Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Scott G

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

2,524 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

skyeagle409

I don't think a B-25 is more fragile than a 757.

The B-25 is very fragile compared to the B-757. For one thing, the B-757 is a jet aircraft and must sustained high stress loads at high speeds under pressurized conditions while carrying tons of passengers and cargo. The B-25 would disintegrate in flight long before reaching the cruising airspeed of the B-757.

I think it is far more sturdy. Unpressurized, and meant to carry bombs not passengers. Very slow, very strong and capable of landing on rough dirt strips.

You can land a Piper Cub on a dirt strip, but that doesn't mean it is built stronger than a B-757. For an aircraft to be pressurized, it has be built much stronger than an unpressurized aircraft, bombs or no bombs, which means a pressurized aircraft must have a studier structure and thicker fuselage skin and that translates into a stronger and heavier airframe. In fact, the payload carrying capacity of the B-757-200 is thousands of pounds more than the maximum weight of the B-25.

B-25 Specifications

Performance:

Maximum speed 275 mph

 

Weights:

21,100 pounds empty, 33,000 pounds normal loaded, 35,000 pounds gross, 41,800 pounds maximum overload.

http://www.b25.net/pages/b25spec.html

___________________________________________________________________

B-757 Specificatons

 

Performance:

Maximum cruising speed 567 mph

 

Weights:

220,000 lbs. to 255,000 lbs.

http://www.airliners...ats.main?id=101

http://www.boeing.co...pf_200back.html

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

They are years apart in design Sky, and you know that.

A rule of thumb is that military standard, even in 1941, far surpasses civilian standard.

I would like to see ANY modern jetliner that could withstand ground fire like most B-25 did and return to base.

I knew 2 brothers who ran 2 B-25s spraying citrus down in Florida. The airplanes were tough as hell.

You should know this, being USAF and all, but aircraft designed for close air support combat are much stronger than aircraft designed to cruise in the flight levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

They are years apart in design Sky, and you know that.

That doesn't make any difference at all. In both cases, the aircraft penetrated the outer portions of the buildings.

A rule of thumb is that military standard, even in 1941, far surpasses civilian standard.

As far as basic aerodynamics is concerned, it doesn't make any difference at all.

I would like to see ANY modern jetliner that could withstand ground fire like most B-25 did and return to base.

Okay. Here is a modern airliner that took a hit from an anti-aircraft missile that would have blown a B-25 into little bits and pieces and yet, the airliner returned for a safe landing.

DHL_Airbus_A300B4-203F%2C_BIAP.jpg

DHL_SAM_attack1.jpg

My link

B737-200-Aloha-Hawaii.jpg

side2.jpg

My link

Damaged_empennage_of_China_Airlines_Flight_006-N4522V.JPG

My link

I knew 2 brothers who ran 2 B-25s spraying citrus down in Florida. The airplanes were tough as hell.

But, when compared to the strength of today's airlners, the B-25 does not measure up to today's high strength standards nor even come close.

Here is an incident that involved a B-707, which lost part of its right wing and landed at my base.

06/28/1965 Boeing B-707-321Location: San Francisco, California

No Fatalities

The aircraft landed safely at Travis Air Force Base after an engine turbine disintegrated and one-third of the wing was lost after just taking off from San Francisco International Airport. As the passengers viewed the plane landing that was going to take them back to San Francisco, the nose gear collapsed.

"PAA 704, The Pilot was Captian Kime. WE picked up parts all over South City that evening. The wing came down between two trees that supported it on its side. The Engine came down in a machine Shop.Boeing came to Travis and rebuilt the Aircraft." Eugene Hollingsworth.

You should know this, being USAF and all, but aircraft designed for close air support combat are much stronger than aircraft designed to cruise in the flight levels.

A pressurized aircraft is much stronger than an unpressurized aircraft by far and once again, the B-25 would disintegrate in flight before it could close to the cruising speed of a B-757. As I have said before, the B-25 is much more fragile than a B-757.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree Sky, on the strength of military aircraft compared to civilian aircraft. I've seen many of those pictures before and understand what you're saying.

One picture you missed was the Hawker 800 that took a missle up the tail pipe over Africa, and went in and landed.

I'm not saying modern aircraft can't take some fire and keep flying, and I understand that the B-25 did damage to the Empire State Building.

I am saying, however, that a 757 could not penetrate through however many rings at the Pentagon the story says, and still have enough integrity to leave that perfect circle.

The A-10 is legendary for the abuse it takes. It's a shame they quit making that airplane.

