9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

I didn't change a photo when the going got tough. I changed the text OVERLAYING a photo when the audience got too bloody stupid. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]

you can call it extensive damage if you like. To me it looks like a 100 foot wide hole interrupted towards the sides by the remaing columns. If it sounds better we can call it a dozen 8 feet holes side by side.

That's not true. When you couldn't account for why the window was undamaged, you took the window out of the equation. That's like a murder witness being cross-examined and the witness at first said "I saw him kill him at 10pm" and then when the cross-examiner shows that the murder was at 8pm, the witness then says, "oh, I mean 8pm". I understand your argument. I want to know if it stands up to scrutiny. If it doesn't then at least the evidence is inconclusive (which has been my argument about this whole thing all along).

Is the overlay not part of your argument? Are you not using it to show how the wing hit the pentagon in place inside the lines? It is evidence you are proposing! You changed it when I scrutinized it!

I think we should continue scrutinizing. If your theory is true (I really have not ruled it out), then it should stand up to at least a little scrutiny. Please show me where the debris in the photos you posted fit on a 757. Please... Don't run away. Don't ignore me. Don't get mad. If you are right, let's make it certain.

It did change. First the lines were extended across an unbroken window. Then she changed to be shorter so they didn't extend across the window. She admits that.

Its not as secrure as you might think. I can drive my car right up to the pentagon any day of the week. Its not some super secret military base that 1000's of armed guards,tanks and helicopers are trying to keep everyone out. They give tours to the public there. Its about as secure as many civilian office buildings are these days.

A 737 does not use the same APU. You can't compare a 737 APU to a 757 APU, they are completely different animals. It would be like showing parts from a lawn tractor engine to give an example of a Dodge 318 engine... 737's use: Garrett 85-129 on the 1/2/3/4/500; the Sundstrand APS 2000 on the 3/4/500 and the Allied Signal 131-9[B] for the NG's. You don't want to go down the road of using the wrong parts to prove or disprove a theory - the conspiracy sites that claim it's a Global Hawk engine have already done that and look pretty silly for doing so. 757 uses a larger APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) If you are REALLY interested, I can give you a source to all the information you require: Best source of info ever please feel free to use it and find something new to bring to the conversation. It's always a bad idea to make up something to "prove" your point. If you don't KNOW if something is positively what you think it is, you post "is most likely a" or "probably a part from" or "appears to be a" and then get supporting evidence from either an expert opinion (such as a spokesman for Rolls Royce, Indianapolis) or actual schematics or detailed photo sources.

Holding this to scrutiny? I asked why there was an unbroken window in her diagram of where the wing hit. After going back and forth, she changes the diagram. I asked her to show me where the pieces of debris match up on a 757 because I can't figure any of it out. It all looks like metal to me. That's scrutiny? "Where does that piece go on a 757?" I think that's basic.

Hey Mrs. Piboy - do you see "HIM" or "HER" under my name? Are you posting just to be irritating, or do you actually have a purpose with your meaningless banter? I guess you're too unlearned to recognise an Aztec mask, oh well... I'll change the avatar to something more your speed. I changed the lines because they were there to SHOW THE DAMAGE ON THE CONCRETE PILLARS AND THE WALL - I shoud have ensured that they didn't extend too far, because I mean that last 5 inches of ALUMINUM sheeting might actually go through 2 inches of bulletproof glass... Who'da thunk. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]

CatHerder, I am not trying to "prove" anything. I want to understand and scrutinize. Something happened at the pentagon. People propose theory and throw up a few pictures, some news articles, quote some government source. I say, "Ok, if that's the case then please explain this..." and people get all bent out of shape. It happened with both the flight 77 and the conspiracy people. I start asking for a little moer explanation and I get insulted or something. You are trying to prove the flight 77 theory. I will try to understand, and scrutinize it if it holds up. If it does, I will believe it. If not, then nothing has been proven yet. I mean, you write an article "proving" flight 77 hit the pentagon and when I try to get more explanation, I'm the one who is being difficult?

So which is right? The old picture or the new? Pick one. I don't care, just don't be changing your presentation. If you can freely draw lines to represent the wings, then you make the plane fit however you want, rather than drawing in the plane, and figuring out what happened.

