757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

Originally posted by darkbluesky
[1. Fog of War, everyone has heard of it. Some have experienced it, some have not. If you haven't you cannot truly understand it.
[edit on 4/13/2007 by darkbluesky]

Well i think thats a lot of BS. Thier was no fog of war. And even though thier have been cutbacks on bases they still have planes ready to go since they are kept fueled. and weapons are close by.

I still can not understand what happened with NORAD that day, they are very professional and do not make major mistakes. Also if they did make mistakes and were so incompetent that day why was no one fired? The fact is that the people involved all got promotions and medals so please explain this to me !!!!!!

Caustic Logic

Agreed, but to look at this deeper, my main point is not just that the Pentagon had defenses.

The point is that if the hijackers sat down and plotted this, (either them or Bin Laden), then why would they think the Pentagon would have no defense?

In other words did they trust the Military that much, to believe it had no defense? I would think that the idea of attacking the Pentagon with a passenger Jet to be totally illogical.

So for me the main point is that whomever planned this seemed to know they would hit their targets for the most part.

Reasons for this;

1. Length of time in air (leaving from longer destination points and not closer ones)
2. Unusual plan to actually hit the Pentagon (most would consider it defended)
3. Hitting the Pentagon later then the hits on the WTC.



[edit on 14-4-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Watchful1
Isnt their some pics of planes that have directly crashed into moutains? Isnt their the entire plane left? what makes the Pentagon different from a moutain besides that we should see a higher concentration of the TONS of what used to be a comercial jet?

Watchful1, I have located the pics you requested. Some of them show completely intact tail assemblies, which many people say should have been located at the pentagon. Some show nothing but millions of pieces of debris no bigger than a breadbasket.

911research.wtc7.net...

The fact we have no pictures of tail assemblies from AA 77 at the Pentagon doesn't mean it wasn't there, broken up and burried inside the building. Some of the pictures in the link illustrate how the tail assembly tends to separate from the fuselage in a crash. This may have happend at the pentagon and and the separated tail assy may have entered the building through the opening created by the fuselage.

Or maybe a second aircraft with a DU warhead welded to the nose was the real impactor.

This link will take you to a website for Sandia Labs. They conducted the F-4 crash test I posted earlier. You can download a hi-res still of the end of the crash. It shows the entire aircraft reduced to pieces no bigger than a six pack, except for the vert stabilizer which has not yet hit the wall.

A McDonnell Douglas F-4 has significantly more stuctural integrity than a 757.
www.sandia.gov...

[edit on 4/14/2007 by darkbluesky]

Originally posted by darkbluesky
This link will take you to a website for Sandia Labs. They conducted the F-4 crash test I posted earlier. You can download a hi-res still of the end of the crash. It shows the entire aircraft reduced to pieces no bigger than a six pack, except for the vert stabilizer which has not yet hit the wall.

A McDonnell Douglas F-4 has significantly more stuctural integrity than a 757.

I do not think you can compare the test of an F-4 being fired into a thick block wall for a nuclear plant to a 757 hitting a reinforced concrete wall.

If the F-4 would have hit the wall at the Pentagon it would have surely gone through because the F-4 is made with steel and titanium, not aluminum and composites like the 757.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1I do not think you can compare the test of an F-4 being fired into a thick block wall for a nuclear plant to a 757 hitting a reinforced concrete wall.

Isn't a reactor core enclosure a reinforced concrete wall?

If the F-4 would have hit the wall at the Pentagon it would have surely gone through because the F-4 is made with steel and titanium, not aluminum and composites like the 757.

Are you suggesting an F-4, or a similar airframe penetrated the Pentagon?

Are you suggesting an aluminum and carbon composite airframe would easily disintegrate upon impact against reinforced concrete?

Let me add this little physics concept: 225,000 lbs moving at 500 mph posesses significant energy and penetration potential. It doesn't matter if the mass is titanium, or aluminum, or cotton balls...mass is mass. It will penetrate a barrier that is not designed to withstand the force.