Even if some 300 hour pilot could fly like a high time USAF veteran, as you seem to think was the case, the "exit hole" picture was not made by the cockpit of a 757 after having passed through other concrete structures. No way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Even if some 300 hour pilot could fly like a high time USAF veteran, as you seem to think was the case, the "exit hole" picture was not made by the cockpit of a 757 after having passed through other concrete structures. No way.

Who exactly said that hole was made specifically by "the cockpit"...? Or is that yet another of your incredulous assumptions that you are unwilling to provide any support for...?

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree Sky, on the strength of military aircraft compared to civilian aircraft.

Are you implying that the basic airframes of these two aircraft are different?

t43a.jpg

PWA-B737-100-YVR-1987.jpg

If you check the history books, civilian airliners generally exceed flight time of military aircraft of the same model by thousands of hours.

The B-52 will max out at around 37,000 hours, and the last B-52 was built in 1962, yet we have B-757's that were built in the 1980's that have already reached 60,000 hours and are still flying.

The KC-135 was built during the 1950's and yet, it has been outflown by thousands of fllght hours by commercial aircraft that were built 30 years later. In addition, commericial aircraft have more cycle times than military aircraft.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Even if some 300 hour pilot could fly like a high time USAF veteran, as you seem to think was the case,...

And, that was the case. In fact, his approach was sloppy because he knocked down a few light post on his way to striking the Pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

.

I am saying, however, that a 757 could not penetrate through however many rings at the Pentagon the story says, and still have enough integrity to leave that perfect circle.

What made that punch-out hole?

punchout_rv.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pihkal

I'm sorry to interject but, as it's been a slow day at work, I have read through all of this thread and I'd like to ask Babe Ruth a question if I may.

BR, you make statements such as this:

I am saying, however, that a 757 could not penetrate through however many rings at the Pentagon the story says, and still have enough integrity to leave that perfect circle.

Yet, where is your research and evidence? Have you carried out multiple simulations or real-world tests to reach this conclusion? If you have, why not provide the readership of this tread with that evidence? If you have not, why make statements which you can't verify?

I'm not saying that you are either right or wrong. I'm doing nothing more than anyone who is asked to listen to your argument should do, and that is asking you to back up your statements with evidence. Otherwise you are doing nothing to aid your case in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Sky

You certainly have a terrific collection of photos! :tu:

We are going way off topic here with this B-25 thing.

Your statement that it is aerodynamic differences is not accurate. I'm talking about the STRUCTURAL differences between civilian and military aircraft. I am NOT saying that civilian aircraft cannot fly with parts missing or structural damage. I'm simply saying that military aircraft are stronger than civilian, for any given size aircraft. That's all.

As for the famous exit hole you show, from what source do YOU suppose the sooty residue on the outside came from? Something burned, it appears, and I'm sure you agree that 757 does not carry fuel in the cockpit area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Pihkal

No sir, I have not carried out experiments or simulations.

What I have is 40 years of experience in aviation. I have seen first hand many examples of aluminum airframes and components being involved in minor and major collisions with trucks, steel hangars, concrete walls and assorted other items.

In each and every case, the aluminum fuselage is badly damaged, deformed, sacrificed, or destroyed, while the truck, hangar, or concrete wall is unscathed.

Aircraft fuselages are designed to fly through the fluid air, NOT to penetrate other structures.

I appreciate your candor and your curiosity. I hope that answers your questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pihkal

Pihkal

No sir, I have not carried out experiments or simulations.

What I have is 40 years of experience in aviation. I have seen first hand many examples of aluminum airframes and components being involved in minor and major collisions with trucks, steel hangars, concrete walls and assorted other items.

In each and every case, the aluminum fuselage is badly damaged, deformed, sacrificed, or destroyed, while the truck, hangar, or concrete wall is unscathed.

Aircraft fuselages are designed to fly through the fluid air, NOT to penetrate other structures.

I appreciate your candor and your curiosity. I hope that answers your questions.

Thank you for taking the time to reply and I appreciate that you are drawing from personal experience, which of course gives you a better leg to stand on that someone who simply plucks wild theories out of the air or clings onto dubious speculation provided by a third party.

What I, as an observer, would like to see however; and having experience in the field of aviation would probably ease your ability to do this, is examples and evidence that what you say is the case. It seems that others are able to provide such evidence in counter to some of your claims and their evidence is compelling and checkable.

Forgive me if it appears I am being unduly critical, and of course it is obvious that aircraft are designed to fly through air and not walls, but a quick,sloppy and rather rusty bit of equating in my head tells me there is a point of velocity where that aircraft can easily penetrate the structure in question. I'm sure someone here more mathematically minded could illustrate it exactly. Whether the results of that calculation equates to the actual story of the aircraft is another matter. But it's a jumping off point on which further arguments can be based.

