Piece of Flight 77 in Smithsonian?

Well here's a supposed piece of flight 77 that was ripped off from clipping one of the light poles, and the story behind it.

americanhistory.si.edu...

But I find it a little bazaar that a 22"x15" piece of the plane got into this woman's car and she doesn't have a clue how it got there? It was traveling at 530mph so don't you think it may make some kind of audio announcement as is slammed into the passenger compartment of a car that SHE WAS IN? How the heck could this happen?

At some point I opted for quiet and turned off all the noise except the radio in my kitchen. Then I went to my car and faced that piece of the plane that was in the back seat. It appeared to be a piece of the tail. There was no metal on it and it was very lightweight -- all plastic and fiberglass. It was 22" long and 15" wide. I have no idea how it got into my car because I do not remember seeing any rubble flying around while I was at the crash site. I assume that it dropped in through the sunroof or flipped in through a window. The plane piece consisted of a layer of white paint, and layers of yellow and gray fiberglass as well as a thin brown corrugated material.

Plus- Read her description of how the plane approached;

I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me.

If this were true, then how could the plane hit poles that were @ 30' high? To top it all off this piece of the plane is described to be from the tail, which is BEHIND the wings, so how could the tail get hit by a light pole @ 80' in the air, yet the wing didn't take it out beforehand?

She also ran over a conveyor belt-like roller with pins that I guess didn't end up puncturing her tire.

As I began to drive, I heard a crunching sound (like driving on gravel) and I saw a piece of metal on the road about the size of a softball (it looked like a small conveyer belt-like roller with pins.) I remember thinking that I could puncture my tires - but in that same thought, I vowed to keep driving, even if I had to ride home on the tire rims.

Can we prove that this is an "ACTUAL" tail piece of a 757 as this woman states? How the heck does she know it is from the tail if she doesn't even know how it got in her car in the first place?

And in closing I would just like to add that isn't it quite ironic that this piece of ??? would end up in the Smithsonian without it being proven to come from flight 77? No where does it mention that the FBI, AA employees, NTSB, or anyone at all inspected this artifact. RIGHT!

Feeling that it was her patriotic duty to preserve the fragment as a relic, she crafted a special box and lined it with red, white, and blue material.

Does this mean that I can get a piece of old wood, put it in a nice box depicting scenes of the great flood, and tell them that it is a piece of Noah's Arc? And they will be happy to place it in a glass case right next to hers. What a joke!

Please help me with this everybody. Can someone please tell me how a National Museum would just take this woman's word because I can't find any mention anywhere that this was verified by any government agency!!! I've looked around Smithsonian web sites, but I still haven't found any mention of who actually officially stated that this is indeed a piece of AA flight 77's tail.

To many holes in this statment who else think the same thing.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by El Che]

It would seem like the 'chain of evidence' was broken, making this piece questionable evidence.......unless a piece from the site could be matched perfectly to it, I'd be very skeptical.

I guess the noise of a low flying plane might cause one not to hear the chunk that fell, but surely it would damage her car enought to be noticed. ( she did realize she'd driven over something in the road, after all.)

Her sunroof would have to be pretty large for it to fall right in, and actually land in the back seat......if anything that size fell thru mine, it would land on my head!!

Surely if this piece of debris was traveling at the same speed as the aircraft wouldn't it cause some pretty serious damage to the interior of the vehicle as well?

She has comitted a felony by removing evidence from a crime scene if her story is true.

She should be arrested for not levaing it as it was and calling authorities.

It appeared to be a piece of the tail.

How TF would the TAIL have hit a pole if the wings were intact... This story sucks.

Originally posted by frayed1
It would seem like the 'chain of evidence' was broken, making this piece questionable evidence.......unless a piece from the site could be matched perfectly to it, I'd be very skeptical.

I guess the noise of a low flying plane might cause one not to hear the chunk that fell, but surely it would damage her car enought to be noticed. ( she did realize she'd driven over something in the road, after all.)

Her sunroof would have to be pretty large for it to fall right in, and actually land in the back seat......if anything that size fell thru mine, it would land on my head!!

I totally agree! There would be damage, a very loud crash, fragments of this artifact broken off & tossed around the passenger compartment that she would have seen. I've had bugs & cigarette butts, etc. that have come thru windows & sun roofs over the years, with the radio blasting, speeding down the highway and even these small items are pretty noticeable entering the vehicle. . .

Still the overwhelming question for me still lies in the fact that this thing got into the Smithsonian w/o anybody verifying it? Shouldn't the government look into this & make sure this woman is telling the truth?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
She has comitted a felony by removing evidence from a crime scene if her story is true.

She should be arrested for not levaing it as it was and calling authorities.

Technically you are quite right, but I can see how an amateur could make mistakes & not follow proper protocols of investigation via ignorance, but even if this is so, and she is innocent. . .

Shouldn't our government step in and say, "Wait a minute. We have to inspect this artifact because one, it is involved with the greatest terror attack in history, and two, if she's not telling the truth, then they can throw her butt in jail!"

But NOOOOO! They just take her word for it, realize it will be a touching rememberance sitting there in the Smithsonian, and place it there for all the world to see. "Look daddy, here's part of the plane that those bad men flew into the Pentagon."

HEY FBI- Here's a thought. . . Everybody got out of their cars, including her. How do they know someone didn't PLANT it in her vehicle? She herself could not dispute this argument because she has admitted she doesn't know how it got there in the first place! Again- What a JOKE!

spelling

[edit on 13-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

It appeared to be a piece of the tail.

How TF would the TAIL have hit a pole if the wings were intact... This story sucks.

