NIST: Flight 77's left engine hit the ground

Killtown: Where?


Photo Source: DoD





The size of a Boeing's left engine.

Are you sure it was NIST that said that?

and one of the authors is from there:

And how do you explain the words, "American Soceity of Civil Engineers" on page 2 of the .pdf?
Or how about the phrase, "The American Society of Civil Engineers established a building performance study (BPS) team of volunteers to examine the structural performance of the building" on page 7 of the .pdf? Or any of the other references to the American Society of Civil Engineers?

ASCE: Flight 77's left engine hit the ground


Better?

Before posting this picture:


Did you:
(a) Conduct a thorough review all the photos to determine where exactly the ASCE thought the left engine hit; it just so happened to be in the middle of relatively undamaged area circled; or
(b) Draw a big circle around the first piece of intact ground you came across?

you can see a chuck of concrete wall or curb is busted out at just about the right location. The dirt in front of it looks to be disturbed as well compared to the surrounding dirt.

If the engine hit that, surely it would have hit the ground afterwards like the official story claims.

Sorry to keep punching holes in the official story. :patriot:

But, that curb is nearly at the ground and the engine may have hit the ground just before the curb. Surely you have no clue what happened if it did hit there. You surely are clueless as to the elevation change between the curb and the Pentagon.

And surely you are not punching holes in this piece of the official story if you think it hit the curb but did no other visible damage in you red circle.

Really killtown, you have photographic evidence right in front of you showing the curb busted out just inches above grade in the exact spot shown on your image, and you still smugly think that you are somehow punching holes in the official story?

You're helping substantiate it.



See where the engine is right over that busted section curb?

and notice all that construction work going around the busted curb wall. Maybe a one of those heavy trackers got too close? I can't image a huge heavy engine coming in a 530 mph broke that very very low wall like that yet it didn't hit the ground as the official version claims.

Your image practically shows the jet hitting the curb. There is an obvious chuck of the curb missing, and you want to blame it on construction work now that I pointed it out to you. You are starting to sound like those espousing the coincidence theory

That image of yours is a great image for supporting the official story that the engine hit the ground. We have direct photographic evidence. Thank you, as I plan on using it every time someone wants to claim we have no evidence flight 77 hit the pentagon.

You are right on one thing, the wall was not broken from construction afterward. However, there is no evidence yet it wasn't broken before the crash.

That might all sound too conspiratorial, but you have to explain to me if Flight 77's left engine, which was traveling in a downward angle, broken that very very low wall, how come it doesn't seem like it hit anywhere on the ground after it broke the wall and why did the gov't report claim it hit the ground?

that if the engine hit the low wall (curb) it hit the dirt right in front of it. Or maybe hitting the curb/wall caused a little bounce up. Perhaps it broke a piece of the engine off so it gained some clearance. Maybe it was a lot simpler to say the engine hit the ground than to say we know the engine hit the curb, and the ground was to messed up by the time we got there to positively be sure it hit the dirt, so we just reported it hit the ground to save a bunch of words.

Perhaps if you changed your argument to where the engine hit the wall/curb 6" off the ground but didn't really hit the dirt like they claim it did, flight 77 really never existed. That will be a winner.

you can clearly see by this pic that the ground before the broken little wall was undisturbed (lower left). Also if the left engine hit that wall, you telling me the rest of the plane or the air turbulence underneath the plane miraculously didn't knock down that tall cable spool to the right of the wall?:




>>Or maybe hitting the curb/wall caused a little bounce up.<<

a little wall like that versus a 530 mph 10 ton engine? Hard to believe.


>>Perhaps if you changed your argument to where the engine hit the wall/curb 6" off the ground but didn't really hit the dirt like they claim it did, flight 77 really never existed. That will be a winner.<<

Ok, I'm saying that now then!

you can clearly see by this pic that the ground before the broken little wall was undisturbed (lower left).


Clearly the area in front of the broken wall looks very brown as if it's been disturbed, while the ground to the right looks pretty green.

Go figure?

