9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6 Ahhhh...good you're a pilot too. You have a lot of good questions, I won't go over them one-by-one, but here's how I understand the physics of the thing. Let me first preface this: I have several thousand hours in both the B-757 and B-767, and we must remember that the FDR was recovered, and was readable from AAL 77. The CVR was found too, but it was damaged too severly to get any information. I think I'll dispel the ~45-degree angle notion, and it also ties in with the "tail section" as you asked about. It hinges on the understanding of motion and momentum, velocity and energy. Short review: Energy of a body in motion increases as a square to velocity. An object at 50 knots will have quadruple the energy of momentum when it is accelerated to 100 knots. An object will not be deflected from its trajectory, unless it encounters another force sufficient to result in a change of vector. OK, with that behind us, I'll move on to the impact sequence. (AND, sorry if this seems all run together, paragraph formatting isn't working for some reason???) The speed of the airplane? The FDR shows it well exceeded VMO (VNE to GA pilots) and that was because of the full power dive. That excess speed will only last temporarily, as you know, it cannot be sustained with thrust alone, but with gravity's help it can for brief moments. He was low enough to take out some light poles, and I suspect at last moment was in a very shallow descent. I have looked at the area, and can visualize this, based on the terrain. Finally, at those speeds let's look at it in feet per second. ~750 fps, just for easy math. That's only 444 knots, so it's below the FDR final speed reading, and is conservative. The B-757 fuselage is 155 feet long. If you divide that, you find that in only two tenths of a second, the entire airplane smashes into the building. 0.2 seconds. Can everyone now see how fast the event happened, and how everything would just continue forward, not sideways and such. Yes, some pieces were blown in different directions, by the force of the explosive gases as they blossomed...this is to be expected. Small pieces. It was a very chaotic event, as were they all.

Originally posted by weedwhacker. and we must remember that the FDR was recovered, and was readable from AAL 77.

The FDR has not been matched by part or serial number to AA77. Part and serial numbers are required as per NTSB requlations.

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6 Here is hi res image of the Annex looking toward the Pentagon from the hotel: static.panoramio.com...

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6 And pic looking in the opposite direction. Hotel is obviously much taller than the Annex. static.panoramio.com...

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6 Yes, both pictures very good, will help others to see. Shows why the airplane did not pass directly overhead the Annex buildings. Your second picture shows good view of Columbia Pike. (Please keep in mind, the Air Force Memorial sculpture was not there in 2001).

reply to post by weedwhacker www.youtube.com... Starting at ~20min, you need to rationalize how apparently credible numerous witnesses got the position and behavior of the plane so wrong. Hard to get to the 45DEG entry point from this position given the reported speed. I will disregard the interviewers and any other motives of the film makers which may exist for sake of the KISS principle. In a separate bit of questioning, if you look at the security cam data from the checkpoint to the left of the impact zone, the fireball seems to emanate too high on the building, this only given the position of the entry hole and necessary positioning of the fuel tanks (middle and wings, both down low). Would be very interesting to see closeups of the tree/stump to the left side of the impact zone.

