9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

You SERIOUSLY believe that a 100+ ton airplane, moving at 500 mph, hitting a concrete wall, even ca kevlar reinforced wall, is going to just bounce off it, and not penetrate? *snort* All it had to do was get through the outer wall and all the reinforcement was gone, everything inside is drywall. Yes airplanes are relatively fragile, but about the only concrete walls out there that can resist an impact are at nuclear power plants, and they're like 20 feet thick.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 You SERIOUSLY believe that a 100+ ton airplane, moving at 500 mph, hitting a concrete wall, even ca kevlar reinforced wall, is going to just bounce off it, and not penetrate? *snort* All it had to do was get through the outer wall and all the reinforcement was gone, everything inside is drywall. Yes airplanes are relatively fragile, but about the only concrete walls out there that can resist an impact are at nuclear power plants, and they're like 20 feet thick.

Okay than the engine should make a hole in front of the pentagon as big or biger infact has the hole on the other side. You are only arguing with your self. A part of the engine made the big hole at the other end but a hole engine cant do that on the first impact? You your self said that the fuselage cleard the aria for the engine to hit and create the hole at the end, it was your quotes. This would explain it was something else. The fuselage nose cant do it i showed you. Maybe we should think what can create that type of hole. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

What are you talking about? What's this mysterious first impact you keep talking about? Even if the nose can't do it, the rest of the fuselage will.

I'm amazed that to this day, no one did a proper Finite Element Method Structural analysis of the impact. Unless the Pentagon structure is classified (the way is was structurally re-inforced), this could be modeled using conventional Finite Element Structural Analysis software package (like Patran - Nastran, Ansys, etc.). Now modeling the Boeing, should be also known. If you run that analysis, this should clear the debate. P.S.: The same Finite Element Method did managed to give a pretty accurate depiction on how the Titanic sunk (cutting into two pieces, etc.).

I know portions of the structure are classified, like the window structure. They're blast resistant and the company won't release details about them. I don't know if any other details are classified or not.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 What are you talking about? What's this mysterious first impact you keep talking about? Even if the nose can't do it, the rest of the fuselage will.

I was saing the folowng. If a part of the engine put a big round hole on the other end of where it struk out than when the hole engine impacted on the wall of the pentagon for the first time it should of created a biger mess You are clameing that a part of the engine made that big hole on the other part coming out of the pentagon. But you are also claeming that 1 engine and not a part the hole engine will not create that much damage on the first impact. And about the fuselage. When it will impact it will not create a nice round hole at the end. The debits after impact will splater in all difrent directions it will not go simetric forward and make a nice big round hole. How ever a missle can do that. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

On the OUTER wall no, because that's the reinforced wall. The INNER wall is normal concrete and more susceptible to large amounts of damage.

Come on be serios, 6 tons on impact does a little damage and a part of the engine at the end makes that big hole .

I don't know how much damage it caused on the outer wall, but it's not going to leave a huge hole in that wall. That wall is capable of withstanding a truck bomb going off sitting almost against it.

I would say amesing. 1- 6 tons of engine runing at 400 mph an hour does nothing to the wall it just impacts and the engine some how gets in with out doing any thing to the wall. 2 - a part from the engine manages to get passed the concrete wall in front of the pentagon wich you stongly sustain it will sustain any impact go's all the way at the other end and creates a big nice round hole. I dont buy it [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

We don't KNOW whether one engine impacted the wall. SOMETHING went over the top of the wall, that can't be identified from the video, and there is no list of parts that was found anywhere I can find. We know from eyewitnesses that one engine hit the generator and exploded. We don't know exactly WHAT parts were found at the Pentagon. Unless you guys know something I don't, and have a list of all the parts of the plane that were found. They generally don't release a list of debris and say "Here is what we found" from crash sites.

Zaphod58 if we dont know than we cant be sure if a boeing crashed there. Planes dont just go off radar even if they run out of the ploted course. The faa lost 4 planes on the radar that includes the one that hit the pentagon. I would say" I DONT KNOW IF A BOEING HIT THE PENTAGON maybe it was something else"

Planes dissapear from radar if they don't have a transponder turned on. Radar does NOT track airplanes by hitting the plane and coming back, if they're over 18,000 feet. ATC radar anyway. If they were over 18,000 feet then the only way for ATC to track them was by the transponder signal. Once they turned off the transponder, no more radar blip.