There are many reasons why a patch of grass could turn brown (lack of watering, too much fertilizer, light affecting the photo), but I find it very difficult to believe (and very humorous) that being gouged by a 10 ton jet engine would turn it brown, but not dig any of it up!

Who said it was gouged? You started out stating the engine hit the ground. While being gouged definitely means it hit the ground, the engine can hit the ground without making a big gouge.

FOr all you know the engined scrapped up an inch or two of the lawn. Something that seems consistent with your image.

gouge = "the engine scrapped up an inch or two of the lawn"

One thing that perplexes me about your theory, could you explain to me how the left engine hitting that area of grass turned it "brown"?

i.e. dirt is typically brown. If the engine scrapped up a few inched of turf (also known as grass) there would be dirt under it. The dirt would be kicked up and spread around a bit by the impact and exhaust.

it's grass. Perhaps brown grass, but still grass.

either you need glasses, or I need glasses.

of the circle. What do you think?






It definitely had to pass through somewhere in the circle.

Here's a photo allegedly taken in May:

# 1, 7 : Contractors' trailors.
# 2 : A wire netting fence.
# 3 : A ventilation exhaust structure. Air to / from the building is fed there by underground shafts. The low level structure is protected around by a low cement wall (~1 ft high).
# 4 : Cable spools. They are large (more than 6 ft diameter) solid metal structures.
# 5, 6 : An electrical generator. It was used to lit the working area inside the building when internal electric circuits were not operational. 5 (front) contains the alternator and 6 (rear) the diesel engine.

The yellow cross in the bottom left corner shows a breach in the protective wall, obviously caused by whatever hit the Pentagon:


Close up of impact area:

coming in at 530 mph and at a downward angle and leaves no marks on the ground after it hits that incredibly low wall???

but create the observed damaged? Global Hawk? Missile? Is it your point that the evidence can only discredit the official story but is completely unable to shed any light on what really happened?

then it's a conspiracy, no ifs ands or buts.

As to what really hit the wall, pick one, it doesn't matter as long as the official story is proven a LIE. It's not rocket science pal.

Our system of justice doesn't work that way. A conspiracy to cover up what?

You just don't want to upset your fellow "researchers" - if they actually had to decide on a single theory there would be civil war.

then all that does is raise the possibility that the official story might be wrong about that particular point. It doesn't prove a conspiracy any more than someones name or appearance proves he or she might be a terrorist (contrary to what our current crop of thugs may believe).

that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon, that would prove a conspiracy. Don't you think?

about a particular point and proving that Flight 77 didn't crash at the Pentagon are two separate things. The former does not imply the latter.

if disproving a point that would break the laws of physics to the rest of the story, it would go to disproving the whole story.

if it was a cover up, don't you have to discuss what they covered up? "Got it wrong" implies incompetence not a conspiracy - if you prove that they "got it wrong" they will simply blame the investigators for fucking up, apologize and set up another investigation.

You can't reveal a lie without discussing the truth - if the official story is a lie then what is the truth?

no left engine hit the ground, thereby no left engine, thereby no 757.

which is quite popular with some people.

is that if people in our gov't were so incompetent and that allowed 9/11 to happen, why were none of them fired or demoted and why were some even promoted afterward???

I think that the fact no one was demoted/fired and some were promoted is evidence of an inside job!

:toast:

At the place where the ASCE claims American 77's left engine hit the ground:
(1) We can see a busted wall on the southwest of the ventilation facility;
(2) In a later photo the part of the ventilation facility behind the busted wall is being rebuilt, suggesting it suffered damage;
(3) On the east side of the ventilation facility we can see that the ground is disturbed and concrete wall elements are missing there as well.

It looks exactly like it would do if it were hit by a jet engine. What more do you want?

"On the east side of the ventilation facility we can see that the ground is disturbed."

Where?


"and concrete wall elements are missing there as well."

ditto?

