9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by MorningStar8741 the wings were full of fuel.. there was a tremendous explosion at impact.. stands to reason that there would not be much left of them.. some of the scattered pieces on the lawn might be the wings..

reply to post by MorningStar8741 The impact forces were stronger from the fuselage than from the wings. The fuselage was a small area of impact, while the wings were a very wide area of impact. The force from the wings was much less, because it was spread out over such a large area.

Originally posted by pccat reply to post by MorningStar8741

 

the wings were full of fuel.. there was a tremendous explosion at impact.. stands to reason that there would not be much left of them.. some of the scattered pieces on the lawn might be the wings..

Well it seems we have to conflicting stories if you look at the above two posts. The reason is that neither one of you is basing this on reality, science, or evidence. Nice guesses both but unfortunately they do not flesh out in the real analysis.

reply to post by beachnut Youre biasing the scenario. The question is not specific enough to begin with, which allows you to bias the answer. 1. Could Hani have hit the pentagon with his known low skill level. answer: Yes 2. Could Hani have hit the pentagon with such a high degree of accuracy under such stressful conditions with his known low skill level? answer: Higly unlikely.

reply to post by Zaphod58 Yet the planes went through the towers with ease, with not the slightest bit of resistance from steel or reinforced concrete. The pentagon walls may be more protected, but i find it hard to believe the wings couldn't go through but the fuselage did? So the wings that weren't strong enough to penetrate the pentagon were infact strong enough to fold INTO the fuselage that was itself stronger than the wall? How does that work?

reply to post by thesneakiod Simple. Factor in the plane speed and the inertia of the individual parts, along with the American education system and it is quite easy to explain. All you have to do is believe. There is just enough mumbo jumbo about inertia to make it sound plausible and as long as no one is smart enough to work it all out, it is a perfect story. [edit on 9/28/08 by MorningStar8741]

Originally posted by thesneakiod Yet the planes went through the towers with ease, with not the slightest bit of resistance from steel or reinforced concrete.

Lightweight, non reinforced concrete. And of course there was resistance, the plane was utterly destroyed. This claim is based off inaccurate measurements claiming to show no deceleration upon impact. I believe Frank Greening also did measurements showing deceleration, but the margins of error involved are more than sufficient to question the figures produced.

The pentagon walls may be more protected, but i find it hard to believe the wings couldn't go through but the fuselage did?

The wings did damage the pentagon, not to their outer extremes but quite a large way along. There are various composites showing this.

reply to post by exponent Can you please present this evidence of where the wings bounced off the building?

Let's try it this way. You had the fuselage andthe engines strike that building going the same speed. The fuselage penetrated 6 of these reinforced walls and yet the engince failed to make a dent? What were those engines made of? and the fuselage?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 Can you please present this evidence of where the wings bounced off the building?

Who said they bounced? Debris from the aircraft was all over the lawn and surrounding area.

Let's try it this way. You had the fuselage andthe engines strike that building going the same speed. The fuselage penetrated 6 of these reinforced walls and yet the engince failed to make a dent? What were those engines made of? and the fuselage?

Why do you think they failed to make a dent?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 Let's try it this way. You had the fuselage andthe engines strike that building going the same speed. The fuselage penetrated 6 of these reinforced walls and yet the engince failed to make a dent?

No dent? img701.mytextgraphics.com... ETA: Click link to view image in full [edit on 28-9-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by jprophet420 reply to post by beachnut

 

1. Could Hani have hit the pentagon with his known low skill level. answer: Yes 2. Could Hani have hit the pentagon with such a high degree of accuracy under such stressful conditions with his known low skill level? answer: Higly unlikely.

Why would a pilot who had trained for years not be able to hit the largest building in the world? He was only 50 feet or less from failure as he crossed the overpass. His lack of skills to land? Where is his motivation to be a great landing pilot. This terrorist only has to hit the big building, not land or control with precision a big jet. He did not hit the center of the building, he his an oblique, into the first floor, hitting just at the first floor second floor break in a dive, he did not level off in some great feat of airmanship, he was an erratic pilot. Most pilots could use finger tips to hit a 3 foot target dead center. This guy missed the center of the Pentagon, he missed the center of the floors, he is the worse pilot, but a kid off the street could fly 77 and do as well. Who flew the plane so bad? Hani. I can tell the second Hani took control of the plane, 77 was stable, then the heading, bank, airspeed, and altitude were never constant again; Hani took over. You can use the 0.01 percent of all pilots who agree with your unlikely stuff. Why is the bias? Do you think Arabs can't fly? Why is the simple truth so hard to understand? Go take an introductory flight in little PLANE. A small prop plane is harder to fly than the 757/767. Go fly and confirm your story, or have a good time. The flight could be stressful you may get sick. But even a sick pilot can fly if he/she wants to. Hani had a goal to kill Americans, he did. But his buddies were only 75 percent successful after we knew the rules and the Passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes, something some people can't do in 7 years. Good luck on the flight

