What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GhostR1der

Or the folding wings which didn't cause damage away from the urrr... 'hole' like the wtc1 and 2s

Wings don't 'fold' back. This is another 'meme' that was started by someone on the "Truth movement" side.

No, it was started by someone of the skeptic's side.

As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane.

www.snopes.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey weedwhacker; I've decided to create a new thread that deals specifically with the flight path that the plane that approached the pentagon took; I have responded to your post there:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by scott3x


Been there, done that dude

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well, I certainly appreciate the lesson, so I will give you a star.

I put it very simply to my cousin's husband once when I was visiting about all these theories. He is an engineer with Boeing, and has worked on the electronics and safety systems developments on 757, 737s, and 747s. He basically, in simplest laymens terms, said there was nothing impossible about what the planes did. He got back to me a week later after asking a few of his colleagues in more specialized areas their opinions.

Basically, the limits set for the models listed are limits for normal, safe operation that is sustainable for long periods of flight. He said that the planes can be pushed and flown beyond the limits set for safe operation, but if this is done for prolonged periods of time, the possibility of catastrophic failure starts to increase the further beyond set safety limits you push the craft. He said basically, if the plane had been flown unsafely like that from the time it took off to the time it had crashed, given the weather conditions, he said there was a high likelyhood that it would have never reached its target, that something would have happened. However, according to information on flight 77, the plane only began to display dangerous, bad maneuvers in the final few minutes of its flight. That, he said, had a pretty low likelyhood of doing anything serious in that short a period of time.

He also said that planes, like buildings, are over-engineered and built with the likelyhood that at sometime during its service, it might be required to perform actions its not supposed to, for various reasons. They make the planes with this in mind.

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"neither"? I refer you to some of the video shots of UAL 175...long shots from the proper angles that clearly show a descent and level off JUST prior to impact.

Really? Show me the videos because I can show you many that were
not descending from quite a distance.

How about that RADAR data "Weed" are you going to deny that as well?

You seem to forget about this RADAR data and the fact that P4T and
their team of experts analysed it.

AND, even though there is no video footage of AAL 77, there IS the SSFDR. When I watch it, I see a definite pitch attitude BELOW 0 degrees.

Wow, a whole what? 5 degrees? This contradicts your statement a few
pages ago when you said the aircraft would have to be nearly nose down
to achieve the speeds, and even then you ssaid it was impossible.

Which story are you going to stick to?

I brought up dynamic pressure, to show YOU why the EAS was useless in your argument.

No YOU did not. I had been asking about structural stress AND dynamic
pressre AND air density for MANY pages.

I even asked you to stop with your SPEED CONVERSION and think about
STRUCTRUAL STRESS, DYNAMIC PRESSURE, ETC. Start at page 11
and read through my posts again.

Why should we believe you when Egypt Air broke apart at mach 0.99 and 22,000 feet?

Because your comparison to the Egypt Air crash is not relevant. TWO different scenarios. Even the altitudes are different!!!

Why NOT? It's a 767 and it has documented speeds close to (but slower)
than aircraft we are discussing. FIND ME ANOTHER SCENARIO THAT IS CLOSER!

AND WOW "Weed", the ALTITUDE IS DIFFERENT. I told you at least four
times that Egypt Air broke apart at 22,000 FEET in LESS dense air!

So what's your excuse for it breaking apart in less dense air at slower
speeds with LESS dynamic pressure acting upon it?

Also, I've pointed out that the Captain of Egypt Air, who had been back in the cabin, rushed forward and thought he was helping the First Officer pull out of a dive, when in fact the F/O was pushing FORWARD on the column.

BIg deal! They could have thrown some meat on the BBQ as well! It
doesn't matter what they were doing inside, it's the pressure acting on
the airframe that matters!

Also...you said it yourself! M.99!! Do the math, use a calculator or the E6-B manual computer....462/510 knots at near sea level is NOWHERE near Mach.99

I KNOW 510 KNOTS is NOT near mach .99 at sea level.

WE WENT OVER THIS TEN TIMES! DO I HAVE TO DRAW A PICTURE?

EDIT: Removed Comment to Weed. Inappropriate.

DYNAMIC PRESSURE!

HOW FAST DOES THE PLANE HAVE TO FLY AT ALTITUDE TO MATCH
THE SAME FORCES ACTING UPON IT AT SEA LEVEL MOVING 462/510 KNOTS!


