Flight 77, the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 was a Boeing 757. It is the same plane that President Trump flies in.
A Boeing 757 uses one of 2 different engines: Either a Rolls-Royce RB211 or a Pratt & Whitney PW2000
Here is a diagram of a Rolls-Royce RB211. It says the opening of the turbine of a RB211 is 84.8 inches in diameter. (7 feet)
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B0122274105003562-gr7.jpg
Here is a photo of President Trumps plane (757), look at the size of the opening of the plane turbine and the person standing next to the plane. Look at the center hub of the turbine, compare its size to the person standing next to the plane.
Here is a photo from the Pentagon on 9/11. Look at the round object behind the person on the left. That is the center hub of a turbine from the object that hit the Pentagon. Notice anything wrong?
Pentagon was hit by a missile. No fucking plane leaves a perfectly round hole entry and exit like the one seen in pictures of the pentagon. The roof collapse was much later because it was obvious no plane hit the building.
You can't argue with Mr Deathray, he the expert in everything, just ask him. He will sit around and pat himself on the back for days at a time if you let him.
He very rarely posts anything, never contributes to the community but always has a stern response for anyone who speaks about chemtrails and now I guess 9/11. He likes to chime in when any conspiracy theory makes his government look bad.
Its kinda spooky if you know what I mean.
Shills gonna shill.
A missile would leave a hole about the size of a telephone pole. Far too small to account for the damage seen. The fuselage deck would be the structure that would penetrate, and it was 11.5 feet wide. Moreover, the airplane was WITNESSED to be an airplane by multiple witnesses, including one airborne witness. It's wing also clipped off a streetlight, which would have fatally crashed a missile. The photographed engine component is already larger in diameter than a cruise missile. The roof collapsed because a plane hit the building---you don't have roofs collapsing because an airplane DIDN'T hit the building.
OK, but this is also the result of a missile strike.
Then there is the issue with the engines. I suspect the engines would have weighed about 4 tons each. They would have been travelling at at least 200mph. If we assume that 4 tons is about 2 cars and 200mph is four times the typical speed of a car - which translates into 16 times the energy then the energy of each engine is equivalent to around 32 large cars hitting the building all at once.
Strangely, they seem to have bounced off while the relatively soft fuselage went straight through.
Then there is the issue with the rotational energy of the engines. A bladed turbine disc can saw its way through steel girders if it breaks loose.
Well, the "missile strike" reference wouldn't open; my antivirus software flagged it as suspect.
Ever seen racing cars flip, tumble, and come apart? Engines can do that, too, and any excess energy can easily be diverted into self-destruction. (The internal aerodynamic forces within an engine want to pull it apart axially in tension.) Since when is an airplane fuselage "relatively soft"? Relative to what? A tank? These are pretty tough cookies, and the main deck is perhaps the strongest structure in the airplane, excepting maybe the wing beams. They both come together at the wing box, THE strongest structure of the airplane. The main deck would have high momentum density, since it would be like a knife blade penetrating the building.
But everyone SAW it was an airplane, including an airborne observer. You're like the guy who contends that someone was trampled by a dinosaur, when the crowd says, "He was trampled by a zebra. We saw it. It had stripes." And he had hoof prints on his body.
Since they hit the occasional bird ...
It is quite difficult to take you seriously.
People saw a plane and people saw the hole. They were TOLD that one caused the other.
Ask yourself, The Pentagon probably has more CCTV cameras per square foot than anywhere outside Las Vegas. How come we were not regaled with miles of video footage showing what really happened? Why was it all collected and hidden? That is the action of someone with something to hide.
Another issue, the alleged pilots could hardly fly a Cessna yet they managed to cope with a twin-engined jet-liner very easily. So easily, in fact that instead of flying straight into the top of The Pentagon, they flew round in a 300 degree circle while losing exactly enough height to land the plane. Then they flew at zero feet into the side of it.
I worked where they build these airliners. The structures are tough, and you fail to substantiate your groundless claim that an aircraft fuselage is "relatively soft."