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 Can you please present this evidence of where the wings bounced off the building?

Who said they bounced? Debris from the aircraft was all over the lawn and surrounding area.

Let's try it this way. You had the fuselage andthe engines strike that building going the same speed. The fuselage penetrated 6 of these reinforced walls and yet the engince failed to make a dent? What were those engines made of? and the fuselage?

Why do you think they failed to make a dent?

This makes no sense. Are you claiming that the wings and engines were all over the lawn? Can you please post some evidence of this because it is news here.

reply to post by discombobulator Yes, no dent. I am not sure what part of that picture you are trying to say is the mark from the wings, care to clear it up?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741

Originally posted by pccat reply to post by MorningStar8741

 

the wings were full of fuel.. there was a tremendous explosion at impact.. stands to reason that there would not be much left of them.. some of the scattered pieces on the lawn might be the wings..

Well it seems we have to conflicting stories if you look at the above two posts. The reason is that neither one of you is basing this on reality, science, or evidence. Nice guesses both but unfortunately they do not flesh out in the real analysis.

it matches this guys guess too..

General Benton K. Partin in the The New American: "When you slam an aluminum aircraft at high velocity into a concrete structure, it's going to do exactly what we saw happen at the Pentagon on 9/11," Partin said. "If you look at a frontal mass cross-section of the plane, you see a cylinder of aluminum skin with stringers. When it impacts with the exterior [Pentagon] wall at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide. That's why on the still photos from Pentagon surveillance camera, you first see the frame with that brilliant white luminescent flash just before the frame of the orange fireball, the jet fuel burning. The aluminum cylinder — the plane fuselage — is acting like a shaped charge penetrating a steel plate. It keeps penetrating until it is consumed. The Boeing 757 is over 150 feet long, so it's going to penetrate quite a ways before it's spent. The wings have a much lower mass cross-section and are loaded with fuel besides, so there is little left of them except small bits and pieces."

from this detailed page.. www.isgp.eu... it also shows where the right wing hit.. [edit on 28-9-2008 by pccat]

reply to post by pccat The engines are hardly made from aluminum. So now the wings folded up AND vaporized? Fine. The engines?

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 reply to post by discombobulator

 

Yes, no dent. I am not sure what part of that picture you are trying to say is the mark from the wings, care to clear it up?

I responded to your post which claimed there was no dent from the engines. The picture I produced shows that there are in fact large holes where the engines should have been. Did you click on the picture to view it in full? If you cannot acknowledge the huge, gaping holes where the engines should have been then you are clearly detached from reality and I am wasting my time having a conversation with you.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 reply to post by pccat

 

The engines are hardly made from aluminum. So now the wings folded up AND vaporized? Fine. The engines?

Even CIT star witness William Lagasse said that he observed one of the engines inside the Pentagon... smashed.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741 This makes no sense. Are you claiming that the wings and engines were all over the lawn? Can you please post some evidence of this because it is news here.

No, the engines almost certainly penetrated the fascia and proceeded inside the building, they were massy and dense. The wings (as you can see from the above composite picture) damaged the fascia across the majority of their span, but towards the edges they become lighter and at some point not filled with fuel. This section would likely have either been destroyed completely upon impact, or 'folded back' as some people describe. Obviously their recollections are based on only a few milliseconds of action so we can't expect them to be accurate, but there's no doubt the wings of AA77 caused significant damage to The Pentagon.

reply to post by exponent Actually there is quite a bit of dobt. Before the hole collapsed, you can clearly see no place where the engines either entered or even damaged the buiding in any way. A white scuff mark seems like a bit little to prove a wing going the same speed as the rest of the plane. But I can conced the wings if you can show me where the engines entered the building. Where are those penetration holes?