9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

No, I'm not saying they're only impact resistant on the inside. I'm saying they're MORE impact resistant on the inside. That doesn't mean that something designed to stop small pieces of engine from blowing a hole in it is going to withstand an impact with the ground or a building at high speed. Totally different forces at work here.

LOL you guys know you've lost the argument so now you resort to calling us dis-info agents. Anything to justify your believing a bunch of BS We need some new blood in hear, tired of arguing with you guys... You guys really don't want to find the truth do you? You just want to win the argument whether you're right or not.

Man, I love it. You use the same tactics you accuse US of using, and it's OK. Then turn around and insult us for losing the argument.

I don't know who's who, being new. But I think Diversionary Agent is more appropriate. Think of how many man-hours are wasted on this sort of thing.

Well let's think about those forces Zaphod. The engine casing is basicaly a tube. That tube hit the pentagoon head on. Who was it that posted the piece of wood in a turnado anolagy. Well you could use the same one here, no? If the nose of the aircraft which has a pretty big cross section and made from thin aluminum can punch a hole through kevlar reinforced concrete, then an engine casing which is a lot thicker and stronger, and impact resistant, would too. How do you figure it's more impact resistant on the inside? Pls explain how that works. And don't say kevalr, because that's in the airframe not the engine casing itself.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Man, I love it. You use the same tactics you accuse US of using, and it's OK. Then turn around and insult us for losing the argument.

Where am I insulting you? Grow some skin dude. You're the one getting all hot and bothered.

This thread needs a massive amount of chilling.

So what, Anok, now you're saying that ONLY the nose would punch a hole? Ther rest of the fuselage wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with damage to the building? ONLY the nose can rip a hole in the wall?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 So what, Anok, now you're saying that ONLY the nose would punch a hole? Ther rest of the fuselage wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with damage to the building? ONLY the nose can rip a hole in the wall?

What? When did I say that? Stop reaching it's getting old. You're the one claiming the nose went through, not me. You're never going to convince me a 757 made that little hole and sucked the rest of the plane, engine, wing spars and all through with it, to disapear inside the building into nothing but dust. If the nose didn't punch through then what did IYO? The flight deck? the passengers seats. The thin aluminium airframe? What part of the body would do that?

The entire fuselage went through. What, you think the nose went through and it stopped? I'd hardly call the hole in the outside wall "little"

Really? www.physics911.net... external image investigate911.batcave.net... Mod Edit: Image Size only. [edit on 25-1-2006 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 The entire fuselage went through. What, you think the nose went through and it stopped?

No it didn't... The fuselage popped up in the air and the tail of whatever it was came off...

Thanx Lyte. If that is your real name. :lol I have a question for you all... Where is the shadow of this "plane" and it's vapor trail? There seems to be a shadow for the explosion, but not the plane and plume... Am just seeing things...or not, rather. Shadow: Shadow: Shadow: Shadow:

Total Debunk Why is it no one is in the thread with Lyte? That post totally picked apart.

Change the Boing 757 with a drone and I prove better than you that it was a drone that hit the Pentagon. Just use your own evidence you so nicely have created, and you have all the evidence you need that I'm the one who is right. Also by proving the way you do that it was a Drone there are no holes in the evidence. Not for the wreckage nor for anything else. Your explanation still have huge holes and many unanswered quiestions. So whatever you say....but in a Drone where you would have a Boing 757 in your explanation. I don't have to say more. Get real dude......how much did you get paid to come up with so much BS

wow, people are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence and facts like numerous eyewitnesses that see airliners EVERY DAY saw an airliner crash into the pentagon. Oh wait, there is no video offered so it must be a missile or a drone. Give me a break. Think about that. Most any object holding that much fuel traveling at 500+mph will shred to pieces. Does this look like the wingspan of a drone or missile? Wait, missiles don't have wings.

Originally posted by hogknot Most any object holding that much fuel traveling at 500+mph will shred to pieces. Does this look like the wingspan of a drone or missile? Wait, missiles don't have wings.

Hmmm first off their are witnesses that say they saw a small plane, and who said what they head could not have been an airliner. The pic you showed is after the collapse, pls see the pics before the collapse. The pic you show could not be the wings, too high. The original hole produced was at ground level. The plane was going between 350-400 mph not 500+. Go back a few pages and catch up.

One big problem for me....As in the New York attacks, the engines CLEARLY puncture the building. This would be reasonable, as the engines are the heaviest part of the plane, NOT the body of the plane. It make no sense that the body of the plane would puncture the Pentagon, and the engines would not. In fact, as we see in the New York attacks, the entire plane puntures a nice plane shaped hole, prior to the fireball. Where are the holes for the engines in the Pentagon? If the wings broke up prior to impact, where are the engines? A couple rotors laying on the ground dont cut it...the engines, no matter who made them, are huge. A little rotor on the ground? C'mon. There is NO WAY a Boeing crashed into the Pentagon. Look at the roof of the Pentagon, prior to the collapse....Im sorry, if a huge airline had crashed into that wall, there would be NO ROOF THERE. A few little pieces of plane, here and there? A 16 foot hole with the wall basically intact? My goodness. Am I missing something? Nevermind the 8 THOUSAND gallons of Jet fuel that would BURN FOR DAYS.....where is the fire in the photos? The whole area should be crispy. It is not.

I dont know if I can help with much of your post rustedshut but have you read this thread? There's a lot of answers here to your questions. Pick the ones you want to believe. As for

the 8 THOUSAND gallons of Jet fuel that would BURN FOR DAYS

well that would have been easily contained by the firemen who were on the scene within MINUTES. I would imagine most of it was consumed in the initial explosion anyway so not much mystery there.

So the two 3 ton engines are most of the almost 200,000 pounds of a plane now? They must have changed how much a ton is then.