If that circular piece of debris is part of an APU of a 757, which part is it? Please, please, please

I think you did a wonderful job and your presentation and information stated was very effective. Before I read your research post I must admit that I also was part of the group that had doubts that a passenger plane had hit the pentagon especially with the lack and confiscation of most video. But now I truly believe that a passenger plane had hit the pentagon on sept 11, 2001. I feel sick that with all the clear evidence that you have stated people still refuse to believe. Once again GREAT JOB!!! and wish all posts on ATS were like yours. Thanks, Reason

I would like to recap: The analysis under consideration and the discussion following it: There is no explanation of why a window pane that was either struck or almost struck by a wing is intact. The window didn't break, didn't pop out, and didn't melt, even though there are no discernible wing remains anywhere. There is no explanation of what part of the APU the "APU debris" is part of. There is no explanation of where the "engine parts" and other airplane parts actually go on a 757. There is no explanation of how to deal with the numerous eye-witness account that contradict each other, including a 757 hitting the pentagon. We have no guidance as to which account to take into consideration and which to throw out. That's where this debate stands. It is not personal (not for me at least).

The plane debris observed in the various photographs does indeed comport with that of a 757, at least to the limited degree with which they can be compared to actual 757 parts or the manufacturer's detail drawings, as shown above. The engine compressor or turbine disk appears to be approximately the correct diameter to have been used in a Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B engine, as used in American Airlines 757 aircraft. The fragment of the high pressure combustor casing also comports with the string of fuel inlet nozzle holes, the mounting bosses of which have the correct number of screw holes (6). The combustor is definitely not from a Pratt and Whitney PW2037, which is the other make of 757 engine used in the airline industry, nor is it from a General Electric CF6-80C2. Some observers have claimed that these engine parts are too small to have come from a 757. The confusion is because the RB-211 engine configuration is dominated by the large turbofan at the front of the engine, which is what people expect a 757 engine should look like. However, because the RB-211 is a "high bypass" engine, the high-pressure compressor, combustion chamber and turbine are all much smaller than the turbofan, as shown in the small overview figure at the top left of the drawing. It is perfectly reasonable to ask what happened to the turbofan -- but the compressor disk and the combustor case do look like 757 parts. www.911-strike.com...

I had doubts and questions too, pretty much all of which CatHerder has managed to answer in one of the most well researched and presented posts I've seen anywhere on the subject. It's fine for people to still question aspects of the case as we'll never know everything, but the tone of some in the prosection of CatHerder for Denying Ignorance is unsettling. Everyone should be welcoming of this contribution and opportunity to discuss findings, as we all are after the Truth here, right?

That's at least something to work with, SkiBum. Now...which parts in the debris go with which part in diagram? I read your descriptions, but can you draw arrows or overlay stuff or something? I want to understand what you are saying. Also, how can you determine scale from either the photo and the schematic? How can you tell if they are similar?