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6 Oh, I am WELL aware of the "CIT" and their silly "National Security Alert" nonsense. Their baloney has been discussed to death here on ATS. Take a search through old threads. Do yourself a favor, and look at their website. Go to the "News" tab, from their Home page, then scroll all the way down. Notice the ground track they claim for AAL 77. It's a red and black graphic, to "prove" the 'North of Citgo' claim....a claim that only comes from their small handful of selected interviewees. Now, compare that with the FDR evidence, which shows the airplane heading....it does NOT show that wide right turn, nor does it show a heading necessary for CIT's "theory" to fit....what they have is a few individuals with faulty memories that they've selected (possibly even coached --- their methods have been called into question, such as using leading questions) to interview, that's it. They purposely neglect to include any interviews that didn't go "their way". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh, and please, please don't buy any of their trinkets!!! [edit on 11 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker "It hinges on the understanding of motion and momentum, velocity and energy. Short review: Energy of a body in motion increases as a square to velocity. An object at 50 knots will have quadruple the energy of momentum when it is accelerated to 100 knots. An object will not be deflected from its trajectory, unless it encounters another force sufficient to result in a change of vector." Needless to say, the event of hitting the facade of the building is a complex event. However, as engineers we face these challenges every day as even the simplest events in the natural world can be complex to analyze. Thus to make some sense of various aspects of the collision of a plane with the building we can separate the plane into various parts. These parts are designed to accept various loading in certain directions, but have weakness in others. The main body tube is a good place to start, as is a rocket, this tube in it's initial shape, is incredible strong in compression to it's length. This means to maintain its super strength the forces must be parallel to it's length. Hence rockets have the engines at the bottom of a long tube of very thin metal or composites. Another good example is the piece of soda straw or hay stuck into a telephone pole from a tornado. The force is concentrated in the strong thin section and acts like a bullet. However, once the basic shape is changed or geometry disturbed, both the strength of the material and the forces applied are prone to cause dispersion and deformations of the tube vs more focused cutting or projectile actions. These are highly non-linear events. The wings however are having great strength for vertical loads, but are weak in other directions. I am sure you noticed the "do not walk here" noticed painted on your wings. The wing/tail sections are both weak and light in the forward direction. They have big x-sections compared to the body tube (a few mm of skin). Thus the behavior of the wings will be quite different than the body. Of coarse the high density, high strength alloy sections of engines and gear can be considered somewhat separately also. Since the building contained several rings, the questions need to consider how to continue through the balance of the next 2 rings as well. The concept of a strong tube falls apart after the initial wall is breached in my opinion. Once you disturb the tube shape, all bets are off for strength. This is the same idea used to protect spacecraft from micro meteorites for instance. The energy is much more dispersed when reaching the next wall and your 1/2MV^2 per unit wall area much reduced. Obviously if you break through the wall, the issue of 45DEG incident angle plays differently than if you don't. Another complication in modeling for sure. There is software to model these complex events (Nonlinear FEA), like LS-Dyna. The complexity in doing this simulation rests with the model. The engineering adage, Garbage in, Garbage out generally applies. I have not seen a simulation I believe yet for any 9-11 event. 0.2 seconds is by many standards a long time. That's ~6 frames at 30fps!. A seriously missing bit of evidence.

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6

That's ~6 frames at 30fps!. A seriously missing bit of evidence.

Many of the video cameras assocoated witht he Pentagon, and even retail and hotel properties nearby recorded at about one fps. I expect IF a better, definitive video of AAL 77 existed it would have been released by now, to quell all this bickering.

Originally posted by weedwhacker I expect IF a better, definitive video of AAL 77 existed it would have been released by now, to quell all this bickering.

All those cameras and not one video or photo of AA77, imagine that.

Originally posted by weedwhacker reply to post by Guesswhotoo6

 

Yes, both pictures very good, will help others to see. Shows why the airplane did not pass directly overhead the Annex buildings. Your second picture shows good view of Columbia Pike. (Please keep in mind, the Air Force Memorial sculpture was not there in 2001).

You sure about that part that I bolded above, Weed? Terry Morin, Mike Dobbs, and several others apparently disagree with you: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Michael Dobbs: "I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."

Were you actually on the FOB/Annex or Pentagon property on the morning of 11 Sep 2001?

reply to post by rhunter I let that comment slip, so thanks for pointing out that there are other witnesses who saw the plane over the Annex. While the hotel will cause one to be to the left or the right to avoid hitting the hotel while on a path to the Pentagon, I did not see a conflict with being over the Annex in the witness's flight paths. I still see big issues flying through a forest of obstacles and down hill (slightly) while attempting to hit the Pentagon, nicely without touching the grass at 450kts. Downright remarkable if you ask me. Here is one of the 1st pics taken after the alleged impact. www.nfpa.org... Perfect lawn.... If you look close in the new release photos from several posts back, the helo pad marker lights are amazingly intact on the building side, edge of the concrete pad.

