The Photographic Evidence

[Approaching Infinity]

I was doing some web-surfing on the Pentagon and came across this website, which I hadn't visited for a while:

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index2.htm

For me, this is the "smoking gun." Unfortunately, the scale is not clearly shown to be accurate (an easy way to rationalize not "believing" the image). Also, it would be nice to have an image clearly showing how the composite was made (2 of the images used are available in high-res here). The creator of the above website only gives us the "finished product," without the methodology, schematics, etc. It should be pretty easy to create such a composite image, with dimensions.

It seems pretty clear to me that this image does not show suffifient damage from the vertical stabilizer:

Is it that hard to see?

 

[rs]

Well from Wikipedia (unreliable but easy to access) the wingspan of the 757 is 125', the tail is 44' (from the tarmac with the wheel down) and the height of the Pentagon is 77'.

Using the 77' "ruler" of the building height the wingspan of the rendered 757 might be a little exaggerated but the author might have been trying to render the perspective to be photographically accurate. The wing intercepts on the wall seem much closer to the 125' wingspan using the building height ruler. Those intercepts seem to be about a little greater than 1.5 buildings wide, which is close to 125'

As far as the tail intercept, while it might seem high, presumably the altitude of the 757 was greater than zero. In this case the intercept is probably indicated in reference to the hole center. Presumably the "757" went through the center of the hole.

 

[Joe]

I have seen bomb blast damaged buildings and from my laymans POV the damage to the facade of the Pentagon around the hole is blast damage, not impact damage - a few chunks of limestone facing have fallen off, but nothing impacted the areas of the facade of the building where parts of a 757 clearly should have. Other than that, with the explosion that occured at impact there should have been hundreds of pieces of 757 fuselage, luggage, seats, bodies ALL OVER the lawn. There was little or no sign of this? Conclusion? Flight 77 was not involved.

Joe

 

[Approaching Infinity]

If the 5 frames of the explosion are real, I suspect that what we are seeing is the explosion from a missile, with the frames of the drone craft "missing." What I'd really like to see is the same image (3D simulation) of the Pentagon with a Global Hawk. That might be quite telling...

Joe, it really is absurd. I mean, where are the wings?! If they really had hit the facade, they would have been torn off and lying on the ground, because they obviously didn't penetrate the building. Brainwashing will never cease to baffle me...

rs, here's an image from the official Pentagon report. Funnily enough, it looks even MORE exaggerated, with the stabilizer reaching the fourth floor windows. The wingspan is also slightly larger:

 

[Laura]

There is a way to solve this quite simply: build a mock-up of that section of the Pentagon using the same materials that are used in the Pentagon itself. Build said mock-up in a remote location.

Then, get a 757, load it with the right number of cadavers, the same amount of luggage that was on Flight 77, the same amount of fuel, etc.

Then, with remote control, reproduce the alleged flight path, speed and impact.

You will then see exactly what could or could not have happened.

This idea is not mine, it is Jean-Pierre Petit's and we talked about it last night at dinner. I smacked my forehead and said: "Yeah!"

It is so simple, so logical, and so perfect an experiment that it really OUGHT to be done. For a few million, Bush and Gang could either be completely exonerated or totally exposed. It's that simple.

 

[Darren]

Great idea.

Then, with remote control, reproduce the alleged flight path, speed

I'd like to see that one.

 

[dhess31]

There is a way to solve this quite simply: build a mock-up of that section of the Pentagon using the same materials that are used in the Pentagon itself. Build said mock-up in a remote location.

Then, get a 757, load it with the right number of cadavers, the same amount of luggage that was on Flight 77, the same amount of fuel, etc.

Then, with remote control, reproduce the alleged flight path, speed and impact.

You will then see exactly what could or could not have happened.

This idea is not mine, it is Jean-Pierre Petit's and we talked about it last night at dinner. I smacked my forehead and said: "Yeah!"

It is so simple, so logical, and so perfect an experiment that it really OUGHT to be done. For a few million, Bush and Gang could either be completely exonerated or totally exposed. It's that simple.

They did the same thing with the Titanic, though it was a mcok-up not to scale.

The argument was that the crew of the Titanic should NOT have closed the water-tight doors because if the whole ship filled up with water EVENLY it would not have sunk for much more time, allowing more people to be saved.

So they did a mock-up of it and found out that it didn't really matter, because had the doors not been closed then the ship would have went over on it's side instead and they wouldn't have gained much time.

So I remember. Some details might be off a little but the gist is there.

So, though it isn't the same thing you are talking about, a small-model might give a little more light on it and not be nearly as expensive or logistically-tough to do.

It wouldn't carry the same weight either, but it might be a start.

Don

 

[janama]

here's a A-300 scaled to a 757 crashing into the pentagon to scale via google earth.

