9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Uh huh. Windows and columns, a scant few feet away, immediately and completely stop a 500mph impact on a contiguous wall from spreading... [edit on 24/5/2006 by Aris]

Yeah, well, some of us have more than just a basic education in physics. With all due respect you are actually looking at it in a rather basic way without taking into account things such as the structure of the building, the depth of the wings compared to the depth of the body, breakage points on the aircraft and the building, etc, etc. Frankly your idea of what the damage should have been is comical to say the least, I'm not trying to put you down or anything and I almost admire your assertiveness, but never the less you're pretty far off the mark. I'm not a teacher and I'm pretty sick of covering the same ground we did nearly 5 year ago, so if you want it explained you'll have to knuckle down and do some reading. Keep up the good work [edit on 24-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

I don't buy the Globalhawk theory at all for 2 main reasons. 1. Not one credable eyewitness reports seeing anything like a Globalhawk, and you would definately know it if you saw one, particularly one with a bomb strapped underneath it. Not to mention bombs and missiles require arming, which means there is the possibility that if one is not launched, it may not detonate, even in a crash. Oh yeah, and Global Hawks don't have hardpoints for weapon mounts. 2. It also doesn't have the mass to move that generator and still continue on to the pentagon with any real energy to cause the damage all the way through to the third ring. More likely a starboard engine moved that generator. Globalhawks don't have starboard engines. [edit on 24-5-2006 by vandalizor]

The other thing to consider when overlaying the image of the aircraft onto the damage is that it didn't hit straight as most of the pictures (including mine) depict, it hit at a 50 degree angle.

Originally posted by AgentSmith Yeah, well, some of us have more than just a basic education in physics. With all due respect you are actually looking at it in a rather basic way without taking into account things such as the structure of the building, the depth of the wings compared to the depth of the body, breakage points on the aircraft and the building, etc, etc. Frankly your idea of what the damage should have been is comical to say the least, I'm not trying to put you down or anything and I almost admire your assertiveness, but never the less you're pretty far off the mark. I'm not a teacher and I'm pretty sick of covering the same ground we did nearly 5 year ago, so if you want it explained you'll have to knuckle down and do some reading. Keep up the good work

[edit on 24-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

So, let me get this straight, AgentSmith: -because the wall has columns, a 500mph impact will stop at all surrounding columns - because the wings slant backwards, they don't, at 500mph punch a hole through the wall (and if they don't, where's their wreckage outside?) - because of the structure of the plane and the wall, the hole that a 500mph impact will create will be of the cookie cutter variety. - the impact of the alleged 757 couldn't spread more than a few scant feet across the wall because of windows and columns, yet could punch through several walls in succession! I don't need to be a physics major so as to find the above speculative claims to be nonsense.

Since I, unlike you, have a basic physics education, allow me to copy here what a mechanical engineer's opinion is of this crash: A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

Source: To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven: ... If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. (emphasis mine) It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel. ... We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.) EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole. It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion. ... Sincerely, Michael Meyer

[edit on 24/5/2006 by Aris] [Mod Edit: external source link and tags, shortened quote of Entire article] External Source Tags – Please Review This Link. [edit on 5/24/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

LOL, that whole article is garbage. It is based on the false premise that there was 9 feet worth of reinforced walls. Mr. Myers needs to research a little better before writing a scientific paper.

Yeah I remember that one, you'd think if these people were as bright as you'd expect they'd bother getting the facts right LOL! Tell him to go away and rewrite it with the correct building specs and I might bother paying attention to it.

Originally posted by Aris It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion. How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I don't have a degree in mechanical engineering, but I have a pretty thorough understanding of our's and many other countries weapon arsenals. There isn't a missile in the arsenal that has a shape charge warhead big enough to cause this damage hitting the pentagon from the side like that. Sure it would have penetrated the outer wall, but it would not have penetrated to the third ring. Not to mention a missile would not approach the pentagon on that trajectory. It would be a more downward trajectory, not parallel to the ground. The video shows something that is clearly bigger than any missile we or any other country have short of ballistic missiles and it is obviously not a ballistic missile. A bomb could cause this damage though, but a bomb doesn't use a shape charge as a warhead, it uses as reinforced steel nose to penetrate concrete. Again, the video shows something clearly larger than a bomb approaching from the wrong trajectory. Not to mention a bomb would probably not even show up on the video we have seen because it would be travelling too fast. Once the bomb penatrated the outer wall the explosion would have blown the wall and roof up and out onto the lawn of the pentagon (same as a missile) not pushed everything in. The Russians have air launched cruise missiles that are the size of small planes (AS4, AS6), not of 757 size though and they travel at mach 3, and would approach from a different trajectory. That's my $.02 on that theory. This is not speculation either, this is 10 years of experience. [edit on 24-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Well, boys, since you seem to claim that you have the correct specifications, what do you claim the total thickness of the 6 walls that the supposed 757 punctured is?