I can't believe you're getting stars on your posts. Must be some loyal
GL's because you are contradicting yourself and STILL not understanding
the question.

I DARE you to get on the Pilot site and/or have any of your followers
do the same. Watch the video and watch your entire posts get ripped
apart by REAL PILOTS and AERO ENGINEERS who have a combined flight times of 150,000 hours plus!

Your opinions and anonymous cover is weak against those in the video
who are 100% against your views based on Experience, research and data!



[edit on 1-10-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by Stich2306
Well, that was a long read.

First of I’d like to say it’s a strange topic. There are a couple of people who don’t agree whit Weedwhacker and will never agree nomather what he says. Then there are a couple of fencesitters who agree whit Weedwhacker but do not want to take part in the discussion.

Well, you can call me a fencesitter and I’d like to thank Weedwhacker. Keep up the good work. I learned a lot from you.

What exactly is it in his argument that has you on the fence instead of toppling over? I am really just curious because certain key elements that would help me just seem to be really hard to come by.

reply to post by turbofan


Nice one, agan. Typical misrepresentatin of something else, in aonther context. You're becoming quite the expert at it:

Wow, a whole what? 5 degrees? This contradicts your statement a few pages ago when you said the aircraft would have to be nearly nose down to achieve the speeds, and even then you ssaid it was impossible.

My "nearly nose down" (and sarcasm is lost on you, it seems) was for YOUR inane claim that the airplane could get up to Mach 1 at sea level...how did you put it again? I'm getting too bored to bother to find it....

You said, to scott I believe, something like if the jet can reach Mach 1 at 35,000 then it can at sea level....and in that statement you implied it could be done in level flight.

I went to great lengths to describe for everyone just what it really looks like, from the cockpit, on the instruments (this case the Attitude Indicator) in descents, and how with ADDING power at the same time, your airspeed will accelerate dramatically.


AS TO that other site....they behave there just as they do here.....except there is no neutral moderation. It's a bunch of "Happy Happy" back slapping while they wallow in ignorance.

reply to post by turbofan

DYNAMIC PRESSURE!

HOW FAST DOES THE PLANE HAVE TO FLY AT ALTITUDE TO MATCH
THE SAME FORCES ACTING UPON IT AT SEA LEVEL MOVING 462/510 KNOTS!

I suggest reading Skadi's post, above, again.

But to that question? Who cares? YOU figure it out, I provided the link to a calculator that shows all the values....and once you do that, come back and tell us what you learn.

Because the value of additional "Dynamic Pressure" is going to be negligible, and not sufficient for the total desturction of the airplane.

Originally posted by weedwhacker


You said, to scott I believe, something like if the jet can reach Mach 1 at 35,000 then it can at sea level....and in that statement you implied it could be done in level flight.

See this is your problem. YOU. DON"T. GET. IT.

You have it ass backwards for one.

IF THE PLANE CAN HIT 462 KNOTS / 510 KNOTS IN DENSE AIR AND
STAY TOGETHER AT SEA LEVEL...IT CAN DO THE SAME IN THINNER AIR
AT ALTITUDE!!!

What is the equivalent speed Weedwacker?

Second, I never said it could be done in level flight, or in a slight descent.


FYI: I removed an inappropriate comment toward you in my previous reply, however I still stand by the fact that you do apply these concepts
well enough to understand the question. It is clear after six pages.

reply to post by turbofan

IF THE PLANE CAN HIT 462 KNOTS / 510 KNOTS IN DENSE AIR AND STAY TOGETHER AT SEA LEVEL...IT CAN DO THE SAME IN THINNER AIR AT ALTITUDE!!!

This is becoming pesky.

Please stop oscillating, it may fool some people, but not me.

You will not let go a concept that has a flawed premise from the outset. Apparently because you have no comprehension about aerodynamics, especially the differences between lower altitudes and the high-speed, high altitude regime.

I do not know who has been filling your head with nonsense, but it obviously has a powerful hold over you. So strong that you won't actually look at what I show you, because your preconceived ideas get in the way.

Stop with the EAS, just drop it and listen:

Go take some time to understand Calibrated/Indicated Airspeed (for simplicity's sake they can be considered the same) and the relationship that altitude and temperature has to True Airspeed. WE DON'T USE EAS!!!