Again, forgive me if you feel I'm picking on you, but I'm just not really seeing hard facts to back up the majority of the statements you are making.

Edited by Pihkal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oly

Here's a plane hitting a concrete wall

Edited by oly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pihkal

Yes, "a" plane, hitting "a" concrete wall.

Is it the same type of plane discussed here? No. It appears to be a F4 Phantom to me (though I'd happily bow to a correct identification if I'm wrong) and therefore completely irrelevant as a proof.

Is the impact made under the same conditions being discussed here? No.

Is the wall comparable to the exterior and interior walls of the Pentagon? Inconclusive, but I would hazard a guess at no.

I'm sure you have conviction in what you believe, but please attempt to back that conviction up with relevant evidence if you wish to convince others of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

Thank you for taking the time to reply and I appreciate that you are drawing from personal experience, which of course gives you a better leg to stand on that someone who simply plucks wild theories out of the air or clings onto dubious speculation provided by a third party.

What I, as an observer, would like to see however; and having experience in the field of aviation would probably ease your ability to do this, is examples and evidence that what you say is the case. It seems that others are able to provide such evidence in counter to some of your claims and their evidence is compelling and checkable.

Forgive me if it appears I am being unduly critical, and of course it is obvious that aircraft are designed to fly through air and not walls, but a quick,sloppy and rather rusty bit of equating in my head tells me there is a point of velocity where that aircraft can easily penetrate the structure in question. I'm sure someone here more mathematically minded could illustrate it exactly. Whether the results of that calculation equates to the actual story of the aircraft is another matter. But it's a jumping off point on which further arguments can be based.

Again, forgive me if you feel I'm picking on you, but I'm just not really seeing hard facts to back up the majority of the statements you are making.

Pikhal - Just some figures for comparative purposes:

A standard formula for kinetic energy is as follows; KE (in ft/lbs) = M (mass in grains) * V2(in feet per second) /450,240

Utilizing figures recently provided by Sky, let us start with a minimum weight of 220,000 lbs. and a velocity of 500 mph.

KE = 1,540,000,000 * 537,773 / 450,240

KE = 828,170,230,000,000 / 450240

KE = 1,839,937,600 ft/lbs of energy, or nearly two billion ft/lbs.

Reducing the velocity to 200 mph yields:

KE = 1,540,000,000 * 86,042.5 / 450,240

KE = 132,505,450,000,000 / 450,240

KE = 294,299,550 ft/lbs of energy, or nearly three hundred million ft/lbs.

One can utilize other weight/velocity figures as preferred. In any case, it would appear that the transmitted energy would hardy be unsubstantial.

Feel free to double-check figures.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

What I have is 40 years of experience in aviation. I have seen first hand many examples of aluminum airframes and components being involved in minor and major collisions with trucks, steel hangars, concrete walls and assorted other items. In each and every case, the aluminum fuselage is badly damaged, deformed, sacrificed, or destroyed, while the truck, hangar, or concrete wall is unscathed.

Aircraft fuselages are designed to fly through the fluid air, NOT to penetrate other structures.

And as you plainly saw in the video and photos, a B-25 clearly penetrated the Empire State Building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pihkal

Thanks Swede, as I said I quickly worked it out using information I could find and some very rusty "hard math" skills I haven't had need for in quite a while. I'm actually surprised how close I managed to get (and how I didn't manage to screw the formula up!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Sky

You certainly have a terrific collection of photos! :tu: We are going way off topic here with this B-25 thing.

Your statement that it is aerodynamic differences is not accurate. I'm talking about the STRUCTURAL differences between civilian and military aircraft. I am NOT saying that civilian aircraft cannot fly with parts missing or structural damage. I'm simply saying that military aircraft are stronger than civilian, for any given size aircraft. That's all.

No, they are not.

Commercial airliners undergo more cycle operations than military aircraft, and commercial airliners are worked much harder than military aircraft. The Air Force's C-5 Galaxy has had serious problems with its airframe over the years, and much more so than the B-747, and in fact, all C-5A models had to have their wings changed due to wing cracks after just a few thousand hours of flight time. For years, we had to fly with both ailerons set in the up position in order to reduce flight loads on the wings until they could be replaced.

We have had problems with fuselage skin cracks on the C-5s, corrosion problems, and yes, even the Air Force's KC-135 has had to have its wing skin changed from T-6 aluminum, to T-3 aluminum because of cracks and yet, the KC-135 didn't come close to the flight time of commercial airliners when its wings began to crack.

We even had problems with the fasteners used on the C-5A, which were replaced with hilocks in the C-5B model. The B-747 had a better reliability rate than the C-5 because of the structural and other problems associated with the C-5. Even the C-141 had to be retired around 30,000 hours because of problems with its airframe, and the C-141 was built in the 1960's and yet, we have B-757's still flying around with twice the flight hours that retired the C-141.

