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?
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