The concrete wall is marked "low wall" on the picture. You can see that elements of it are missing. These missing elements are helpfully marked "wall absent". The ground is disturbed where the "wall absent" and "scorched metal" arrows are.

the "wall absent," "damaged wall," "scorched metal" (if that is scorched metal. JP must have some great eye-site or something) was caused by 77's left engine? Perhaps the wall is absent because it was never there? Perhaps that scorched metal is not scorched metal? Perhaps the damaged wall was damaged before the explosion?

Are you saying that the actual ground is disturbed at that spot or does the "absent wall" and "scorched metal" constitute "hitting the ground"?

Your original question was where is damage that could have been caused by an 757 engine (which ASCE said hit the ground in front of the Pentagon). The photo shows damage which is consistent with a 757 engine.

Turning to your other questions.
"Can you prove the "wall absent," "damaged wall," "scorched metal" (if that is scorched metal. JP must have some great eye-site or something) was caused by 77's left engine?"
Scorched metal - IMHO it may or may not be scorched metal, but I don't think this is important. I just said the arrow pointed to a part of the ground that I said was disturbed. I didn't say I can see any scorched metal there.
Wall absent - There is no wall there. I do not have a picture of the wall just before the plane is supposed to have hit. Nevertheless, I believe the wall was damaged by the aircraft - if it wasn't damaged, what happened to it? Also, the ground where it should have stood is disturbed, Obviously, none of this proves 100% it was hit by American 77, although it is consistent with impact damage caused by a Boeing 757.
Damaged wall - "Perhaps the damaged wall was damaged before the explosion" By what? Prove it. The damaged wall is highly consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757.

"Are you saying that the actual ground is disturbed at that spot or does the "absent wall" and "scorched metal" constitute "hitting the ground"?"
I am saying the actual ground is disturbed at that spot. For example, it seems to slope down from a point just above the two white arrows from the "wall absent" sign.

IMHO the Pentagon hit is consistent with a 757. You're barking up the wrong tree.

No, my original question was "NIST: Flight 77's left engine hit the ground...where?"




I find it hard to believe the 530mph 10 ton engine broke that shallow wall yet no evidence it hit the ground before or after the wall(s).




I couldn't find any closeup photos before the crash to prove either side unfortunately, so yes, it's pure speculation on my part. That's why I don't like trying to answer what really happened to something, but the question if the official story is accurate or not.




I was say highly odd.




Giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's slope, doesn't look like it's sloped from an engine. Would argue it's sloped from being dug up when concrete was laid there.




Too many holes and inconsistencies even if remote control flew a 757 in there so precisely.

You can see the damage to the utility vault's retaining wall in the bottom
right corner. The concrete has been knocked away, but you can see that there
are still some of the steel reinforcing bars, which have been knocked
northeast, consistent with them having been hit by the plane's engine. Also,
the southern part of the steam vault seems to have sustained some damage.

Further, one of the eyewitnesses mentioned that the left engine hit the
vault:
"Probst "hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the
portable 750 kW generator" that provided backup power to a portion of the
Pentagon. He saw the right engine take out "the chain-link fence and posts
surrounding the generator." The left engine, he said, "struck an external
steam vault before the fuselage entered the building."
I found this on a site not permitted by DU, so you'll forgive not providing
the link - it's not so hard to find.

The damage is consistent with it being hit by the left engine of a 757.

can you see the problem I have with a huge engine coming in at 530 mph and hitting a wall that's so low yet really not leaving any other obvious evidence it hit? We may never agree that the left engine hit or not, but I hope you understand some of my problems with it.

Also, wouldn't you think if the aluminum shelled engine hit that was with retaining bars that it would be likely some pieces of aluminum would by lying around there or stuck in the retaining bars?

Another point, the "missing wall" in the back. I see the back wall is there on the left side, but NO WALL is left behind the "steam fault square" if we can call it that. Seems like if the wall extended across the whole way that only a portion of it should be broken away (like the low right-side wall) and not the entire wall missing. That leads me to believe there was no wall along the back-side.