The B-52D had to undergo structural modifications just to carry extra bomb loads and there have been structural problems with the B-52 as well.

b52notail.jpg

And yes, we have had structural problems with the F-15 and the C-130. So your claim that military aircraft are built stronger than commerical aircraft has no merit. When you build aircraft, you build the airframes as light as possibile because adding too much weight takes away fuel and cargo capacities.

Flight and structural demainds on commercial aircraft are much higher than for military aircraft, which is why commericial airliners not only out-fly military aircraft in terms of flight hours, but commercial aircraft continue to fly beyond cycle operations and flight hours that would normally retire military aircraft.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oly

KE = 1,839,937,600 ft/lbs of energy, or nearly two billion ft/lbs.

the building wouldn't be subjected to that because the plane disintegrates, like a crumple zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oly

Yes, "a" plane, hitting "a" concrete wall.

Is it the same type of plane discussed here? No. It appears to be a F4 Phantom to me (though I'd happily bow to a correct identification if I'm wrong) and therefore completely irrelevant as a proof.

Is the impact made under the same conditions being discussed here? No.

Is the wall comparable to the exterior and interior walls of the Pentagon? Inconclusive, but I would hazard a guess at no.

I'm sure you have conviction in what you believe, but please attempt to back that conviction up with relevant evidence if you wish to convince others of it.

It may not be the same kind of plane & the same kind of wall, but it clearly shows what happens in this type of collision. Ie plane & reinforced wall.

To say its "completely irrelevant as proof" is rather extreme!

Your request is dependant on your extreme opinion, which I disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Again, forgive me if you feel I'm picking on you, but I'm just not really seeing hard facts to back up the majority of the statements you are making.

Babe Ruth has stated several times that he has no intention of backing up anything he claims with actual evidence (and in most cases, there is no evidence for his claims, they are just his biased and uninformed or misinformed opinions) and flatly rejects or hand-waves away any evidence that contradicts and in almost all cases completely disproves his opinions.

Expecting a logical, rational debate with him is quite frankly, a waste of your time.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pihkal

the building wouldn't be subjected to that because the plane disintegrates, like a crumple zone.

Could you then demonstrate to us,in detail, what would happen and how the kinetic energy from the impact would be dissipated? Or provide links to a study concerning this suggestion of yours.

I'd say that if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the impact of a large commercial aircraft travelling at speed would not have caused the extensive damage to the structure of the wall then you'd have a solid argument to base your opinion on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pihkal

It may not be the same kind of plane & the same kind of wall, but it clearly shows what happens in this type of collision. Ie plane & reinforced wall.

To say its "completely irrelevant as proof" is rather extreme!

Your request is dependant on your extreme opinion, which I disagree with.

It is a different type of aircraft hitting a rather large block of concrete (which we do not know the properties of...is it reinforced etc....) at an undetermined speed. I would say that is pretty irrelevant, wouldn't you?

I haven't at any point actually expressed an opinion, extreme of not, other than the one that if you wish to make a cohesive argument you should provide proof which directly relevant to it. I don't think that is too much to ask if you wish to be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Yes, "a" plane, hitting "a" concrete wall.

Is it the same type of plane discussed here? No. It appears to be a F4 Phantom to me (though I'd happily bow to a correct identification if I'm wrong) and therefore completely irrelevant as a proof.

Is the impact made under the same conditions being discussed here? No.

Is the wall comparable to the exterior and interior walls of the Pentagon? Inconclusive, but I would hazard a guess at no.

I'm sure you have conviction in what you believe, but please attempt to back that conviction up with relevant evidence if you wish to convince others of it.

The video F-4 crashing into the reinforced wall is very relevant to this discussion.

There are those here who believe that very large pieces of AA77 such as the wings and vertical stabilizer should have remained virtually intact after the 757 hit the Pentagon.

While it is clearly understood that there is a big difference between an F-4 and a 757, and that the F-4 crash was a controlled experiment, the video still has evidentiary value in showing the results of an impact of an aircraft into a reinforced concrete wall at 500mph.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oly

Could you then demonstrate to us,in detail, what would happen and how the kinetic energy from the impact would be dissipated? Or provide links to a study concerning this suggestion of yours.

I'd say that if you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the impact of a large commercial aircraft travelling at speed would not have caused the extensive damage to the structure of the wall then you'd have a solid argument to base your opinion on.

The video demonstrates that kind of effect nicely.

I probably won't recreate the event. & I don't need to do that to have something to base an opinion on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.