For the "No Plane At the Pentagon" Skeptics

[adolfo]

Basic question.

What happened to the two 6-ton engines made of titanium and steel?

[MrSammo1]

1. find the jet......and you'll

find the engines.

but then again, what if there never was a jet?

[Twist_U_Up]

2. I think they where 9 ton a piece ?

I could be wrong but I just watched a video describing them. That number seems to stick for some reason

[file83]

3. No, they were 9ft in diameter. 6 tons each.

[MercutioATC]

4. The same thing that happened to the rest of the 757...

...they turned into little bits.

500+ MPH into a wall like that makes some pretty small pieces...

[kerry_s]

5. BUHAHAHAHAHA

Give me some historical examples of "titanium engines turn to pieces"...
They arent made from aluminium.

[MercutioATC]

10. Who has that test crash video (plane into concrete wall)?

I'll try to find it. Fly a plane into a wall at 500+ knots and it turns into very small pieces.

The engines aren't "titanium engines" either...they have some titanium parts.

[Make7]

20. I believe this is what you are looking for:

http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/video-gallery/#rocketsled

- Make7

[MercutioATC]

21. That's the one. Thanks!

Where's the F-4? Where are its "titanium engines"?

:shrug:

[adolfo]

13. No evidence

There should be 2 more holes in the Pentagon where the engines are supposed to be.

Can you explain the physics of how two heavy solid engines just bounced off the wall and shattered into little pieces?

Edit: remember, speed was at an estimated 530 MPH.

[MercutioATC]

25. I'm neither a physicist nor a civil engineer.

Can you explain:

1) How so many people saw an American Airlines 757?

2) Where AAL77 and its passengers went if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

3) How something other than a 757 knocked over the light poles near the highway?

4) How 757 parts (landing strut, wheel, fuselage pieces) came to be at the Pentagon if a 757 didn't crash there?

5) How AAL77's black boxes and passenger DNA were recovered at the Pentagon if AAL77 didn't crash there?

6) How the damage is consistent with a 757 crash if a 757 didn't crash there? http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

7) Why pieces of melted aluminum were founded embedded in the limestone facade during demolition if a plane didn't hit the Pentagon? http://www.masonrymagazine.com/8-02/rising.html

You ask why the engines didn't make holes when they hit. I don't believe either one of us is qualified to answer that question...neither of us have the training in crash investigation. However, the dimensions of the damage to the Pentagon ARE generally consistent with a 757 crash. That, combined with the eyewitness reports and other evidence hardly constitutes the "no evidence" you claim. If your opinion is that AAL77 didn't crash there that's fine, but I think you have to admit that there IS evidence that supports that claim.

[adolfo]

38. My apologies

I was relying on the "loose change" video. It looks like the author didn't scale the plane accurately when compared to the Pentagon. You are correct, I'm sorry for the disinformation.

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

SNAPSHOT FROM "LOOSE CHANGE" DVD

[MercutioATC]

40. No problem...that's the advantage of discussing things like this.

I've certainly gained a greater understanding of things from these discussions. I've revised a few of my "facts" that turned out to be in error, too.

:)

[LARED]

6. Basic answer

they went into the Pentagon.

Are you one of those guys that thinks if the pictures are not found via Google they do not exist. I'll grant you this image of the engine



inside the pentagon is not verifiable without more detail. But it is an engine part, it was inside the Pentagon, and it looks very much like the engine part of flight 77.

[libertypirate]

8. Dipstick

that's not 7 tons of titanium

[LARED]

12. Was there 7 tons on titanium on the whole aircraft; dipstick?

Or do you think an aircraft engine is made entirely out of titanium.

[libertypirate]

29. Is that the best you can do...

What makes you so sure that photograph is of the piece you believe it to be? You guys are so hell bent on calling others out...

I know for a fact that the piece you are showing is not the piece you say that it is.

This information has been researched by many people who came to the conclusion that it was not from a 757 aircraft.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
Pentagon Starts at 15:20
The part your showing at 20:40
The pentagon ends @ 30:05 ish

Just takes a second to move the slider...

As for the two giant titanium screws they would have been somewhere out away from the center of the main whole like this.

[dchill]

9. The corresponding part...

on the Pratt & Whitney engine that powers a 757 has triangular, not round holes. Only one engine was found at the Pentagon, and it was much smaller than the Pratt & Whitneys that would be on a 757. There are TOO MANY HOLES in the "official" story.