I can't believe the reporter taking down her story in 2001 didn't say exactly what you just said. As soon as I read it this morning I was doing the same thing.

I have e-mailed the following to the Smithsonian's American History Museum;

To whom it may concern- ( possibly William Yeingst? )

I was reading about the piece of flight 77's tail section that was donated by
Penny Elgas. I would like to find out more about the history of this piece for
some research I am conducting. Who can I contact, or where do I search
to find answers to the following questions?

Has anyone from American Airlines, the NTSB, Boeing, or any other group
verified that this is indeed a piece of tail section from a Boeing 757-223? Even
more specifically, from AA Flight 77? Are there any publicly available records
that would prove any actions like these were conducted?

The reason I am asking is that I cannot find any information concerning these
questions on your site, or anywhere else. I would expect that this research would
have to be conducted prior to the Smithsonian accepting the piece into the museum.

Any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you-

I'll let you know if I get a response. . .

nice work Pac.

I still think she should be arrested and charged.

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Shouldn't the government look into this & make sure this woman is telling the truth?

You're joking right? Because they've done a bang up job so far with the rest of the more important investigations.

My intuition tells me no, the curators of the Smithsonian probably don't go to any lengths to authenticate their collection.

Even more importantly, 757-200 parts are readily available at most junk yards.

I have a project at the Smithsonian....not the american history building but. Maybe I'll ask a few questions the next time I'm over there.

BTW, I would hope they do authenticate their collection. If not, who's to stop me from bringing in a couple of bones and claim.....missing link....now give me my millions.

Originally posted by Griff
I have a project at the Smithsonian....not the american history building but. Maybe I'll ask a few questions the next time I'm over there.

BTW, I would hope they do authenticate their collection. If not, who's to stop me from bringing in a couple of bones and claim.....missing link....now give me my millions.

PROPS Griff! Please let us know if you find anything.

This is my whole concern also. I would be outraged to find out there's no authentication process. When it comes right down to it, wouldn't they be breaking the law by charging people money to see unresearched artifacts & documents?
We pay taxes for those buildings & employees to exist, and last I checked, we're not supposed to be paying to see "The Bearded Lady"!!!

I have been looking around today & found a few different photos that maybe reveal where this artifact came from;


Take a look at the, ( I believe they're possibly flap supports? ), under the wings. Look closely on the right wing of the plane, at the front portion of the outter most one about 2/3rd's of the way towards the wingtip. Right where the two pieces meet when the flaps are extended;


It appears to be very similar in shape, and the rivet holes appear to be in the right place. It's just hard to compare size in the two photos obviously.

This would make a heck of a lot more sense than coming from the tail section like Penny Elgas puts fourth. It is much more likely for this section of the plane to strike light poles than the tail. I'm gonna see if I can contact someone at the airlines to ask their opinion.

So what do you think? Comments?

spelling
really bad spelling!
[edit on 14-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

[edit on 14-9-2006 by 2PacSade]

OT FYi - If the flaps were in the position that they are in that photo, the plane would not have flown 500mph+ level... It would have climbed VERY, VERY quickly. In the photo, the flaps are in takeoff/landing position.

I do not know if that would be a shroud for aerodynamics or what, but if it is actually a support, it would not be made out of fiberglass...

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
OT FYi - If the flaps were in the position that they are in that photo, the plane would not have flown 500mph+ level... It would have climbed VERY, VERY quickly. In the photo, the flaps are in takeoff/landing position.

I do not know if that would be a shroud for aerodynamics or what, but if it is actually a support, it would not be made out of fiberglass...

He's talking about the flap cones, and they are made of the composite fibreglass...

A flap cone could easily have been damaged even in cruising mode (flaps up); the tail could also have been damaged by the lamp posts: when lamp post is hit @ 460 knots ... is it possible some of the lamp post might get launched upward?

Please see this earlier post that addresses another attempt to discredit Elgas:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
OT FYi - If the flaps were in the position that they are in that photo, the plane would not have flown 500mph+ level... It would have climbed VERY, VERY quickly. In the photo, the flaps are in takeoff/landing position.

I do not know if that would be a shroud for aerodynamics or what, but if it is actually a support, it would not be made out of fiberglass...

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the flaps were in this position during the final approach. I'm merely trying to ID where this piece of the plane is from exactly. No matter what position the flaps were in, I think this lowest point on the wing could be a prime candidate for initally striking the poles.

The flaps very well could have not been extended in the least. My point is that doesn't this seem like a much more plausable contact point for the inbound aircraft to strike 30' light poles?

Here's a thought though. . . Maybe some flight experts can help with this. . .

With respect to the WIG anomaly, and the wings striking a few metal poles along the way, would the flaps have to be adjusted in any way to compensate & maintain the desired flight path? Just a thought-

Originally posted by vor75

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
OT FYi - If the flaps were in the position that they are in that photo, the plane would not have flown 500mph+ level... It would have climbed VERY, VERY quickly. In the photo, the flaps are in takeoff/landing position.

I do not know if that would be a shroud for aerodynamics or what, but if it is actually a support, it would not be made out of fiberglass...

He's talking about the flap cones, and they are made of the composite fibreglass...

A flap cone could easily have been damaged even in cruising mode (flaps up); the tail could also have been damaged by the lamp posts: when lamp post is hit @ 460 knots ... is it possible some of the lamp post might get launched upward?

Please see this earlier post that addresses another attempt to discredit Elgas:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanx for the clarification. The skin of these supports is what I was referring to. Yes the tail could have been damaged by the light posts but don't you think it would have to be from debris from the wing striking first? ( With respect to the obvious flat / on the deck trajectory of the approach?