The video shows the plane colliding into the Pentagon. Recognizable by the American Airlines livery.
The rest of your nonsense presumes that all the actual evidence does not exist, which is denialism of the first order. You complain that the DoD has video footage that they are not showing---but this is all imaginary, in your head!
Another aspect of denialism is to claim the event was somehow impossible, notwithstanding that it happened. To a large extent, airplanes are designed for stable flight, which means they are intended to fly that way even when the pilots are hands-off. You are omitting the fact that the terrorists flew the plane from where it was when they commandeered it, to the Pentagon. Flying in a circle to lower altitude is not a surprising feat. And their final approach was a shallow dive, not "at zero feet" (presumably plowing the ground), though it looks like they were aiming at the foot of the building. They were at least 10-15 feet altitude at the start of the dive, when the wing clipped off the street light. Ground effect was working against early contact with the ground (and if you don't know what ground effect is, you have no knowledge of airplane aerodynamics).
And another thing. You must have no experience of high speeds. When you get lined up, and there are only seconds to go, not much is going to disturb you from your path. There won't be enough time.
Yes and no. If you just want to lose height it is easy. If you want to end up at a height that is precise to within a few feet and at right angles to a wall in a plane vastly different from anything you have ever flown before then it is. Try it in a flight sim some time and see.
Thank you, this is the funniest thing I have seen all day.
Who in the world said anything about being precise to within a few feet? Being within 10-20 feet at the start of a glide slope would be adequate. You have an exaggerated sense of what was adequate. Lining up on the target and aiming at the foundation footing was enough to get it there.
No time or patience or interest in flight simulators, but a friend once allowed me to fly his light Cessna on the straight and level. That part was not particularly hard, but I was quite disoriented by all the scenery I could see from the air that I was unaware of on the ground. It made landmark recognition difficult. (This would be less of a problem for something like the Pentagon, which was unmistakable and set apart from any confusing surface features.)
What is so humorous about clipping a streetlight? It only proves that the airplane was not flying at "zero" altitude (which would have been a belly slide all the way in). Let me remind you again that it doesn't take much skill to be unable to defeat the ground effect that was keeping the airplane buoyant.
You know, we have this conceit that the 9/11 air pirates were know-nothings and were miserably under-trained for what they were doing. But it just now occurs to me that perhaps they all came from a piloting background in their native lands, even ex-fighter pilots. Why would they take any training classes here? Maybe to learn our procedures, so as to do a better job when Showtime arrived? That would make events a bit more understandable.
The wall won this one.
Please link to the video that shows the "plane colliding into the Pentagon. Recognizable by the American Airlines livery."
Impressive wall, 12-feet thick. I don't think the exterior walls of the Pentagon were nearly so thick. But it did demonstrate the total disintegration of the airframe, which is consistent with the result of Flight 77.
The video is the one that others have been posting, showing the plane coming in from the right, flying to the left. The image seems to occupy just one frame and is mostly a blur. The fuselage looks pretty skinny, but it is more recognizable if you consider that the upper third is contrast-invisible, being painted blue against a sky background, and the lower third being white, fading into shadow. What is left are the red, white, and blue livery stripes at the mid-line of the fuselage, which are better seen in the video. I recall being puzzled at the image initially. It seemed too slender. Then I realized that what was visible was the livery, with the rest of the fuselage being of similar brightness to the background---which is a phenomenon that results in invisibility at a distance, which was demonstrated by the Army Air Force in World War II (though too limited and impractical to implement operationally).
I saw a ground view video from a cctv at a checkpoint that shows it's clearly not an aircraft given the height and speed of the object. That was a few days after 911. Can't find it now
There are two videos that I know of, both were taken from almost exactly the same place and neither clearly show an airliner.
https://twitter.com/iluminatibot/status/1692830931298443573?t=edIZj5phE3D2SxfPXJUObA&s=19
https://twitter.com/541patriot/status/1571721441170845696?t=Drxaom_YmyCfvc7OUgyQug&s=09
Dude. Have you ever seen an actual cruise missile? I know for a fact you have not given your first sentence. As a former Javelin Missile System TRAINER!!! I can tell you a JAVELIN, which is 1/10 the diameter of a cruise missile would leave a 5 foot hole on impact WITHOUT A DETONATION (yep … seen it). So … no, a telephone pole is by regulation 12-18 inches in diameter depending on if it is supports distribution lines or transmission lines.