Please watch "Loose Change: 2nd Edition".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x69058

Do yourself a favor.

[LARED]

11. I watched it and was not impressed (n/t)

[adolfo]

14. Do you know the answer?

If you were not impressed then maybe you can enlighten me and explain how two engines (steel & titanium) left no holes yet the nose (carbon composite, aluminum) penetrated concrete.

[we can do it]

37. Don't You Know It Was A Miracle

:sarcasm:

[dchill]

18. Why were you not impressed?

I'm positive that it would do me and everyone else a huge amount of good to learn from any informed, inquisitive, intelligent person why this film, "Loose Change 2nd Edition", left them unimpressed. Can you refute half of the claims made in the film? A quarter? One tenth?

Eagerly awaiting enlightenment...

[adolfo]

19. In other words..

.. these pictures from the video did not impress you nor the fact that the engine found was not from a 757 (according to the experts)?

[adolfo]

41. My mistake

If you enlarge the red area and lower it, the destruction will make more sense. I'm no longer confident about the scale accuracy from the video. At first, it looks convincing but here is a secondary source:

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

[Make7]

15. Perhaps you should do your research...

...before making such an inaccurate statement. The model of the engines on AA77 was the Rolls Royce RB211-535E4B. (Source: www.airdisaster.com)

What difference does it really make if you believe that the Pratt & Whitney engines used on 757's have triangular holes? What shape of holes do the Rolls Royce engines have?

- Make7

[dchill]

16. Touche! I admit my ignorance...

I do not know the shape of the holes on the Rolls Royce engine. I do not KNOW how many engines were found in the Pentagon wreckage. I do not KNOW how many bodies were recovered. I do not KNOW if there were any Arab gentlemen were on the passenger list. I do not KNOW how someone with any amount of flight training or experience could have made the meneuvers that I'M ASSUMING would have been necessary to fly straight into the ground floor of the Pentagon - without bouncing off the ground. I do not KNOW why all security camera tapes in the area, government and private, were confiscated immediately after the incident.

I do not KNOW why I am so paranoid that I can not accept the official storyline of ANYTHING that happened on September 11, 2001. I guess that's just the way I am - when hundreds of legitimate questions are either unanswered or given answers that only beg more questions, I tend do doubt the whole string of events.

One thing I DO KNOW, though, is that if I made it my mission to discover the shape of the Rolls Holes, SOMEONE would eventually "debunk" whatever I came up with. As far as I know, though, there was only one engine found in the Pentagon wreckage, and it was much smaller than either engine (Rolls or Pratt) used on the 757.

[AZCat]

17. Someone around here (Old and In the Way, I think)...

played around with the assumed flight path into the Pentagon on one of the versions of Microsoft Flight Simulator. He said it wasn't easy, but he got it after a few tries.

The size of the engines is deceptive since they are turbofans. A significant portion of their apparent diameter is used for the bypass air and doesn't really hold anything. The section that contains all the buckets, combustion can, and shaft is much smaller in diameter.

[MrSammo1]

22. You're wasting your time......

LARED knows that.

Minions do what they are told.

[MercutioATC]

26. Ah yes, we disagree with you so we must be "minions"....

I can't decide if :eyes: or :tinfoilhat: is more appropriate here.

[MrSammo1]

32. No....you don't disagree..........

you work for the government.

It's so obvious.

[MercutioATC]

34. Yes, I DO work for the government...

...as an air traffic controller.

Are you implying that all government employees (military and civilian) are "minions"?

[LARED]

44. I was told today

by Dicky (that's Vice President Cheney to non-minions, or is that non-onions) that you have made the special list of those that know too much and they will be coming after you shortly.

He told me to tell you that because he sort of likes you, he wants to give you a fighting chance.

[rman]

7. For the "Plane at the Pentagon" Skeptics

Basic question.

What happened to the two 6-ton engines made of titanium and steel?

[MrSammo1]

23. Come on now.......

You know that anything is possible and anything can happen!

;o)

[truth2power]

24. I've come to the conclusion

that no commercial passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon. Case closed on that one as far as I'm concerned. I realize that others may have different opinions. They're entitled.

I really have to get to bed, but I'll check back tomorrow for the flames. 3...2...1..

[MercutioATC]

27. No flames, I'd just ask how you reconcile the contrary evidence.

I understand that not many intact 757 pieces were found.

