aspect of the situation?

No it has not been shown. And plane wings or engines don't disintegrate. Next.

It’s most certainly incorrect. The reason that it comes out this way is because you are trying to fit in a graphic so that the body passes directly over the spools, which was most likely not the case, and still shows that engine attached under the wing, which would not be the case.

Wrong. It isn't correct. If it were correct, at that angle, we would be seeing the side of the fuselage. Since it came in at a 30-45 degree angle.

And the body did pass over the spools. Look at the satellite photo from 9/7/01.

Ps… did it say “Aircraft Right” or what? There is a difference you know since when you marshal an aircraft and are facing it your directions are opposite of those in the cockpit. Its best to refer to the wing by engine number so you don’t make any mistakes on that aspect. Personally I think you have the your rights confused.

You know exactly what I mean. Don't obfuscate.

Lyte/Merc/Narc... can you explain why someone writing for the "truth movement" would develop a well-written essay contrary to the no-757 proposition?

This is old news.

What is this reverse psychology, appeal to authority?

I don't really care what that essay said.


Next.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
No it has not been shown. And plane wings or engines don't disintegrate. Next.

Oh they don’t do they, where is this planes wings and engine that came into contact with the barrier in this footage, hm?

www.sandia.gov...

Besides you’re skirting the point which is: would a severely damaged engine still be sitting all nice and pretty under the wing as you show in your graphic?

In what direction is an engine designed to escape from an aircraft in case of catastrophic damage?

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Wrong. It isn't correct. If it were correct, at that angle, we would be seeing the side of the fuselage. Since it came in at a 30-45 degree angle.

Well I cannot really answer this since I cannot seem to wrap my mind around what you are saying here.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
And the body did pass over the spools. Look at the satellite photo from 9/7/01.

Even your site admits that the aircraft could have passed over even the tallest of those spools and still hit the building at a height of around five feet. It also states that it is impossible to tell if those spools were displaced after the fact, which is something I stated myself earlier.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
You know exactly what I mean. Don't obfuscate.

Funny, I had some ramp agents that certainly could never keep this straight, that is why I would always refer to sides by engine number. “you chalk the Number one side gear, you take number 2”. Is the report referring to the right side of the aircraft as though you are looking at it, or sitting inside it?

I have not read the report and do not have a copy so I would only be guessing at what it says.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Oh wow. Then you must be so wise and all knowing that we just amuse you. Make like a kit kat and gimme a break.

Oh did you make that up as a rap?
That is so witty and cool; I only hope that one day I can use that avatar myself…
It's so Anti-Establishment and Gangsta…

Being a Rapper must pay well for you to do that as a profession, or do you get a bit of side cash working for the government?
I mean you’re obviously not afraid that the “powers that be” might have an issue with that avatar……
Could that be because you're one of them?



[edit on 1/31/2006 by defcon5]

Did you ever consider the fact (and it is a FACT) that a piece of straw in a tornado, with winds reaching 500 mph is capable of piercing a tree?

Furthermore, a bullet ALWAYS leaves a bigger hole than the actual size of the bullet and in fact depending on the type of bullet can actually make a much more massive hole than its actual size.

My point being that a 757 jet simply should not have disintegrated and in fact should have left a much bigger hole than the alleged entry point suggests. Speed and velocity have the tendency to "harden" a projectile.

Originally posted by XenonCodex
Did you ever consider the fact (and it is a FACT) that a piece of straw in a tornado, with winds reaching 500 mph is capable of piercing a tree?

Furthermore, a bullet ALWAYS leaves a bigger hole than the actual size of the bullet and in fact depending on the type of bullet can actually make a much more massive hole than its actual size.

My point being that a 757 jet simply should not have disintegrated and in fact should have left a much bigger hole than the alleged entry point suggests. Speed and velocity have the tendency to "harden" a projectile.

Nice piece of conjecture, now here is fact…
Explain why this aircraft did not fully pierce this obstacle and leave a hole bigger then the aircraft. Yet at the same time the only pieces that survived are the two wingtips that totally missed the barricade to begin with and went flying off into the horizon.


www.sandia.gov...