Originally posted by weedwhacker reply to post by Guesswhotoo6

 

I'm sorry to tell you, you aren't getting the picture, not based on the photos. I am physically HERE...live here. See it. When you se it in real life, it's obvious. Here, as to the FDR...like I said, the 'Pilots' website is complete hogwash. This thread from ATS explains it more accurately --- it is full of the regular deniers, so you have to sort through their nonsense, which isn't easy... www.abovetopsecret.com... BTW....you may also be interested to learn that 'P4T' also subscribed (maybe still do? I don't know, their story changes so often) to the so-called "North of Citgo" theory, first advocated by the "Citizen's Investigation Team", headed by Craig Ranke. Another wild 'conspiracy' take on this topic, and completely off-base. But, he/they continue to sell DVDs and T-shirts and ballcaps I suppose...which is why they're in this "business". Of course, for the "NoC" ground track to be true then the ~45-degree angle of impact that you agree with goes right out the window...baby with the bath water kinda thing. The "CIT" claim that AAL 77 flew over the Navy Annex. Well, take a look at Google Map, and take note of the Sheraton Hotel, just west of the Annex. It is quite a bit higher than the Annex rooftops...which you can see if you go into the "street views" and look around for a bit.....

About that thread Weedy- it's 102 pages long. I looked at the last page, but that appeared to just be you arguing with someone named turbofan. Is there somewhere specific that I can find the proof of this "hog washing?" Regarding " T-shirts and ballcaps I suppose," I was just at CIT's website, and I can't find T-shirts or ballcaps anywhere. I don't remember ever seeing a photo of a CIT T-shirt or ballcap for that matter. Regarding DVDs, their website does state this though:

If you would like to download a copy of the video, click here. There is no charge to do so.

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com... Now regarding "over the Navy Annex" [FOB], there seem to be several people saying that who were reported to actually be on-location on 11 Sep 2001.

reply to post by Guesswhotoo6

... thanks for pointing out that there are other witnesses who saw the plane over the Annex.

This was your comment to another ATS member. I am suggesting that the very, very few selected witnesses that "CIT" choose to feature in their 'documentaries' are unreliable, in the main. IF you look around the Web a little more you can see examples of claims that their 'witness' statements were either coached (by asking leading questions) or edited to change context, and support "CIT's" hypothesis. I tend to agree with that assessment of their ("CIT'") tactics. BTW, "over the annex" doesn't necessarily mean what it seems to...an angular perspective of an object in the distance can be said to be "over" something, but all that means is from the vantage point of the witness it appears to be "over". It is in some ways a figure of speech, we all use in every day conversation. Furthermore, the airplane could NOT have been directly above the rooftops of the Navy Annex. First, it's too high, and second, the FDR heading info doesn't match with the impact point from that orientation.

I still see big issues flying through a forest of obstacles and down hill (slightly) while attempting to hit the Pentagon, nicely without touching the grass at 450kts. Downright remarkable if you ask me. Here is one of the 1st pics taken after the alleged impact. www.nfpa.org... Perfect lawn....

OK, there really was no "forest of obstacles" on the route the airplane took. The street lights located at the cloverleave, where Columbia Pike meets Washington Blvd. That was about it. There was a VDOT antenna, but airplane missed that. As to your "lawn" photo, you should take a look at a Google Map image (grass is brown in the current aerial photo, though) and see just how small that area actually is. It looks deeper, longer, more vast in your photo because that's the nature of photos, sometimes. The foreground can look larger than it actually is.

If you look close in the new release photos from several posts back, the helo pad marker lights are amazingly intact on the building side, edge of the concrete pad.

The helipad was very close to the impact point, but north of it, and was missed by the bulk of the wreckage. (It has since been relocated, likely I think so as not to disturb the 9/11 Memorial area). You should look into the cable reels that were hit by one engine, and the power generator struck by another. Resources are available by searching the Web. Those objects were very near the wall, and were hit microseconds before the major impact. The airplane did NOT need to "skim" across the lawn for any great length of time..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This thread has gone on so long, perhaps many have neglected to go back and read page 1!! ATS member CatHerder did a wonderful job laying it all out, in the OP. Really, everything you need to know and understand is there. [edit on 14 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

To the OP: How do you explain the brilliant superb arguments by credible experts in these video segments then? They've been shown all over Russia and Europe and have convinced people there that the Pentagon Crash was a farce. Can you please address and take on the arguments by the experts in these? www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... www.youtube.com... Also OP, why do so many expert top gun and airline pilots say the official story of the crash is impossible? See here: www.patriotsquestion911.com... [edit on 21-6-2010 by WWu777]