I have already told you it is not relevant. It is only important to some who do the engineering calculations.

BUT for your shout up above, to understand why this is wrong

IT CAN DO THE SAME IN THINNER AIR AT ALTITUDE!!!

you need to also understand MACH.

Because, IF you think that one could expect to see an INDICATED Airspeed of 462Kt at altitude (let's use FL350) then you are sorely mistaken.

You can easily achieve a TRUE Airspeed of 462Kt at FL350. And your Mach will be about .80 The INDICATED airspeed will read about 273Kt. I'm sorry, but that is how the calculations come out.

Remember, at Sea Level and standard temperature (we're sticking to standard temps) if you have an INDICATED of 462KT, then your TRUE is also 462Kt.

Now, I just input 462Kt and called it INDICATED (calibrated) Airspeed, and at FL350 and guess what? The Mach number is now 1.27

Oh, I can hear you already, so let's use another example, MMMMMkay?

You agree that the airplane is FINE at 360Kt at Sea Level, correct??? THEREFORE, according to your logic, it should also be able to fly an INDICATED Airspeed of 360Kt at 'altitude', and we're using FL350. Know what that comes out to? I'll tell you....Mach 1.02

I hope you don't wish to claim that the B767 can comfortably cruise along at 35,000 feet above Mach 1?

TRUE Aispeed is called that because it's the airplane's actual speed. Because of the less dense air at higher altitude (and higher temps, hence the term "density altitude....but that's another lesson) theINDICATED Airspeed has to be adjusted in order for it to reflect the TRUE Airspeed.

I cannot make this any clearer. Perhaps if you'd taken my advice and read up on it....

In my time flight instructing I only turned away two people who I thought were dangerously untrainable. One could not even TAXI, could not comprehend, did not have the coordination necessary to operate the rudder pedals and toe brakes. It stumped her completely, after FOUR lessons! Basic straight and level? Forget it!!!! I think even the concept of 'up' and 'down' were beyond her.

The other one was this cocky kid, who I could tell had already made the rounds at a few other schools. HE tried to tell ME, as soon as we took off, that he was ready to solo!!! Uh uh.....no way....he didn't want to learn the prerequisites, the VERY basics that are required, and that I felt strongly about too...not to mention his poor judgement....

Sad thing is, I bet both of them found someone else to take their money....






[edit on 1 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Wings don't 'fold' back. This is another 'meme' that was started by someone on the "Truth movement" side.

Actually, check my thread about that. It is one of your breed that put the magical folding wings forward.

Wing structures outboard of the engine mountings are just sheet aluminum, for the most part. Strong as a unit, when built, but will shatter in the type of impact seen. They were stronger vertically, than fore/aft.


Nice bob and weave. You did not even come close to explaining where the wings went. They just shattered into microscopic pieces? Where on the building is it that they hit and 'shattered' exactly? The wings hit the walls with enough force to 'shatter' into NOTHING and did not even make a mark?

Originally posted by turbofan

I brought up dynamic pressure, to show YOU why the EAS was useless in your argument.

No YOU did not. I had been asking about structural stress AND dynamic
pressre AND air density for MANY pages.

I actually asked about how WW's simulator compensates for dynamic pressure as well as other things but I use plain old English layman's terms so I guess that why even though he eventually addressed the fact that I addressed it by addressing it for a first time.

reply to post by Lillydale


I don't think the sections outboard of the engines were strong enough to penetrate the concrete columns on the exterior. There ARE signs of where they hit, though...just look at the correct photos, and not the selected ones that some CT sites keep using.

You know, the minutiae of this are distractions...your own "bob and weave" tactic, including a level of sneering derisiveness...that is beneath you.

Remember the wings were completely full of fuel....wing tanks are burned LAST in a flight. Each holds about 9,600 pounds of fuel, distributed out to within about six to eight feet or so of the tip. (I've never measured it exactly...so forgive the estimate)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I don't think the sections outboard of the engines were strong enough to penetrate the concrete columns on the exterior. There ARE signs of where they hit, though...just look at the correct photos, and not the selected ones that some CT sites keep using.

Pay attention, I am getting sick of holding your hand.

1. I did not ask about the engines did I?
2. Engine marks are not WING marks.

go on.