Stating something isn't true is hardly a refutation of the evidence presented to establish its truthfulness. In other words, you aren't saying anything, aren't addressing any of the issues brought up, and are simply stating a silly opinion. What difference does it make at this point as to why the empty wings didn't smash thru reinforced concrete? The engines? Maybe they fell off with the wings and were destroyed in the explosion, and thats why there are no entry holes in the concrete barriers for them. But what difference does it make at this point? People saw the plane screeching torwards it. People saw the plane actually hit it. There were human remains in the debris, along with parts of the plane. The blast hole was big enough for the fuselage. Its absurd to say that the strangeness of the engines throws the whole thing out (and there are parts of the engine there too!). Its more parsimonious to say that it was a plane than something else, merely because there are no entrance holes for the engines. And if you had bothered to read the innovations site report and analysis of the crash, you would see why there are no engine holes. And comming back to this, CH noted that in other plane crashes, the wings and engine do fall apart anyway. So basically, you're actually irrationally, and not even looking at the evidence. Oh ok. So you've been a pilot for almost 50 years, therefore the laws of physics work as you would personally like them to when its something that concerns you. And there is something else I don't understand about this. If the plane didn't hit the pentagon, but everyone on it was murdered and the plane was trashed scorched, and transported either to the site or to the labs that did the research (and this means that all the witnesses were lying and the photos and videos that show parts of the plane on site while this was going on are fake of course) and then the 'real' conspirators fired a missile into the pentagon, well, but, why? If they had the plane, killed everyone on it and demolished it, and had rammed two planes into the wtc, then why did they go thru all this for the pentagon? There hasn't been one shred, one single shred, of evidence suggesting that something else hit the pentagon, and there hasn't even been any good reasoning to suggest so. If planes could hit the wtc, then they could hit the pentagon. There is obviously debris from a plane at the crash site, and there are people who saw the plane crash into the pentagon. The walls of the wtc are entirely different than the reinforced contrete walls of the pentagon. The larger hole could be from the wings, or could, more likely i think, be from the resultant explosion. I agree. Its amazing that stating the blatantly obvious should warrant such, yet there it is. Amazing. Even if i was an explosion, you'd've thought the windows would've broken. Or are people now denying that any damage was done at all? That all damage photos are fakes and the attack never even happened? They're reinforced windows! The pentagon was built and then rebuilt (and now rebuilt again) to withstand an attack! You think they put the same glass in the windows as you or I have in our homes?! Heck even the local schools have wire reinforced windows, and this is the command center for the combined arms of the most advanced army on the planet! There are windows all over it that I'd've thought should've been broken, that doesn't mean a plane didn't hit! what does that matter if the rest of the evidence indicates a plane hit it? If the terribly grainy and (imo) useless video is fake, what does it matter? And how does it hurt the arguement if its real? You've said that a few times so far, but haven't said why, why? This does not say all windows were melted. Yes, you did misinterpret. The report says the fire, not the explosion, the fire that resulted from the explosion became so hot that it melted some windows, it doesn't say it melted all windows, and it doesn't have to, and the windows are bomb resistant. That means that they resist explosions, otherwise know as impacts. So its perfectly probable that they can melt when you ignite jetliner fuel and bake them in it for a while but not have been smashed by an impact, and of course this complain of your ignores that the windows in question obviously survived some sort of impact. The walls around them are badly damaged. Yet these particular windows were able to survive. How does that mean that there wasn't a plane? The source of the impact is irrelvant at that point, they windows were plainly strong enough to withstand some impacts. The problem apparently is that you haven't read the inovations website report, which goes into what happens during the high speed impact/explosion. Astounding. They're mistaken mostly. Some of them thought they saw then plane, and then said they actually saw a smaller plane, and hell one of them even says he saw the plane hit the building. Ok, what was it then. How'd the plane parts get there, how'd the bodies get there, what happend to the actual plane and teh actual people and why'd a different plane get used? Why would it be a different custom built plane? Yes. What difference does that make? Hence their inability to say what flight number it was, and the variance in size estimates. Also, some of the people were far enough away to see that it was a plane. How would you have defended the building from teh plane? Send security out with their rubber guns? There is no heavy artillery on or near the pentagon, there aren't sams, rpgs, or any of the crap, and no one knew where that plane was until it was too late. The building was still occupied. It'd be almost impossible to defend a kamikazi plane. hell, battleships and aircraft carriers can't defend against them even! Hows an unarmed immobile unwary building supposed to fend it off? And what mathematical analysis are you using to calculate the damage radius of the plane? What mass are you using for the plane, what was its inertia upon impact and what effect on that does the ingiting jetfuel have? are you stupid or something? The outline of the wing shows it stopping before the window. it shows the frame damaged, and maybe even shows part of the two part window blow out with teh remaining portion clearly damaged, but not knocked out. and, as CH has repeatedly stated, some of the windows were blasted out of their frames, hit so violently that they were ripped out of their frames, and were so strong that they weren't destroyed and instead lay on the ground. This reinforced blast proof window did what it was designed to do, survive a high impact/explosion. At least you are stating reasons, unlike some of the jokers here. Infact, thats a perfectly sensible question, however, its addressed in the analysis links provided. From what I understand of it, upon impact, the thing was terrible smashed up , like CH said {well, paraphrased0 it acted like a liquid, and poured (in a sense) thru the holes. The wings weren't sheared off, and if that was the claim, you would expect there to be lots of wing on the lawn. But, in plane crashes, even regular ones, the bulk of the debris is often squished up in a lump beyond the impact site. Remeber, the item is traveling, with an incredible intertia, in a single direction. So somone else found the photos, and the diagram, and now you need them to do what exactly, match every part of the debris to the schematics of the plane? i would think that the people who built the damned thing would have difficulty doing that. But really, no one should bother telling you anything, because you apparently are too lazy to even click on the source link provided. The parts the can be identified are the engine compressor or turbine disk and the combustion chamber houseing, according to the site that skibum got the diagram from and clearly linked to. You keep talking about 'scrutinizing', when you aren't even doing that. You're doing nothing but asking someone to point out everything to you. What is your theory to explain the evidence? Or can't you put the information together? Having eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting a building, damage consistent with a plane hitting a building, parts of a plane damaged and deposited at the crash site, and near simultaneous attacks of planes hitting other building isn't enough for you? If you can't come up with a better explanation, then, guess what, this is the best explanation. Catherder, I applaud you and sympathize with your obvious and well warranted frustration. You've obviously been more patient that I have been, and I've only put one (albiet ludicrously long) post into this thread. Is there some thread where you are addressing the other issues that you are trying to keep seperate here? Its obvious that you are capable of rational thought, I'd like to see that discussion if its already started.

Look. Let me just address this one point. Originally the image showed the lines going across the windows. Then CatHerder admittedly shortened the lines so they wouldn't be. This was after I questioned how the window pane could be intact after a wind had hit it and then the wing disappeared somehow (shattered, burned up). The discussion reflects this if you read it.