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?
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.
The wall won this one.
Please link to the video that shows the "plane colliding into the Pentagon. Recognizable by the American Airlines livery."
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.