You know, the minutiae of this are distractions...your own "bob and weave" tactic, including a level of sneering derisiveness...that is beneath you.

I have asked you twice now what I am dodging, bobbing, or weaving away from. Whichever term you like, either back it up or stop repeating it like a mental patient. BTW, very little is beneath me. That was your mistake.

Remember the wings were completely full of fuel....wing tanks are burned LAST in a flight. Each holds about 9,600 pounds of fuel, distributed out to within about six to eight feet or so of the tip. (I've never measured it exactly...so forgive the estimate)

....and? What is your point? They melted into nothing? Exploded into nothing? Shattered into nothing? You have done almost everything BUT answer.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed and Turbo,

I just asked a former pilot to read what the two of you are writing back and forth and to give me his opinion.

His opinion is that he isn't sure if either of you are really pilots because nothing you've said couldn't have been gotten off of a website. He also said that both of you are right in different things. He felt that Weedwacker seems to know more about the subject than Turbo, but that something still feels funny about the posts. Per pilot: can the aircraft achieve 150 knotts over its "never exceed speed"? Yes. He then told me some story about the second world war and propeller driven aircraft in a dive--I tuned out at that point and he kept talking.

However, his final opinion is that if Weedwacker were a pilot "he wouldn't be on here so much he would be sleeping" (not to say you are not a pilot...), and if he had to make a call he'd say you are both aviation buffs, probably have tons of books in your closet, but that neither of you are commercial pilots. However, he really enjoyed reading the posts you both put out.

So basically, it helped me not in the least to have him read five pages of ATS stuff!
I am posting this more for the other bystanders who think you both sound really credible.

EDIT TYPING AS HE'S TALKING: I just asked about the wings.

The pilot said "only if the plane was going five miles per hour" would the wings fold up the way someone said. He said it was too fast, the wings are strong (though they look thin), they have to support a lot of gs with that weight, and that the wings should have snapped off rather than fold up and at a 45 degree angle there would have to be wing marks. He feels they should have sheared off but full of fuel...he's now sputtering...and just went: wow, the more I look at the picture of the hole it doesn't make sense.

He just asked: what did the investigators see? Where did they say the wings are? He wants to know if I can drag up some pictures of the Pentagon and he will look at them.

Does anyone have any good ones of the wreckage?

[edit on 1-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

reply to post by A Fortiori


Here are some shots of the amazing 'pentalawn 2000'. Some were high res when I clicked on previous visits but don't appear to be now.

thewebfairy.com...

Also we cannot forget the 757 invincible 'pentanium cable spools' of pentalawn fame. The plane obviously bounced off them, while folding its wings and engines. The engines clearly sucked in their 'gut' to avoid the lawn on the way there.

killtown.911review.org...


So let me get this straight: FL77 wasn't on the official radar track according to multiple witness vantage points, its engines were repelled by the lawn, the pentanium spools were a hologram, the walls of the pentacon repel wings and lovely titanium high rpm engine components (which they found at wtc), the pentagon is impervious to 'cutout' shapes like the wtc illustrated (of course the flimsy UL rated steel used at wtc would make this possible when compared to the super pentanium steel at the pentacon), lightpoles all get cut at their bases away from witnessed flightpath and finally the most secure building in the world has 4 iomega quallity webcam frames of 'evidence' of this matter. Oh and two planes cause partially freefall, law of physics defying collapses in tw... sorry, three buildings? Huh?

9/11 official story sure is rational.... if you're directing a movie.

edit: last link has some excellent high res shots of the 'unmarked by engine height' pentalawn and the magic pentanium, plane and wing destroying cable spools. I can't see any impact from an aluminium wing travelling a few hundred knots on either side of the hole, anyone else able to?



[edit on 2/10/09 by GhostR1der]

reply to post by A Fortiori


It's no secret that I'm not a pilot. I never claimed to be, and I never
pretended to be.

My background is electronics. I'm a technologist with 15 years+ in Aerospace and Military electronics. The last 8 years (or thereabouts)
have been focused on RF techonolgy in the RADAR and Satellite fields.

Believe it, or not I tuned waveguides for RADAR system built for NORAD
when I worked at Raytheon...I have a record of employment to prove it.
Not that I'm bragging, or that is has any real significance...it's just ironic
that I had a worked on RADAR systems that were used in your country
post 9/11.

My studies and employment also includes industrial networking (PLC),
and programming.