I don't have the specs for the building, but I do know that it WASN'T 6 walls of reinforced concrete. The ONLY reinforced wall is the outer wall, and windows in it.

Originally posted by Aris Well, boys, since you seem to claim that you have the correct specifications, what do you claim the total thickness of the 6 walls that the supposed 757 punctured is?

Exterior wall- IIRC 12 inches of reinforced concrete with 12 inches of masonry over top. Several gypsum board and metal stud walls. Final wall penetrated was IIRC a double layer masonry wall.

Originally posted by vandalizor I don't have a degree in mechanical engineering, but I have a pretty thorough understanding of our's and many other countries weapon arsenals. There isn't a missile in the arsenal that has a shape charge warhead big enough to cause this damage hitting the pentagon from the side like that. Sure it would have penetrated the outer wall, but it would not have penetrated to the third ring.

So there isn't a missile capable of penetrating to the thid ring but a 757 can??? Maybe the US Air Force should consider stocking 757s instead of missiles in its arsenal then

Not to mention a missile would not approach the pentagon on that trajectory. It would be a more downward trajectory, not parallel to the ground. The video shows something that is clearly bigger than any missile we or any other country have short of ballistic missiles and it is obviously not a ballistic missile. A bomb could cause this damage though, but a bomb doesn't use a shape charge as a warhead, it uses as reinforced steel nose to penetrate concrete. Again, the video shows something clearly larger than a bomb approaching from the wrong trajectory. Not to mention a bomb would probably not even show up on the video we have seen because it would be travelling too fast. Once the bomb penatrated the outer wall the explosion would have blown the wall and roof up and out onto the lawn of the pentagon (same as a missile) not pushed everything in.

Maybe it was some kind of aircraft with a loaded missile. Who knows. You've disproved nothing. As for AgentSmith and Skibum's assertion that they know the thickness of six walls wasn't 9 feet but less, I'll say this: To claim that a 757, impacting a reinforced concrete wall at 500mph, is not capable of collapsing a vast portion of the first wall but slices through six walls like a hot knife through butter, leaving a cookie cutter outline in said six walls, is beyond belief. It would seem that the physics you guys "know" occur on the Bugs Bunny & Roadrunner Show". So what was the total thickness of the walls penetrated? 9 inches? Sorry for poking fun but your claims are getting wilder by the minute. The 500 mph impact didn't have enough energy to considerably bring down the first wall yet it had enough energy to punch through six walls! LOL!

To claim that a 757, impacting a reinforced concrete wall at 500mph, is not capable of collapsing a vast portion of the first wall but slices through six walls like a hot knife through butter, leaving a cookie cutter outline in said six walls, is beyond belief.

Cookie cutter? Hot knife through butter? You do realize you can put your fist through a drywall wall don't you. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that there was a cookie cutter outline in six walls.

So what was the total thickness of the walls penetrated? 9 inches?

Lets see. Around 20 inches of masonry (Exterior wall and c ring puchout) , around 10 inches of reinforced concrete and several gypsum board walls.

Originally posted by Aris So there isn't a missile capable of penetrating to the thid ring but a 757 can??? Maybe the US Air Force should consider stocking 757s instead of missiles in its arsenal then

They don't need missiles to penetrate like that, other wise maybe they would have 155,000 lb missiles. They have bombs for that type of hard target mission. The Air Force air to ground missile arsenal is more for close air support against armor and soft targets. These do not have the mass that the pentagon has, so again, missile penetration is not as high a priority. The Navy on the other hand does need missiles that must penetrate a ships hull, but the attack profile and blast characteristics are wrong for those type of missiles. Laugh if you want, but you are only laughing at your own ignorance.

Maybe it was some kind of aircraft with a loaded missile. Who knows. You've disproved nothing.

I have already stated that, unless it is launched, the missile or bomb will not arm. If it does not arm it MAY not explode. That's a pretty big risk to take if you are trying to pull off a conspiracy. For the sake of argument, let's say it's a lucky day (even though Murphy says that is highly unlikely) and it does explode, the explosion would have blown up and out, including pieces of what was carrying it. IE: much more debris all over the Pentagon lawn. Most everything was pushed in though, hence not a bomb or missile. I think it is only the ignorant that advance the theory of a missile or bomb and I think that theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked, not just by me either. So IMO missile or bomb is disproved as total BS.

Originally posted by Skibum Cookie cutter? Hot knife through butter? You do realize you can put your fist through a drywall wall don't you. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that there was a cookie cutter outline in six walls.