 

[Enlightened1]

here's a A-300 scaled to a 757 crashing into the pentagon to scale via google earth.

http://johnlsayers.com/Stuff/pent_1.jpg

One important item missing. The engines hang down almost 5 feet below the fuselage.

 

[SeniorOfficerPotnky]

If the 5 frames of the explosion are real, I suspect that what we are seeing is the explosion from a missile, with the frames of the drone craft "missing." What I'd really like to see is the same image (3D simulation) of the Pentagon with a Global Hawk. That might be quite telling...

Joe, it really is absurd. I mean, where are the wings?! If they really had hit the facade, they would have been torn off and lying on the ground, because they obviously didn't penetrate the building. Brainwashing will never cease to baffle me...

rs, here's an image from the official Pentagon report. Funnily enough, it looks even MORE exaggerated, with the stabilizer reaching the fourth floor windows. The wingspan is also slightly larger:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/video/pbpr2atg.jpg

I might try this, I've already done a simulation with a 757, now I'll try doing a Global Hawk. :)

 

[vinny]

I might try this, I've already done a simulation with a 757

great! what sort of simulation? and have you got any results to share?

, now I'll try doing a Global Hawk. :)

again, would be interesting to see what you come up with!

 

[SeniorOfficerPotnky]

I might try this, I've already done a simulation with a 757

great! what sort of simulation? and have you got any results to share?

, now I'll try doing a Global Hawk. :)

again, would be interesting to see what you come up with!

A simulation to determine the consistency of damage to the Pentagon. The light poles and generator were not included, I just did damage for the Pentagon

The results were:

1. Wing damage variation.
A) Some parts of the wings, rudder and tailfins collided with areas that in photographs appear to be undamaged.

This means that either they were atomized, or they should have sheared off.

B) Some areas of the wings did as much damage to the Pentagon as the engines.

2. Engine damage
A) The starboard engine, despite hitting a lamp pole and a generator created roughly the same hole as the undamaged engine.

Some (or all) of the engine should have been ripped off.

B) Jet blast is powerful enough to rip up a runway if left running too long. Jet blast would have caused damage to surrounding fence area and cable spools, whcih would be blown back more than 50 yards from the tail of the aircraft.

3. Fuselage Damage.
A) The top of the fuselage must have been ripped off at some point.

B) Other damage is consistent, as well as that green stuff that Boeing uses on their aircraft.

I'll try the Globa Hawk now.

 

[vinny]

1. Wing damage variation.
A) Some parts of the wings, rudder and tailfins collided with areas that in photographs appear to be undamaged.

This means that either they were atomized, or they should have sheared off.

If the wings did not cause the expected impact damage, then they must have come off OUTSIDE before impact. But the wings were not found outside. If the wings were atomised, then they must have HIT something, but the expected impact damage was also not found. So your results strongly indicate that it wasn't a 757. agreed?

B) Some areas of the wings did as much damage to the Pentagon as the engines.

2. Engine damage
A) The starboard engine, despite hitting a lamp pole and a generator created roughly the same hole as the undamaged engine.

Some (or all) of the engine should have been ripped off.

B) Jet blast is powerful enough to rip up a runway if left running too long. Jet blast would have caused damage to surrounding fence area and cable spools, whcih would be blown back more than 50 yards from the tail of the aircraft.

and the area of lawn was completely untouched, as indicated by the early photos. So again this indicates that there was no 757.

B) Other damage is consistent, as well as that green stuff that Boeing uses on their aircraft.

so... other data was inconsistent because this other data, you are suggesting, is indicative that there was a 757?

so, on examining all the data, on first appearances we have a contradiction. either there was or there wasn't a 757.
contradicting data means that either some data is falseified or some data is ambiguous. it would be hard to falsify the external pictures which are quite conclusive. easier to falsify the internal ones, but no need, they are not particularly strongly incidative anyway. 'green stuff' doesn't prove a 757, it merely allows for the possibility. whereas the complete absence of either a gaping great hole in the wall OR the remains of a 757 strewn across the lawn are STRONGLY indicative that there was no 757. strongly? I would say almost conclusively even without ANY other data. but of course, there is masses and masses of other data to bring to this picture, regarding the whole circumstances surrounding this event, and looking at the bigger picture.

 

[SeniorOfficerPotnky]

I can't really say I'm trying to prove any theory, just find the truth.

So far, what I know is this:

A) It cannot be a missile of any kind, as no missile has the capacity to fly in a zig-zag pattern knocking over 5 light poles, colliding with generator then maintaining enough energy to punch through 3 rings of reinforced concrete and walls and equipment and so forth.