My forte in all of this is understanding the avionics and FDR data. I have
been a core member of P4T for over three years and have co-produced
two presentation, written a technical document and have met with Rob
Balsamo and A.K. Dewdney in person. In fact, I have a photo of them
sitting in my living room.

Anything I've learned about the aircraft aerodynamics and terminology
has come from the core members at P4T who ALL can be looked up on
www.FAA.gov

What Weedwacker seems to be missing is the understanding of equivalent
speed as it relates to the air pressure acting upon the airframe. You can
ask your friend this very same question:

At what speed must the plane by flying at 35,000 feet to feel the same
aerodynamic stress/pressure/drag that it feels when flying at sea level
@ 462 knots, and 510 knots.

For a layman's analogy, think of it this way:

If you can run through water at 5 MPH, you have enough power to run
through air at 5 MPH.

To feel the same amount of drag against your body (water vs. air), how
much faster do you need to run to achieve this?

The problem with the official story is:

- These aircraft are limited to 360 knots VMo at sea level due to structural
concerns.

can the plane fly faster? Sure it can. Will it remain in controlled flight,
and will it stay together as you surpass VMo?

Studies show that as you exceend VMo, the aircraft begins to flutter.
Air pressure begins to cause havoc on control surfaces, etc.

VMo is the term you would use to descibe the speed limit of an airplane
near sea level and up to 26,000 feet.

old.smartcockpit.com...

Above 26,000 feet you need to use mach to account for the air density
and changes in the speed of sound.

After 26,000 feet the air density changes dramatically. After this point in
altitude you enter what is called the "troposphere" (tropopause).

www.atoptics.co.uk...

This is where Weedwacker falls short. He keeps converting speeds and
relates them to mach at sea level.

I don't care about speed coversions. I'm trying to convey the dangers
of exceeding VMo at sea level by 150 knots!

Where does the aircraft get power to reach such a speed?

How does the aircraft stay in control when video of wind tunnel testing
shows flutter as you cross over VM0

How does the aircraft stay in one piece with all of this pressure acting
upon it? We have an example of Egypt Air (a 767) which broke apart
at slower speeds and less dense air.

The data shows UA 175 could not have remained in a controlled manner,
and should have ripped apart.

You can also ask your friend how difficult it might be to hit a target
at full speed, as opposed to landing speeds. Ask him the level of difficulty
to line up with the runway at 150-250 knots.

Then ask him, from 35,000 feet and miles away...how would he know
when to line up with the runway, and WHERE to find the runway without
the aid of ATC, or any flight data?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by A Fortiori
However, his final opinion is that if Weedwacker were a pilot "he wouldn't be on here so much he would be sleeping" (not to say you are not a pilot...),

If you missed the first few of weedwhacker's ATS posts, he explained how he's a retired airline pilot.

Old Tim posted his resume in about every fourth post that he made to ATS when he first joined. Search back and you'll find almost everything about him, except for his full name and the major airline where he worked.

weedwhacker never stated that he was a current pilot, so cut him some slack there.

I for one don't doubt his pilot credentials. He would have been telling different lies after two years of being here and I would have noticed it. weedwhacker is a real deal ex-pilot. Note that doesn't mean that I endorse any or all of his opinions. I just don't think that it's appropriate to attack his resume.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


I don't think my friend was "attacking his resume". I thought they both claimed to be pilots (sorry about that, Turbo) and I asked him because, well, this is the internet. However, I did read where Weedwacker stated that pilots laugh at the P4T pilots and I'm not sure how that is exactly kind or relevant and could actually be construed as "attacking his resume".

As for my friend he just said that everything the two of them said could be found on the Internet. As for resumes and experience, he said that Weedwacker seemed the more experienced of the two. In fact, he related WWII stories to back up that thing they were saying about planes not being able to go above safe speed.

I will also ask Turbo's questions later when I can talk to him again.

Interesting to note that once I got him started and he seemed very interested in the Pentagon stuff he was not "urged" to join P4T. I think this goes back to my theory that this seems "crazy" and people don't want to seem "crazy" or lumped in with "crazies".

Lastly, I like Weedwacker. He has not (to me) been blatantly rude like some people on ATS and that I can get behind and respect.

reply to post by A Fortiori


Agreed and understood. I wasn't picking a fight with you or your friend.