You're telling me that the plane you guys are superimposing on the initial hole isn't like a cookie cutter? Please. Did the supposed 757 punch clear through the back of the C Ring or not? Well, if a 500mph impact on the reinforced concrete exterior wall only left the plane's silhouette, and it only left the nose's silhouette exiting the C Ring, and you claim that the interior walls were masonry and drywalls, then it stands to reason that it did a cookie cutter job throughout. And by the way, reinforced concrete walls cave in upon impact whereas drywalls may at least get "punched in" more easily. So, if you claim that the impact was not sufficient to cave in vast sections of the exterior wall, how the heck was it sufficient to punch through 5 more walls?? Because they were from drywood??? A 500mph impact didn't spread more than 5 or so feet on a reinforced with steel concrete surface but the mostly aluminum projectile neatly passed through said steel reinforced concrete and punched through 5 more walls because they weren't 9ft thick and were thin masonry and drywood??? No offence but I'd really like to see you and AgentSmith's physics and mechanical engineering credentials because your claims are getting wilder by the second....

Lets see. Around 20 inches of masonry (Exterior wall and c ring puchout) , around 10 inches of reinforced concrete and several gypsum board walls.

Please provide me with the plans, in detail, that give you this information. Hopefully it will have each and every wall (all six walls), each and every thickness and each and every material composition. Then I'll run it by a couple of universities and ask if a mostly aluminum plane going 500mph can leave its silhouette on the first wall and subsequently punch through the rest. Where the tail went, because it won't fit in the hole, is another mystery but let's leave that for the moment.

Originally posted by vandalizor They don't need missiles to penetrate like that, other wise maybe they would have 155,000 lb missiles. They have bombs for that type of hard target mission. The Air Force air to ground missile arsenal is more for close air support against armor and soft targets. These do not have the mass that the pentagon has, so again, missile penetration is not as high a priority. The Navy on the other hand does need missiles that must penetrate a ships hull, but the attack profile and blast characteristics are wrong for those type of missiles.

Ah, so you claim to know exactly how the military is technically limited in configuring its weaponry...

Laugh if you want, but you are only laughing at your own ignorance.

No, I'm laughing at the ridiculous claims you guys are making so you can excuse a physically impossible scenario, and I'm sure many others are laughing as well.

I have already stated that, unless it is launched, the missile or bomb will not arm. If it does not arm it MAY not explode. That's a pretty big risk to take if you are trying to pull off a conspiracy. For the sake of argument, let's say it's a lucky day (even though Murphy says that is highly unlikely) and it does explode, the explosion would have blown up and out, including pieces of what was carrying it. IE: much more debris all over the Pentagon lawn. Most everything was pushed in though, hence not a bomb or missile. I think it is only the ignorant that advance the theory of a missile or bomb and I think that theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked, not just by me either. So IMO missile or bomb is disproved as total BS.

Debunked by whom and how? Could you please link me to this "debunking" so I'm not "ignorant" anymore?

Forgive me for going over this again, I'm "ignorant" on this after all, so please indulge me. You said,

Originally posted by vandalizor There isn't a missile in the arsenal that has a shape charge warhead big enough to cause this damage hitting the pentagon from the side like that. Sure it would have penetrated the outer wall, but it would not have penetrated to the third ring.

So, the US weapons arsenal does not have a missile in its inventory that packs enough charge to go through those six walls. If I'm understanding you correctly, there is insufficient charge in said missile so as to punch through so many walls. My next logical question is this then: what did the supposed 757 have that a missile doesn't? A mostly hollow, mostly aluminum 757 with no charge whatsoever can punch through six walls whereas a missile with some charge can't? [edit on 24/5/2006 by Aris] [edit on 24/5/2006 by Aris]

Did the supposed 757 punch clear through the back of the C Ring or not?

Pieces of it did.

and it only left the nose's silhouette exiting the C Ring

I don't think it was the nose that made the hole. It was most likely a dense object like a landing gear or piece of engine or something along those lines.

Because they were from drywood???

What is drywood?

Originally posted by Skibum Pieces of it did.

A structurally intact, entire 757 couldn't, at 500mph of initial impact, severely bring down a concrete wall but its "pieces" could subsequently punch through 5 more walls eh. LOL. BTW, where are these "pieces"?

I don't think it was the nose that made the hole. It was most likely a dense object like a landing gear or piece of engine or something along those lines.

Our friend vandalizor informed us that a charged missile is incapable of penetrating those six walls, yet you claim that landing gear and engines can. Strap some landing gears on the wings of your F-16s and propel them to their targets then, since landing gear can punch through six walls in succession! BTW, is there any evidence of engines or nose gear beyond the C ring? Where are they? Or are you speculating again?

What is drywood?

Apologies. I apparently wrote drywood instead of drywall. [edit on 24/5/2006 by Aris]