I also have a problem that those cable spools to the right very close to where the left engine was said to pass and that the fuselage had to fly over. Amazing to me they weren't disturbed at all.

Btw, can you post the link to that pic or email it to me please?

Right click on the picture, then click on properties, that gives you the picture's location.

"a huge engine coming in at 530 mph and hitting a wall that's so low yet really not leaving any other obvious evidence it hit?"
Other evidence:
(1) The grass on the southwest side of the wall appears to be discoloured, perhaps also slightly disturbed - certainly not very disturbed; it's as though the very bottom of the engine clipped the wall;
(2) The steam vault is well knackered - in the photo, do you think it is full of water?
(3) I see that the dirt area on the east of the steam vault is sloping down, and I think this could well be the result of the engine hitting it;
(4) Pieces of wall on the east side appear to be missing (although I don't have a photo definitively proving they were there).

"Also, wouldn't you think if the aluminum shelled engine hit that was with retaining bars that it would be likely some pieces of aluminum would by lying around there or stuck in the retaining bars?
I don't think they'd be stuck in the bars. There should have been bits of aluminium debris there originally, but there are lot's of things in the photos that could be aluminium debris, just look at all the white bits here:


"Seems like if the wall extended across the whole way that only a portion of it should be broken away"
The wall appears to have been in 2.5m sections (approx.). If part of it were hit by the plane, it should have knocked the rest of the section back - it looks like the sort of wall that isn't fixed to the ground to me.

"I also have a problem that those cable spools to the right very close to where the left engine was said to pass and that the fuselage had to fly over. Amazing to me they weren't disturbed at all."
I see six cable spools. In Metcalf 10 you can see two of them that have been knocked over, in the middle of the rubble, in the centre of the picture. Also, on the far right you can see two other cable spools, which were moved after the impact. If you look at this picture:

You can see that two of them were knocked to one side by the passing plane/impact. That leaves two standing, of which one is only a couple of feet tall. I reckon the other is about 3.5 feet tall, but if the engine just clipped the retaining wall of the steam vault, then the wing should miss it.

Taking the damage to the generator and the steam vault together, it looks like the Pentagon was attacked by a twin-engined jetliner, and I think a 757 is a fairly safe bet.

Duh, I can't believe I didn't think of that! thanks.




1) I don't see how the grass could be discolored from the engine scrapping it unless you suggest the heat from the friction did (of course you'll probably guess I'll have a hard time believing that one!).

Plus, if the engine/plane came that low, I would expect to find marks in the lawn from the air turbulence created from underneath the plane similar to the tire marks in the lawn from the fire engines.



2)I'm curious what the steam vault looked like before the crash to compare, assuming there was one there. About the water, I see it, but wonder if it's from the vault or firefighter spray?

3) I looks to me like the ground either naturally slopes done or is part of what got dug out from the steam fault construction. (hopefully I'm referring to the same area as you.)

4)I can't tell.




I've just never seen a piece of aluminum debris at the site that didn't look like it was planted or not really plane debris. the small pieces you refer to are to small and far away to make on good judgment either way.




I'll try to find an aerial pic of before to see if we can determine where they were positioned before that crash even though who knows if the construction workers moved them that morning or the previous day for their normal construction routine. I'm still surprised that tall one is standing so close to where you think the left engine hit and wasn't fallen from the fuselage are air turbulence.




I've pointed out major inconsistencies with the generator and even if the left engine just hit the wall and vault, at some point it would have had to hit pavement behind it since the plane entered the 1st floor at a downward angle. 757 = about 3 stories. Consider it's fuselage as it's 2nd story.

is that supposed to be the trace on the ground that was left by the engine?

Looks to me as though it is parallel to the facade of the Pentagon - that is not in accordance with the trajectory of the plane as it is according to the Official Story.

seems like the trajectory of the left engine should have gone through the left side of the circle to me.

It seems i had read the picture wrong.
Assuming the white markings in the circle are remnants of a wall that supposedly was damaged by an engine of the plane,
I'd think any damage could have been caused by the explosion of the actual hit.