Yes maybe but norad does have radars that are capabile of that. And more about the transponders if a plane does not have a military transponder it will be excorted right a way by a scuadron of fighters off the area this is standard regulations it cant enter the area if it's not military and does not have the proper signature. This is standard procedure any thing that does not have military transponder will be detected. the boeing does not have a military transponder. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

You have GOT to be kidding me. That is the biggest crock I've heard yet. First of all, NORAD uses ATC radar for almost ALL of the radar coverage INSIDE the US. Military radars that tie into NORAD area all looking OUT of the country for incoming bombers and missiles. Probably 90% or more of the radars in the US are ATC radar. NORAD doesn't "have" any assets, radar or otherwise. It's a control center that takes data from other locations and then sends fighters to where they are needed or warnings out to other bases. Where did you get that junk about a plane not having a military transponder being intercepted immediately by "squadrons" of fighters? What a joke. Do you know how many fighters were ready to intercept planes on 9/11? FOURTEEN. The ONLY times a plane is intercepted is if they enter the ADIZ zone off the coast of the US without identifying themselves properly, or if the FAA REQUESTS it. They are NOT automatically intercepted if they go off course, or if the transponder drops off, because there are too many lgeitimate reasons for it to happen. there could be an emergency, or their electrical system drops off, or the transponder fails, etc. If any plane without a military transponder was intercepted by "squadrons" of fighters, then the USAF would have to have a couple of hundred thousand planes, because only military planes have military transponders. [edit on 11/16/2005 by Zaphod58]

Wow you make the stelth invizible 117 look like a total nonsence. All the suden the boeing has invisible capabilitiesand o my god they cant find it for a hole hour while it wonders in the jurestiction of the faa and it just hapens that norad cant see it either. Than i would use a boeing in iraq and in any other military operations. The f 117 seems long due compared to the boeing. And it just hapens that they find it and they plot a intercept course for the pacific ocean. First statement We didint see it. Second statement we did see it but we send planes the other way What a joke and i am amased on how oficial statements change. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

Any plane that does not have a military signature will be detected. And yes they did see it and it just hapens they send planes the other way. Read the oficial statement.

Originally posted by pepsi78 Wow you make the stelth invizible 117 look like a total nonsence. All the suden the boeing has invisible capabilities

and o my god they cant find it for a hole hour while it wonders in the jurestiction of the faa and it just hapens that norad cant see it either. Than i would use a boeing in iraq and in any other military operations. The f 117 seems long due compared to the boeing. And it just hapens that they find it

and they plot a intercept course for the pacific ocean. First statement We didint see it. Second statement we did see it but we send planes the other way

What a joke and i am amased on how oficial statements change. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

I'm probably going to get dinged for this, but are you an idiot or just a troll? Do you actually bother to UNDERSTAND what people say, or do you just see what you want to see? My post SPECIFICALLY STATED that above 18,000 feet AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL radar cannot see a plane without a transponder. MILITARY radar is completely different. ALMOST ALL of the radars covering US airspace are Air Traffic Control radars. This thing about non-military planes being automatically intercepted is the DUMBEST thing I've heard yet. There is no such thing as a "military signature" on a radar screen.

Lisen to me there are radars military ones that will record the signature in the area of DC once you go off course in DC you will be joind by squadrons It hapend before and i have seen it in many documentarys about this factor. It is made so fighters will have time to intercept but it just hapens that they send the fighters the other way and not from a near base of dc but from the middle of the usa. Dont you understand that it is a half baked farce?and there is criminal involvement? Nothing will be alow in the perimiter exept military coresponders. If you brake off course just a little there will be at least 3 fighters near u'r wing. Go see for your self. See some documentarys on this stuff on military coresponders. [edit on 16-11-2005 by pepsi78]

I GREW UP around the military and have been studying the military my entire life. I KNOW how things like this work. Many military bases have their own air traffic control radars for their own runways. Washington DC has an ATC Center, and two airport ATC radars, plus the radar at Andrews. There is no "special military radar" that picks up a plane and can instantly tell if it's a military or civilian airplane. There are zones that are marked off as no fly zones on charts, and radar screens. If they head towards that, or enter that, THEN they are intercepted by TWO, count them TWO fighters.