It should be noted, however that witnesses describe a sound "like a missile". Note that none of them have ever heard a Rolls-Royce RB211 turbofan running at full power that close without hearing protection, nor have they ever heard a missile or Global Hawk at that distance either.

B) The Global Hawk, whilst having the wingspan, and having a single engine on top (explaining jet blast) would not have damaged a generator like that, however it's still being tested. It has a speed of 650 km/h or 404 mph, so speed is inconsistant.

C) A Boeing 757 has correct wingspan, correct engine position to smash a generator, and has the right speed to smash through the Pentagon. Jet blast and wreckage is not consistant, as two RB211 turbofans are missing completely, along with wing sections that did not enter the Pentagon, but were not found.

D) Remote bombs are out of the question, as witnesses and film footage prove some kind of aircraft.

I'd like to test a missile damage to the Pentagon, does anyone know what kind of missile could do something like that?

 

[blindpsychic]

Ok, I'm quoting this from Dave McGowan, because I'm sick of all these silly "The wings just fell off!" arguments. Even the video of the F4 Phantom that SOP posted in the other thread, the wings stay intact, even when the mass of the wings is far less than a 747, because the one in that video doesn't A. Have two 9,000 pound engines attached B. loaded with 15,000 pounds of fuel C. the infrastucture required to support an entire aircraft's weight.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68f.html

As can be clearly seen in the accompanying photos of just such an aircraft, the most prominent feature of the wings are the enormous engines hanging from each of them. Those engines weigh in at roughly 9,000 pounds each - nearly 12,000 pounds each if we factor in the steel struts that support them (according to pentagonresearch.com and the ASCE). Some researchers have already pointed out that the aircraft's wings have to be quite strong to support those massive engines. That much seems rather obvious. Of far more significance, I would think, is that those engines are what propels the plane. In other words, in order for the plane to actually lift off the ground and fly, the engines, and hence the wings, have to literally drag that fully-loaded, 127-ton aircraft into the air and then pull it along to its destination.
It seems to me then that if a 757's wings were as flimsily attached to the fuselage as many researchers claim, we would regularly be treated to rather comical scenes of wingless jets sitting on runways while the wings themselves took flight in wild, unpredictable ways. And that's not the kind of thing you see on the evening news that often.

Also clearly visible in these photos is the aircraft's main landing gear, which also happens to be attached not to the fuselage, but to the wings. That landing gear adds nearly two tons of weight to each wing. More importantly, the fact that the gear is attached to the wings means that when the plane is on the ground, it is the wings - described by more than a few 9-11 skeptics as consisting of little more than a thin aluminum skin - that have to support almost the entire weight of the aircraft (up to 255,000 pounds at take-off). And when the plane lands, needless to say, that landing gear provides the first point of contact with the ground. It also provides the primary means of braking the aircraft to a stop. It seems safe then to conclude that the wings can not only support the entire weight of the plane but can also simultaneously arrest its considerable forward momentum. Imagine the stress that is placed on that landing gear as a 200,000+ pound airplane skips down the runway at a relatively high rate of speed and it becomes quite clear that the landing gear, and the wings themselves, have to be very securely attached to the fuselage.

Indeed, the area of the plane with the greatest structural strength, by any logical analysis, would have to be the span between those two enormously heavy, and enormously powerful, engines. In other words, the wings are not some insignificant appendages that are tacked on with a few aviation rivets and a wad of bubblegum; they are an integral part of the aircraft.
In addition to the engines and the main landing gear, the wings are also home to the aircraft's fuel tanks, which carry a combined 11,240 gallons of fuel (at least according to the graphic reproduced here; fuel capacity is listed elsewhere as 11,489 gallons or 11,275 gallons), weighing some 75,000 pounds. Each wing holds nearly 15,000 pounds of fuel and another 45,000 pounds, more or less, is stored in tanks between the wings.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, each wing of a Boeing 757-200 weighs in at a whopping 44,000 pounds, including the engine and struts, the landing gear, a full load of fuel, and the weight of the wing structure itself (steel and other metals account for about 2/3 of that weight, or roughly fifteen tons, with the fuel accounting for the other seven tons). If we add together the weight of the two wings (88,000 pounds), the weight of the fuel stored between the wings (45,000 pounds), and the weight of the heavily reinforced cross-section of the fuselage between the two wings, we come up with a figure, I would guess, somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 pounds. Since a fully fueled Boeing 757-200 weighs in at roughly 200,000 pounds (127,000 pounds for the aircraft and 75,000 pounds for the fuel), a little rudimentary arithmetic reveals that fully 3/4 of the aircraft's weight is distributed in the cross-section between the wing tips. The bulk of the fuselage, which appears to be the most massive portion of the plane, in reality accounts for only about 25% of the aircraft's total weight.