Originally posted by defcon5
Oh they don’t do they?

Do you really want me to post the picture of the engine in front of the collapsed portion of the pentagon again, Defcon

You what I meant. And in what context. I was referring the pentagon impact.

And for my next trick I am going produce the professional opinion of expert witness,"the A & P mechanic"(who by the way also, was called to military crash sites to survey).

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Wrong. It isn't correct. If it were correct, at that angle, we would be seeing the side of the fuselage. Since it came in at a 30-45 degree angle.

Well I cannot really answer this since I cannot seem to wrap my mind around what you are saying here.

What do you not get? the plane came in at an angle. Supposedly smashing through the fence and generator with it's right wing. Are this void of fundamental knowledge of the Pentagon attack? Imagine the diagram plane moved a little to the right and turned(pointing) to the left.

Even your site admits that the aircraft could have passed over even the tallest of those spools and still hit the building at a height of around five feet. It also states that it is impossible to tell if those spools were displaced after the fact, which is something I stated myself earlier.

My site? Which site is that? Not mine. I don't have a site.

Whatever. I am simply saying that the plane had to pass over the spools. They were right there. But keep in mind...if the plane's body went directly over the spool. Tallest appears to be 6 ft. The engines would have been dragging along in the ground.

Oh did you make that up as a rap?
That is so witty and cool; I only hope that one day I can use the Unibomber as my avatar too…
Its so anti-government and gangsta…

Being a Rapper must pay well for you to do that as a profession, or do you get a bit of side cash from the government?
I mean you’re obviously not afraid that the “powers that be” would not care for your avatar choice after all…
Could that be because you one of them?

Did I hurt you that bad? Kleenex tissue pack...never leave home without it.

Just remember, I will be remembered by many for something they enjoyed...while you will only be remembered by your family and friends for being you.

And I also see you aren't tired of calling me "duh gubbament". Well keep on keepin' on, it just continues the idiotic odyssey you're on. And just zaps your credibility in my eyes.

Oh, so if the plane was 6 feet off the ground, and engine that hangs AT THE MOST 5 feet below the bottom of the fuselage will be scraping the ground? I've GOT to learn this new math theory.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh, so if the plane was 6 feet off the ground, and engine that hangs AT THE MOST 5 feet below the bottom of the fuselage will be scraping the ground? I've GOT to learn this new math theory.

Oh yeah my bad.

They would have been less than a foot from the ground

Wow. Big diff. Like it makes your rediculous belief any less laughable.

Nice piece of conjecture, now here is fact…
Explain why this aircraft did not fully pierce this obstacle and leave a hole bigger then the aircraft. Yet at the same time the only pieces that survived are the two wingtips that totally missed the barricade to begin with and went flying off into the horizon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was just viewing that video ten minutes ago. Interestingly, that 10 -12 foot thick wall was designed to withstand the impact and had a type of shock absorber built into it. The jet was just a fraction of the size of a loaded 757 well over 100,000 pounds difference. If anything the fact that the wing tips survived the crash is demonstrative of the fact that their should have been serious impact marks on the Pentagon from a 757.

I would love to see the face of that wall which the F4 slammed into. Got one?

i40.photobucket.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Funny, in the above picture it looks like the spools are all laying on their sides which would make them considerably lower to the ground. It appears to me like there are three on each side of the fuselage. It also seems that three of them would be displaced by the nose, and one possibly would have some contact with the engine as it was going over the wing. Two look like they would pass between the engines and the body. One appears to be missing in the photo below, perhaps it was pushed into the structure, or is in that pile of debris to the left hand side. You may also notice that the spool on the far left has its upper lip pushed down on the right side, so it must have been in contact with something.





Again though, you ABSOLUTLY continue to avoid this one little item… So one more time: what happens to an aircraft engine when it fails and exits the plane? Which direction does it head?

We both know why you keep avoiding this, because with that engine lifting up, it clears your spools (doubly so if they are laying flat like in your picture), don’t it?

But lets be frank this is really not about the truth, its about you winning an argument, isn't it?