I understand that the crash site doesn't look like what most people would expect it to.

However, to believe that no passenger jet hit the Pentagon, you have to disregard witness reports, debris, the ASCE's crash analysis, the light poles, the reports of DNA and black boxes recovered, and a missing 757.

I'm just interested in how you reconcile the contrary evidence.

[truth2power]

36. Mercutio -

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been out all day.

To be brief - Through all my reading, researching and viewing discussions on DU, the one question I can't answer is "Where's the plane?" I know. It's inside the Pentagon, or it vaporized or whatever. All of the explanations just don't jive with what I SEE with my own eyes.

I've seen a lot of news footage of plane crashes over my lifetime and there's NEVER been one that just disappeared into thin air, AFIK. There are always bodies (or body parts), seats, luggage, childrens toys etc.

I didn't say no plane hit the Pentagon. I just don't think it was a commercial passenger jet. A Global Hawk drone or a missile, or maybe a combination of the two.

Also, all the peculiar behavior on the part of the government - confiscating videos, tearing up ATC audio tapes and scattering the pieces etc. And that line of people on the lawn, picking up pieces of "something". Bzzt!! There goes my crap detector. This, in itself, says they have something to hide. If a commercial jet impacted the Pentagon, let me see the tapes. Otherwise, they should shut up. And "because of national security" is not an acceptable answer.

Witnesses? All don't have a consistant view of what it was that passed overhead, from what I've read.

Missing 757? That's a subject for a different discussion, IMHO. One could posit several plausible scenarios. But it could be arranged. Yes, I think the passengers are dead; not residing on some island under assumed names. Whatever.


Not exactly brief <sigh>. Someone said that the trouble with liberals is they "cannot answer a goddamn question in less than eight fucking pages. :silly:

[MercutioATC]

39. Thanks for the reply.

I do understand your reasoning and I appreciate the civil manner in which you present it. I agree that the Pentagon event doesn't much resemble what I have seen of large passenger jet crashes. As mitigating criteria, I am using two factors that some seem to leave out:

1) In most of the crashes we've all seen in the media there was a pilot who was actively attempting to land the plane (attempting to reduce speed, level the plane, etc). That didn't happen in this case. In this case, the pilot was deliberately trying to crash at the maximum possible speed to inflict the greatest possible damage. It seems to me (I'm not an expert) that this could reasonably result in a more complete destruction of the aircraft that wouldn't mimic what we're used to seeing.

2) In most of the plane crashes we've all seen in the media the aircraft didn't hit a hardened target. Again, I'm not an expert, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the results of a high-speed crash into a reinforced wall might be different than those from a crash into a different type of structure or the ground.


I'm ruling out a Global Hawk or missile based on a few considerations:

1) A missile wouldn't have had the ability to shear off the light poles near the highway.

2) A missile wouldn't have damaged a 120'-wide portion of the facade of the Pentagon in the way it was damaged.

3) A missile wouldn't have looked like a commercial jet to most people.

4) Pieces of aluminum (allegedly pieces of aircraft fuselage) were found and photographed on the Pentagon lawn immediately subsequent to the crash. Since there was no time to plant that evidence (especially under the eyes of scores of witnesses) it seems reasonable to conclude that those pieces were debris from whatever hit the Pentagon. A Global Hawk isn't made of aluminum (the same reasoning applies when considering the melted aluminum found embedded in the limestone facade of the Pentagon by workers during demolition).

I completely agree with you about the actions of the government (not releasing tapes, cutting up tapes of an interview with controllers, etc). It does seem that they're attempting to hide something. I'm just not taking the next step that concludes that EVERY element of the "official story" is a lie. I don't believe that an attempted cover-up of certain elements of 9/11 necessitates that no commercial planes crashed.

Eyewitness reports frequently differ from each other. I'll concede that there were people who claimed to have seen something other than a commercial jet, but the majority of the witnesses reported a large passenger jet, some even specifying an American Airlines plane.

I agree that the "missing jet" is a peripheral discussion, but I think it does have some bearing on the issue. If AAL77 didn't hit the Pentagon, it must have gone somewhere. It's not necessary to prove where AAL77 went to prove that something other than AAL77 hit the Pentagon, but it'd sure help the argument.

Thanks for the completeness of your response. I've tried to respond in kind. I'm more trying to show you where I'm coming from than rebut your post. Obviously, different interpret the data differently.