I worked next to the factory that made the ALCM and was familiar with its size and shape from inert rounds that were stored in hallway locations in another building. Can you say as much? The body diameter was 24 inches, which is clearly in the ballpark of my remark---and smaller than the hole made by the 757 (which, again, was seen and identified as an airliner).
Look, you have no argument. You are sweeping aside all the positive evidence that it was exactly as described, which cannot be refuted.
now do a remote controlled Falcon jet.
Whatever it was, it came in level a few feet off the ground going reeeeally fast.
100% correct. The passenger jet narrative is laughable.
No, it was in a shallow dive. A wing clipped off the upper part of a street light pole (the kind that's about 20 feet tall). Ground effect undoubtedly played a part in prolonging the final phase, as the wing lift essentially doubles when the plane gets within about half a wingspan's height above the ground. (Ground effect prevented the first attempt of the U-2 to land on its first test flight. Very awkward and quite unanticipated. The pilot had to invent a way of reducing lift in order to touch down. They later had to add spoilers to the wings in order to dump the lift in order to touch down for a landing.)
The ground radar traced the flight path of that airplane from departure to pentagon impact. You are dreaming up things that are refuted by the facts.
What was it that you dreamed that I dreamed up? You appear to be addressing the wrong person.
"Remote control Falcon jet" (i.e., something other than American Airlines flight 77). Whatever it was, "it came in level a few feet off the ground".
My apology if you were not on board the train. Bad company.
Lmaoooo. You full of shit.
This is getting so predictable, it is almost sleep-inducing. No ability to refute => turn on the name-calling machine and fling.
We all know you are full of shit. Your arguments hold no water. Everything you say is making the excuse as to why it wasn’t a missile. Can you disprove it was a missile? Because we can prove it wasn’t a Fuckjgn airliner.. hey do the feds still pay time and a half for overtime? You gonna get a fat check this week !!
Simple: (1) Multiple witnesses on the ground and in the air saw the airplane. (2) The airplane was tracked on radar from the departing airport to the Pentagon. (3) Video image was consistent with an American Airlines airliner. (4) Airplane wreckage was present. (5) Damage was consistent with an airplane crash. (6) Passengers were killed and destroyed, never to be seen again. This is all POSITIVE evidence for what happened.
There is NO positive evidence for a missile. (1) No missile was seen. Had a missile clipped the streetlight, it would have torn its wing off and gone out of control. (2) No radar signature of a missile. (3) No video image of a missile. It would have been too small to for the image that was taken. (4) No missile wreckage was found. (5) Damage excessive for a missile crash. No explosion, only a fire. (6) What happened to the passengers?
All you have is bullshit and bravado. You are trying to gaslight the whole scenario---ignore the witnesses, ignore the radar tracking, ignore the video image, ignore the wreckage, ignore the massive damage, and ignore the passenger deaths. Talk about denialism. The missile hypothesis stands on the same ground as an attack by a vampire bat: purely imaginary, no evidence.
Since you don't have any evidence or reason to think there was a missile, your belief must be in response to some psychological need. This is what is called a paranoid delusion, which is the leading edge of psychosis. It involves the complete abandonment of rational discourse, devolving into castigation and baseless insult. As a result, you fail to see how you appear in public: mental slobber.
Yawwwnnnn. You sound like a fed.
And you have just proven you don't know what you are talking about. Go back to sleep.
You don't know that the wing clipped a streetlight. All you know is that a broken streetlight was found - and wasn't it found through someone's car windscreen?
Do you know about Operation Northwoods? That radar would have been convincing as well. We agree, there was a plane in the area but was that what entered the building?