Ill do the math and post the energy output of 225,000 lbs moving @ 500 mph. Then you can tell me if you think that energy could breach the Pentagon walls. I'll expect you to provide structural specs of the Pentagon walls of course.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Isn't a reactor core enclosure a reinforced concrete wall?

Are you suggesting an F-4, or a similar airframe penetrated the Pentagon?

Are you suggesting an aluminum and carbon composite airframe would easily disintegrate upon impact against reinforced concrete?

1. A reactor wall is about 12-15 feet thick specially constructed reinforced wall.

2. I am suggesting that an aluminum airframe would not have punched through the reinforced wall, interior collums and interior walls like the official story states.

Look at other airline crashes, the plane hits anything and the nose (which is composite) is completly destroyed and the front of the airframe is torn to shreads. Normal airline crash scenes basically have the wings, engines, and tail left behind, the airframe is crumpeled.


[edit on 15-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA11. A reactor wall is about 12-15 feet thick special constructed reinforced wall.

The barrier in the crash test appeared to be no more that 6 ft deep. Its true we dont know to what extent it was reinforced with rebar or welded wire mesh. We also dont know the concrete design specs.

2. I am suggesting that an aluminum airframe would not have punched through the reinforced wall, interior collums and interior walls like the official story states.

I'm trying to be polite here but I just informed you that kinetic energy is a function of mass times acceleration. It doesn't matter what molecular structure makes up the mass...titanium, aluminum, or toilet paper. A given mass (whatever its molecular make-up) travelling at a given speed, exerts a constant and repeatable force. You can fire a q-tip thru 6 ft of concrete if it's velocity is high enough.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

I'm trying to be polite here but I just informed you that kinetic energy is a function of mass times acceleration. It doesn't matter what molecular structure makes up the mass...titanium, aluminum, or toilet paper. A given mass (whatever its molecular make-up) travelling at a given speed, exerts a constant and repeatable force. You can fire a q-tip thru 6 ft of concrete if it's velocity is high enough.

Hmm, then why didn't the F-4 penatrate the block wall, it was going about the same speed as that 757 at the Pentagon, maybe because of the structures ???

Originally posted by johnlear
I can plainly see that you are not a airplane pilot of any kind. Making good decisions is difficult? You gotta be kidding!!!

Since any of my personal annecdotal evidence would be dismissed out of hand, I offer this example of decision making strategy and the outcome:

Later that year, the Thunderbirds experienced a very close call at Mountain Home AFB in southwestern Idaho. On September 14, 2003, Thunderbird #6 (opposing solo) failed to pull out of a dive but safely ejected at a very low altitude (140 feet), just 0.8 seconds before the aircraft smashed into a fireball and tumbled violently into the sagebrush. The event was the Gunfighter Skies 2003 air show with 85,000 in attendance on a cloudless late summer Sunday afternoon. This mishap occurred while #6 was attempting to perform the opening "Split-S" maneuver, about twenty seconds after takeoff. Pilot error (insufficient altitude) was later determined as the cause and the pilot, 31 year-old Captain Christopher Stricklin, was reassigned to a desk job at the Pentagon. Although the desert terrain is similar, the ground elevation at the Idaho base (2996') is over 1100 feet higher than their home at Nellis AFB (1867') outside of Las Vegas. The pilot had climbed to only 1670 feet above ground level (rather than the required 2500 feet), which did not allow enough room for him to safely pull out of the dive. Upon realizing his unrecoverable mistake, the pilot steered the F-16C away from the crowd just before ejection. Fortunately, the pilot incurred only minor injuries, and waved to the crowd after safely landing, signaling he was physically OK. There were no injuries to anyone on the ground, and other than the loss of the $20 million aircraft, there was no damage to property. The cockpit video of the ejection is in the External Links section below, and a picture is available here.

This man was obviously a good flyer. He pulled a tour with the AF demo team. He made two decisions that day. One bad....one good.

First (bad)....he started his manuever too soon (too low)....result....loss of aircraft.

Second (good)....he decided to get the hell out before he became part of the earth, AND he decided to aim his ship away from the spectators. result...no one died.