reply to post by WWu777 Ohhhh....I see the missing Wu has returned?? Sorry...merely reading about a thread (a reference that I made to it, just this afternoon...in another thread) coming in, glancing at the the thread title, then doing the "pigeon drop post" (with the usual type of remnants one would expect) makes it painfully, clearly evident that (someone) didn't bother to actually READ this thread!! Ladies and gentleman...I give you, the (previously absent from his thread that attempted to lionize some "Aussie Genius"...the latest in a litany of Apollo Moon Landing 'hoax' nutters )..."WWu"!!! Ta Da!! Take a bow...(and, care to drop by the party, other thread???) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Later, after you've had your reunion with "Jarrah White", you might wish to come back and provide the provenance for the FIRST YouTube video link, in your post above. (If you'll note, the OP is not currectly available for comment. I will attempt to step in, unless told by him/her not to). Back to the first video...my initial take, only after the first minute...shlock. I'd like to know WHO is behind it...the narrator sounds British, is this a British production? Second, reason it took only the first minute to see the video as non-credible...they misspelled the name of Russ Wittenberg. Thired, he is NOT credible, anyway!! At least, his comments, on the face of it, indicate that he is either misinformed regarding the scene at the Pentagon, or is willfully LYING about it. His statement, to the effect, of "zero evidence" of airplane debris is patently, demonstrably false. Lastly....the page formatting is messed up, don't know why...I didn't break it, honest...it was like this when I got here! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nevermind about the "provenance", I found it myself....from RON PAUL'S website!!! (OTHER two YouTube videos are just continuations of same "mock"umentary...)

Italian film-maker Giulietto Chiesa, who was in Berlin for a screening of his documentary ("ZERO") which questions the official US version of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has called for an international tribunal to probe events. Chiesa was in Berlin at the weekend for a screening of his film which features, among others, novelist Gore Vidal and playwright Dario Fo as well as retired American professor of philosophy David Ray Griffin who advances conspiracy theories that contradict mainstream accounts of events of 11 September, 2001.

www.dailypaul.com... [edit on 21 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Something is wrong here. Now that this thread has reached 290 pages, blank lines don't appear anymore so that all posts appear as one paragraph. Why is that? To the dude above: Dude, I run multiple sites and am very busy and do not have time to keep up with every thread. Gimme a break. Subscribe to Jarrah's channel. He has many new videos: www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by WWu777 To the OP: Also OP, why do so many expert top gun and airline pilots say the official story of the crash is impossible? See here:

Mostly because they reject the convergence of hundreds of lines of independent evidence.

Great job Catherder of proving that it was indeed a 757 jet that hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Now you must answer why the video shown to the public clearly looks nothing like a 757 at the point of impact. You must answer why the FBI confiscated video feed tapes from the gas station across the street (which clearly would have shown the plane just before impact). And lastly why the only bodies collected were the 60 or so from the Pentagon building itself. The only missing component here is that Doomsday (white) plane that vaporized everything else before the impact occured. The only things that could have survived would have been the fusilage, engines, and maybe some landing gear. And, that is exactly what shows in the video striking the building. Oh, by the way the bright flash of light shown just before the plane comes into view is that coil laser hitting the plane not some light poles exploding (because it was broad daylight and the lights were not on) Now that we've got this out of the way, what about Shanksville?

reply to post by Yule C Mann I think it's been some time since the fine ATS member CatHerder has stopped by....

Now you must answer why the video shown to the public clearly looks nothing like a 757 at the point of impact.

The camera taking the surveillance footage wasn't filming, it was snapping one frame every few seconds. Airplane flew real fast...

You must answer why the FBI confiscated video feed tapes from the gas station across the street (which clearly would have shown the plane just before impact).

No..not 'confiscated'...tapes have been released, cameras were NOT aimed outside, and did not capture the airplane.

And lastly why the only bodies collected were the 60 or so from the Pentagon building itself.

Ahem...this is ghoulish, but --- the victims that were sitting or standing still INSIDE the building didn't have their bodies shredded into tiny fragments, as did every occupant of the Boeing...it was the Boeing that was moving at ~450MPH (or more). The fragments of remains of those people WERE identified, by DNA match. This is yet another (new?) twist...am wondering which nutcase "conspiracy" website is spouting this nonsense?

The only missing component here is that Doomsday (white) plane that vaporized everything else before the impact occured.

The only things that could have survived would have been the fusilage, engines, and maybe some landing gear.

No, the fuselage would not remain intact, with the tremendous forces of impact. But, yes...some portions of landing gear struts, and even engine component parts were found, and identified.