Also, you claim the passenger compartment of a plane is strong enough to penetrate buildings but not strong enough to protect the passengers. They just evaporated.
I read that the wing clip was observed. And the fate of the piece clipped is consistent with events. The airborne observer witnessed the ultimate crash.
Of course, Operation Northwoods never happened. The credibility of the scenario is only speculative. And there is no EVIDENCE that this was such an event.
I was referring to the main deck of the airplane which would have entered similarly to a knife blade. Aluminum is a lot more durable than human flesh, but a lot of structure was stripped off. Someone here (I can't recall if it was you) showed a video of a ground test propelling an F-4 fighter into a 12-foot-thick reinforced concrete wall at 200 mph. The entire airplane was obliterated into tiny pieces. Human beings are not so durable. They would have been pulverized.
Why are you trying so hard to become a mental pretzel? The facts are clear and obvious. Evil intent reeks from all this. Does it somehow offend your religion that the government is not necessarily a monolith and that it can and maybe often does tell the truth? People lie and also tell the truth. Even liars do not lie all the time; too much fictional baggage to carry around. What is important is to discern lies---by finding the truth. Not to discern truth by assuming lies. This is a pretty shitty way of respecting the dead---to declare that they never were real.
Now let’s talk about building 7. Remember that!
Oy vey!!!
It was no plane that hit the Pentagon. It was hit by a missile. There is CCTV all over the place that would prove that but it has never been released.
A 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon
It all so obvious people just want to believe the lies because the truth is horrifying.
I suspect it is the other way around. The truth is so...mundane. It is depressing to think that so much damage could so easily be accomplished by commonly used technology. It is all a matter of evil intent. They need the lies to amp up their adrenaline over the possibility of a PLOT to use advanced weaponry. Well, they used a modern airliner. What more advanced weapon did you want? (This was not a new idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite.)
I ran into this psychology many years ago in the context of a discussion over the potential for a nuclear weapon being somehow smuggled into the United States and detonated. I thought it was a fanciful idea and proposed a method to achieve the same result with conventional explosives and simple massed concentrations, to be set off remotely. No one would be the wiser. Nuclear technology was not necessary. But nobody worried about that possibility...and the whole prospect was unlikely for one simple reason: the inability to keep such a project secret. So, I realized that technology wasn't the issue. The only issue was operational...and the inherent lack of centralized control.
The hot section of the turbine is much smaller. That's how you burn jet fuel at 2,000 degress. The back end drives the front by being connected by the same shaft. The front end is the compression it's much bigger and air is compressed down. When air is compressed it cause jet fuel to burn extremely hot and develop thrust.......
That's the size I would expect to see on a turbine from the hot section, especially on a high bypass engine, we're most of the compresed air bypasses the hot section.
That makes sense however, the photo above has the rounded, egg shaped, center point which is what you would find on the bigger front fan.
That's what it would look like if it broke at high RPM. It could even be one of the front turbines with all the blades broke off, thats special steel to prevent blades creeping in length at high temp, I would expect them to break and it's probably not even steel most likely iconel,blades from material like that would break and not bend. It was almost 20 years ago I got my A&P license,but I still remember the basics.
I have no idea what hit the pentagon, but that part does not make your argument. It was a well researched and document high effort post, I hesitated before I posted.......
Have you watched to documentary Loose Change? They go over some of the details about the parts that were found at the scene. It is at the 13 minute mark.
https://rumble.com/vs3quw-american-coup-1st-edition-2005.html
I watched it, just now. It reminds me of the concord crash in Paris. The pentagon crash site needs to be compared to similar crashes.
I'm sorry, but I did research for a living. "Well researched" does not come up with the wrong answer. High effort means nothing if it is mistaken. In this case, the anon could have avoided the errors if he had simply become familiar with the construction of turbofan engines and what the components look like. There is no way that a worthy researcher would claim (in effect) that an inlet fan and a turbine disk were the same thing. That was the whole premise on which he hung his conclusion. We can't let sloppy research fuel empty conspiracy theories. It is a waste of time and a distraction from the truth.
This picture of a cutaway RB211-535E4 may help. The large fan is on the front but the part you can see in the Pentagon photograph has a shroud round the outer edge. I believe this picture shows guide vanes but turbine blades have a similar shroud round the outside.
To me, the Pentagon image seems to be of shrouded blades which implies turbine blades rather than compressor blades. In the cutaway picture the compressor sections are on the left and the turbine sections are on the right. The combustion chamber is in between.
No planes hit any buildings on 911
When I zoom in on the round egg shaped section of the 9/11 photo, the egg shaped cone does look like it has damage to it. From a distance it looks smooth.
So the 9/11 photo could be from the turbine section of a jet engine and not from the compressor fins in the front, I agree with that. However, I feel it is still to small for a 757 application.
My point with the post, the photo from the Pentagon shows a turbine of some type that is to small for a 757. The 9/11 photo shows something that is aprox knee height.
Below shows 2 men standing in front of Rolls Royce engine.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6f/e4/4e/6fe44ec4db2cd0718e54356c86e28ba7.jpg
Here is another photo of a man standing next to a Roll Royce engine. He is standing next to the combustion chamber. The rear section where the turbine blades are located, The turbine section looks to be as tall as the man. Yes I agree the turbine fan is smaller than the compressor fan but this picture indicates the turbine fall for a Rolls Royce engine is still much larger that the part in the 9/11 photo.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/c3/24/bac324b5724e3a082733a17fdccf3959.png
There was rumors that a C-130 was seen flying away from the Pentagon after the explosion. Here we see a cruise missile with a C-130 in the background. What is the possibility?
https://imgs.search.brave.com/67Rc4hpeLP6patl8gPa7i4N-g6Lu7CX9_R0LJiXd3Gg/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu/bWV0YWJ1bmsub3Jn/L2RhdGEvTWV0YU1p/cnJvckNhY2hlL2Nv/bnRyYWlsc2NpZW5j/ZS5jb21fc2tpdGNo/XzAwMF9BR01fODZD/Xzk5MDMzMF9GXzM1/ODhIXzAwMi5qcGdf/XzI4NzY4X0MzXzk3/NDc0XzI5XzIwMTIw/NjI1XzEzNTIzOS5q/cGc
Here is a cut away photo of a cruise missile engine.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvORWwwfV41fDtHtgRmdfN6P3EaCO1gfwUr6LU1psU3dXtTMCACzesCeV2ckFyG1-4ZFg&usqp=CAU
Here is a photo of a Iranian cruise missile engine.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQ0nPY841qjGDz7XYdsj7wu6nQKPRZ60QzMw&usqp=CAU
I think the 9/11 photo shows something that would be from a small jet engine like from a cruise missile.
No planes hit any buildings on 911.
Huh??
Please elaborate as I'm pretty sure it wasn't a hologram.
Dude go play on the flat earth forum please. There is mature people talking here. Thanks.
Oh I did realize there is mature people taking here.
LOL
…. Proof read before you post please…. Thanks.
Could be a wheel.
No, the little notches on the outer edge is where the turbine fins connect.
Here is a General talking about the turbine he saw in the photos from 9/11. At the 9:00 minute mark.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16c2I64oza/old-911-interview-911-whistleblo/c/
What's wrong is that you don't know your way around a modern aircraft engine. The 7-foot-diameter applies to the FAN, which is at the front of the engine, and is entirely consistent with the photo of Trump's airplane. The last photo, of the wreckage, shows either the last stage of the COMPRESSOR or what is probably the first stage of the TURBINE, consistent with the Rolls-Royce diagram. (Blade heights are already small in these positions; nothing is broken off.) As "Pbman2" points out, the central button could be a shaft separation.
Let’s just forget about planes and details about planes and let’s talk about building 7.
Change the subject...an old maneuver. No thanks. I don't trade one empty conspiracy for another.