This is what being a pilot is all about.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Hmm, then why didn't the F-4 penatrate the block wall, it was going about the same speed as that 757 at the Pentagon, maybe because of the structures ???

No. Because the F-4 has about 25% of the mass of a 757 and 25% of the impact force.

However it's much more substantial structural integrity did not prevent it from being atomized.

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Hmm, then why didn't the F-4 penatrate the block wall, it was going about the same speed as that 757 at the Pentagon, maybe because of the structures ???

No. Because the F-4 has about 25% of the mass of a 757 and 25% of the impact force.

However it's much more substantial structural integrity did not prevent it from being atomized.

Thats strange since the F-4s impact area is about 75% smaller then the 757. And the F-4 did not cause any penatration at all.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

double post

[edit on 15-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I was interested in this particular video because of say that Fire Engine 331 from the Metropolitan Airport Authority chief Plower and 2 firefighters were contacted for an interview and agreed, but 1 hour before the radio show aired the chief called and canceled. The 2 firefighters had be placed on permanent leave.

Retired 2 Star Army General (Gen. Stubblebine) Questions Pentagon Strike he is making astounding claims! " A Plane does not fit in that hole, so what did hit the Pentagon?"

This General was in charge of armies imagery intelligence experts that measured scientific and technical on photos during the cold war.






[edit on 16-4-2007 by Realtruth]

Originally posted by Realtruth
Retired 2 Star Army General Questions Pentagon Strike he is making astounding claims! " A Plane does not fit in that hole, so what did hit the Pentagon?"

This General was in charge of armies imagery intelligence expert that measured scientific and technical on photos during the cold war.

Thanks for the post Realtruth. I have alwasy admired Gen. Stubblebine.

I doubt if this will have any effect on the uninformed ground pounders in our midst. Some of them have spent a lifetime of taking orders and learning how to like it. They were told a story, they believed the story, and they are sticking to it. Please don't bother them with the facts. Thanks.

I haven't made a lot of posts for awhile, pesonal problems maybe associated with my growing distrust of the "official" story. I see alot of people have some issues with the Pentagon info thats been released so far. My hope is one day more of the truth will come to light. For me the Pentagon is the real problem, not nessasarily whether 757 hit it or not, although no ones proven that to me, it's the fact that it wasn't stopped before it hit. The president knew of the first WTC hit before entering the classroom. Was informed of the second WTC hit just after 9 am. The Pentagon was hit at 9:37 am, thats more than 30mins to scramble jets and intercept. The fact this didn't happen leads me to believe that the Pentagon needed to be hit by something to ensure that any foriegn policy could then be pursued, after all "they" hit a "military" target which automaticly means "WAR"! It's just so convienent, combined with the heroic flt 93, a good ending to a very bad day. Only just six months ago I too didn't think twice about what we were told about that day. Now so many questions so few official answers. Where do we go from here? Are both political parties involved? Will anything be solved by occupying other countries indefinitly? I have a brother in law currently serving in Iraq, will he make it back to the states alive? It seems to me that our freedom is slipping away daily and were just going along for the ride. Lets pray it all works out in the end, because the end is surely coming for each and every one of us.

The British just recently put a system in their Tornado fighters that will be able to take over a commercial plane by remote control if it is hijacked.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Are both political parties involved?

Both political parties are completely owned.

So the plane that was supposed to have hit was taken somewhere and the people killed?

How many individuals actually saw the plane that morning near the pentagon? Too many to all be fake?

Originally posted by plopunisher
So the plane that was supposed to have hit was taken somewhere and the people killed?

Maybe they are still alive but are being held in a secret prison, awaiting release upon full disclosure on the eve of the second American revolution.

Or maybe they are dead. Who the hell knows?

How many individuals actually saw the plane that morning near the pentagon? Too many to all be fake?

Leading an eyewitness towards a pre-determined destination is a well known phenomenon in Law Enforcement.

i.e. Interegator: So tell me about the 757 that you saw fly into the pentagon.
Eyewitness (Now positive that the object must have been a 757, due to leading questioning tells the story)

[edit on 18-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]