:)

[we can do it]

42. One Little Question...

If what you have stated is true-

< In this case, the pilot was deliberately trying to crash at the maximum possible speed to inflict the greatest possible damage.>

Wouldn't it have been easier to strike a building the size of the pentagon (much wider than it is tall) from above and therefore inflict more damage- instead of trying to come in from the side with the possibility of crashing into the ground?

BTW - I don't think the entire official story is a lie either, it was sunny on 9/11/2001.

[MercutioATC]

43. You're assuming he hit it exactly how he intended.

It's like throwing a baseball at a wall and then arguing that it would have been impossible to hit it in that exact place. I don't find it unreasonable to believe that the Pentagon was the target...where AAL77 happened to hit it was, to some degree at least, chance. Just my opinion.

[sgsmith]

45. Airplane crashes

Actually, there have been two fairly recent airplane crashes that left an amazingly few recognizable pieces. Both were crashes into water, which is less resistant to an object than either land or reinforced buildings. One might even have some significance to the crash in PA.

One was the Value Jet DC-9 that crashed into the Everglades.
Where's the plane?


Plane pieces


Now this was an smaller airplane that a 757, and the pilot was attempting to return to the airport. So, it likely was flying slower than the Pentagon and PA aircraft are reported to have been flying. The impact debris field was much more spread out, probably indicating a flatter descent into terrain.



The second flight was the SwissAir Flight 111, a MD-11 which is larger than the 9/11 aircraft. An interesting statistic from http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/fact_sheets/A98H0003/chronology_a98h0003.asp
is:
"December 15, 1999: Recovery operations are completed. Ninety-eight per cent of aircraft, by weight, has been recovered. Dredged material yielded estimated additional one million pieces of aircraft structure, components and cargo. An estimated two million pieces of wreckage are recovered."

Also, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/dissection.html
"NOVA: Did the mountain of evidence retrieved from the seafloor help them pinpoint the source of the fire?

Evans: Well, in the horribly grim circumstances of this tragedy, the one small footnote of good news perhaps, from an investigative standpoint, was that the airplane impacted into water, which had the effect of immediately dousing the fire and freezing in time the evidence that would be so crucial to unraveling the mystery. Had the airplane crashed on land, we probably would have just had a smoking, black, smeared piece of earth with some tiny pieces of aluminum and wire. It would have been much more difficult."

Emphasis added because it sorta sounds like the crater in PA.

So, I think it's fair to say that a plane crash doesn't necessarily leave behind large pieces of structure that are easily recognizable to the lay person.

[Make7]

28. I don't know how you can believe that...

... people may have opinions that differ from your own and they are entitled to have them. Please make an effort to be less tolerant in the future. Thank you in advance for incorporating this well-intentioned suggestion into your future posts.

- Make7

[wildbilln864]

30. One possibility may be here...

Isn't it more likely that the planes that were used were taken over by someone outside the planes using this remote control technology. No one on the planes could control the aircraft.
http://geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html


Just a thought.

[Make7]

31. I think you may have misunderstood my post.

Did you just read the subject line? It was a joke. :)

Regarding remote control: Although I will agree that remote control of an aircraft is technically possible (and has been for at least a couple of decades), there are a couple of questions that it raises.

First one is technical - would it be possible to implement this system with no visible signs of its presence? I believe (and am too tired to confirm) that the flight controls for 767's and 757's have mechanical (i.e. not electronic) connections to the actual parts of the plane being controlled. Therefore, the remote control system would possibly need to be able to withstand the pilot(s) physically struggling against it's actions. Of course if the plane was completely retrofitted with a fly-by-wire flight control system, then this ceases to be an issue. However, would a pilot that is trained to fly 767's and 757's not notice that the flight controls were acting differently?

The second issue - this remote control theory is just speculation, as far as I know. There seems to be nothing to back it up, it just has the benefit of solving an issue regarding the events that day. The fact that is is not likely to be proven or disproven is simply an added perk for incorporation into a conspiracy theory.

I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but it is merely an unproven hypothesis at this point. Since it is very unlikely to ever be proven, time and energy could be more productively used pursuing other avenues. But - that's just my two cents, to do with as you see fit.

Welcome to DU btw. :hi:

- Make7

[dchill]

33. Basic answer...

We will never know until there is a REAL Democrat in the White House, or a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

[adolfo]

35. Agreed

We can speculate forever but only a real investigation can find the truth.