• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 77 hit the ground first?

PhantomWolf

Penultimate Amazing
PhantomWolf
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
21,203
I was watching Seconds from Disaster: Flight 77 two nights back and one of the things that I'd never heard before, and there were a number of them, was that they recovered the tip of the port wing from out of the ground near the building indicating that the tip of the wing and the port engine had in fact hit the ground milliseconds before the nose hit the building.

I know that there are a few people here that are far more involved in the 9/11 stuff that we are ay AH or were on BUAT. Has anyone heard anything about this previously?
 
Why is it important? As long there are no pictures and or confirming it...
 
Why is it important?

I'd say that having found parts of the wing there would answer some of the "where were the wings?" critics, add to the evidence that 77 did hit the pentagon, and apparently it was important for the investigators as it helped to establish the angle the plane hit.

As long there are no pictures and or confirming it...

Why do there always have to be pictures of things to confirm it? Men have been to the bottom of the Challanger Deep, but there aren't lots of photos confirming that. Hillary conquered Everest, but there is no photo of that (there is one of Tensing.) Scott got to the South Pole, but there aren't any Photos of that. Ceaser conquered Gaul, no photos of that either.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Why is it important?

I'd say that having found parts of the wing there would answer some of the "where were the wings?" critics, add to the evidence that 77 did hit the pentagon, and apparently it was important for the investigators as it helped to establish the angle the plane hit.

As long there are no pictures and or confirming it...

Why do there always have to be pictures of things to confirm it? Men have been to the bottom of the Challanger Deep, but there aren't lots of photos confirming that. Hillary conquered Everest, but there is no photo of that (there is one of Tensing.) Scott got to the South Pole, but there aren't any Photos of that. Ceaser conquered Gaul, no photos of that either.
Click to expand...

Good point. This common attitude (no offense Ollie) that all things must have back up via video or photo is a common CT mindset. There probably are hundreds of "CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE PHOTOS" of this debris, and other debris. I am sure there are filing cabinets full of hand written evidence, photos, etc...that are in the possession of the FBI that feel no need to release, or will not due to the ongoing 9/11 investigation (I think the investigation is still open is it not?). The vast majority of evidence on the 9/11 attacks is likely NOT FOUND on the internet.


TAM:)
 
PhantomWolf said:
Why do there always have to be pictures of things to confirm it? Men have been to the bottom of the Challanger Deep, but there aren't lots of photos confirming that. Hillary conquered Everest, but there is no photo of that (there is one of Tensing.) Scott got to the South Pole, but there aren't any Photos of that. Ceaser conquered Gaul, no photos of that either.
Click to expand...
Man that woman is somethin'!!! She can climb my treehouse town hall meeting anytime!!! Give it up, Rudy, Johnny and Romney!!! Hillary's gonna plant yer flagpoles!!!

Wolf, you had mentioned that it (wing fragments) would add to the evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. But for actual people, whose cognitive functions venture beyond the brain stem - there is no doubt, no issue, that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Only twoofers have Pentagon doubts.
 
Only twoofers have Pentagon doubts.

I broke my last cricket bat on David C. I want a new one to beat them with.


Besides, as I pointed out, this is something I'd not heard about in my own investigations. I'm always looking to add to the overwhelming list of things that the CT's are going to just claim were planted, but I'm not willing to use something I haven't had confirmed, and so I'm looking for aditional info.

Man that woman is somethin'!!!

Wrong one, though if you believe her tale, she was named after an about to become famous beekeeper from New Zealand.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Only twoofers have Pentagon doubts.

I broke my last cricket bat on David C. I want a new one to beat them with.


Besides, as I pointed out, this is something I'd not heard about in my own investigations. I'm always looking to add to the overwhelming list of things that the CT's are going to just claim were planted, but I'm not willing to use something I haven't had confirmed, and so I'm looking for aditional info.

Man that woman is somethin'!!!

Wrong one, though if you believe her tale, she was named after an about to become famous beekeeper from New Zealand.
Click to expand...
Good work on the bat!!!

Tenzig Norgay was the Sherpa who accompanied Edmund Hillary to the summit. 1953 I think. Remember reading the book about that adventure when I was a wee kiddie...
 
Tenzig Norgay was the Sherpa who accompanied Edmund Hillary to the summit. 1953 I think.

Tenzing (my spelling sux, you'll learn this fast. ;)) The famous summit photo is of Tenzing, the only proof of Hillary making it being that the two eye-wittnesses say so, and someone had to be holding the camera. :)
 
PhantomWolf said:
Why do there always have to be pictures of things to confirm it? Men have been to the bottom of the Challanger Deep, but there aren't lots of photos confirming that. Hillary conquered Everest, but there is no photo of that (there is one of Tensing.) Scott got to the South Pole, but there aren't any Photos of that. Ceaser conquered Gaul, no photos of that either.
Click to expand...


Yes there is.

-Gumboot
 
PhantomWolf said:
I was watching Seconds from Disaster: Flight 77 two nights back and one of the things that I'd never heard before, and there were a number of them, was that they recovered the tip of the port wing from out of the ground near the building indicating that the tip of the wing and the port engine had in fact hit the ground milliseconds before the nose hit the building.
Click to expand...

Back to the OP, it's a fair question, even if it's irrelevant to the larger questions of Sept. 11th. I'd be interested to know as well.

I haven't looked into the aircraft crash or debris information personally. The best "official" resource I'm familiar with is the NIST / ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. It's mainly concerned with the Pentagon rather than the aircraft, but it does have a little bit of relevant information:

Pentagon BPR said:
The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10 second before impact (figure 3.14). At that time the aircraft had rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated.After the plane had traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15).
Click to expand...
(Emphasis added)

The Pentagon BPR does not discuss the wingtip hitting the ground, though it does describe a wingtip "slicing through" a large electrical generator, very close to the ground.

That's all I've got. I'd be interested to know if there's a better account of the aircraft debris -- I imagine there is.
 
Yes there is.

I stand corrected (though it could have been taken in a studio. ;))
 
the left engine struck the ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft struck the west wall

Thanks, that confirms part of the program, just need to get the rest. :)

though it does describe a wingtip "slicing through" a large electrical generator, very close to the ground.

That was the starboard wing.
 
Correct. I don't have any evidence for the left wingtip hitting the ground. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, I simply have no source that says it did.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I was watching Seconds from Disaster: Flight 77 two nights back
Click to expand...


I saw that too. I was a little disappointed with it. There was a lot of interesting stuff to be sure, but they barely covered the renovations that were done specifically to protect against a truck bomb like attack. Namely the enormous steel structural additions designed to prevent building collapse, the kevlar netting across the face of the building to stop shrapnel, etc...

The original design obviously played a really interesting part in it all, but I think it's also pretty clear that the renovations also played an enormous part in saving lives at The Pentagon. The only part of the renovations that the show touched on was the windows!

-Gumboot
 
R.Mackey said:
Correct. I don't have any evidence for the left wingtip hitting the ground. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, I simply have no source that says it did.
Click to expand...


I believe a number of eye witnesses specifically said that the port wing hit the ground just before/at impact.

-Gumboot
 
In Mike Wilson's animation in the resources forum, there's a photo of some very low lying concrete which looks like an engine took a chunk out of it.
fwiw.
 
I believe a number of eye witnesses specifically said that the port wing hit the ground just before/at impact.

Yeah, and a lot of CT's claim that they aren't reliable because it didn't. If there is proof that they are right, that's another CT argument that bites the dust, just like the rest of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom