9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

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

Now you are twisting my words, and that's not right. I said the Air Force, not the US, doesn't have a missile that can go through reinforced concrete walls of the dimensions of those in the Pentagon and cause the extensive damage to the other rings like whatever hit the pentagon did. They have bombs for that type of target, so they don't need a missile for that. The Navy has missiles, ie the tomahawk, that will go through that, but a large portion of it's punch would have been delivered to the outer wall and first ring. The outer wall and the outer ring would likely have been thoroughly destroyed, but there would likely be little damage to the inner rings. However, the Navy also has bombs for this type of target, so their is less need for missiles to do this job. There is less exposure for a tomahawk, though the damage potential is not as high as a bomb. Basically no one in the US military needs a missile that can do this, because if they are tasked with hitting this type of target, they have bombs, which are far more effective and far less expensive than a missile would be. I am not illustrating the limitations of the US arsenal, I am illustrating that they have weapons that are specifically designed for specific missions. If you understood the roles of the branches of the service, you would understand that their respective arsenals are tailored to make them carry out their mission in the most efficient manor possible.

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 [i/]can't?

155,000 lbs of mass moving at 500 MPH. You are severly under rating kinetic energy. Got to run, see you all later. [edit on 24-5-2006 by vandalizor]

I appreciate you maintaining a civil conversation, even when it gets hot BTW, I'm not simply twisting your words, I'm forcing you to clarify that the gov't could use a weapon so as to obtain such a "crash result". Thus, the clarifications I obtained from you reinforce my argument:

Originally posted by vandalizor Now you are twisting my words, and that's not right. I said the Air Force, not the US, doesn't have a missile that can go through reinforced concrete walls of the dimensions of those in the Pentagon and cause the extensive damage to the other rings like whatever hit the pentagon did. They have bombs for that type of target, so they don't need a missile for that. The Navy has missiles, ie the tomahawk, that will go through that, but a large portion of it's punch would have been delivered to the outer wall and first ring. The outer wall and the outer ring would likely have been thoroughly destroyed, but there would likely be little damage to the inner rings. However, the Navy also has bombs for this type of target, so their is less need for missiles to do this job. There is less exposure for a tomahawk, though the damage potential is not as high as a bomb. Basically no one in the US military needs a missile that can do this, because if they are tasked with hitting this type of target, they have bombs, which are far more effective and far less expensive than a missile would be.

Now if the gov't wanted to set up the Pentagon crash, and if it really is a coverup, and since there are missiles that can punch through like this, it would need to use such a missile for such an irregular mission eh.

155,000 lbs of mass moving at 500 MPH. You are severly under rating kinetic energy.

Actually I'm not. It's AgentSmith, skibum, Zaphod58 and certain others that are. They claim that a 100 odd ton aircraft impacting the exterior wall at 500mph will neatly pass through 5 more walls but will not bring down vast sections of the exterior wall first. Enough energy to go through 6 walls but not enough to cave in the first!!!

Got to run, see you all later. [edit on 24-5-2006 by vandalizor]

Same here; talk to you tomorrow. [edit on 24/5/2006 by Aris]

So you're trying to tell us that I can put my fist EASILY through drywall, but plane parts CAN'T?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 So you're trying to tell us that I can put my fist EASILY through drywall, but plane parts CAN'T?

No, I'm telling you that if your fist was capable of punching through a steel reinforced wall and five subsequent other walls, the first wall would be mostly gone and not just have a hole that it barely fit through.

No, what you're saying is that 155,000 pounds at 534mph CAN'T go through 1 reinforced concrete wall, and 4 drywall sections, and a masonry wall. I would think that it would have a pretty easy time of it actually.

Originally posted by Aris I appreciate you maintaining a civil conversation, even when it gets hot

Now if the gov't wanted to set up the Pentagon crash, and if it really is a coverup, and since there are missiles that can punch through like this, it would need to use such a missile for such an irregular mission eh. [edit on 24/5/2006 by Aris]

I know you won't see this 'til tomorrow. No problem on the civility, there is no reason not to be civil. Like I stated previously, the missiles capable of doing this are not as big as what is shown in the video and do not approach the target on that trajectory, mainly due to the propensity to collide with something before hitting the target, like light poles for instance... This along with the blast and damage characteristics not being consistant with a missile, but being consistant with a crash, pretty much rules out a missile in my book.

The body of the aircraft did end up bringing down that whole section of wall, you keep talking like the wings are even comparable to it. What do you think is going to create more damage? 155 feet of main body or a few feet of wing (I'm not talking about how long the wingspan is either, I'm talking about it's width)?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 Well I have seen most of the pics of the Pentagon site while the firefighters were still spraying water on it and you do not see a chunk of the tail or the counterweights laying around.

ah , so you have reviewed all the pictures you have seen and decided to fixate on the issue of " I cannot see xxxxxxxxxxxxxx in any picture available to me " , ergo this `prooves` your " theory " that a plane did not strike the pentagon the problems with your logic are manifold I doubt you have seen - and been able to identify pictures of EVERY single piece of debris @ the pentagon -- thus you cannot honestly say that item xxxxxxxxx is absent your previous posts in this thread indicate that you are unaware just what you are actually looking for -- ie the correct weight , size and shape of a counterweight -- thus you may be staring at several of them unaware of what is shown . your assertion that no counterweight picture = proof that no Boeing passenger jet hit the pentagon is classic ` moving the goal posts ` and demanding new and different evidence that you suspect or hope does not exist -- why are you attempting to dismiss all the evidence of a Boeing @ the pentagon with one hand wave of " wot no counterweight ?" just to play silly buggers -- I can play this game too : missile ?? - there are no picks of a missile seeker head or rocket venturi - ergo - no missile hit the pentagon f-16 , a-3 , a-7 or any other military aircraft ???? -- there are no pictures of an ejector seat , cockpit canopy , pitot tube , refueling boom or any other identifiable parts of a jet fighter or strike bomber --- ergo it couldn’t have been any of these types repeat ad nauseum

see ?????? lastly - military jets , missiles etc all have counterweights and ballast masses of various dimensions -- so where are the pics of these counterweights ??? you cannot have it both ways -- if you ant you obsess over no counterweight -- then just what did hit the pentagon ???

No there are several parts misssing, like the engine parts, 9 other wheels, 2 other landing gear, i was just bringing up the counter wieghts from the tail and wing sectons because they are pretty large and would have survived,,

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 No there are several parts misssing, like the engine parts, 9 other wheels, 2 other landing gear, i was just bringing up the counter wieghts from the tail and wing sectons because they are pretty large and would have survived,,

engines parts were found. the blades were found, many of the parts that made up the engines. 9 other wheels? wouldn't many of them have been destroyed in the collapses of the building? the found serveral of the wheel rims; rims that match that of a 757-200 landing gear? They were destroyed as well. Only the front one (found in the inner ring) was able to escape barely destroyed. just because they are large, doesn't mean they'd survive an catastrophic accident. Please provide your studies, as well as your evidence of your investigation while on scene at hte pentagon following the crash.

Originally posted by Wizy engines parts were found. the blades were found, many of the parts that made up the engines.

Pls show evidence of this, you have a habit of making claims without anything to back them up... I would love to see the rotor blades you talk about specificaly...And these many other engine parts you claim were found.

Please provide your studies, as well as your evidence of your investigation while on scene at hte pentagon following the crash.

How about you do the same One thing I do know a little about is jet engines having been a jet mechanic in the military... [edit on 24/5/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 No, what you're saying is that 155,000 pounds at 534mph CAN'T go through 1 reinforced concrete wall, and 4 drywall sections, and a masonry wall. I would think that it would have a pretty easy time of it actually.

No, what I'm saying is that if the energy of such an impact is sufficient to go through six walls, the first should have obviously caved in. And btw, let me get this straight, you're telling me that the rear wall of Ring A, both exterior walls of Ring B and the outer wall of Ring C are all drywall? Do you have documented evidence of this? I'd like to see it.

Originally posted by vandalizor I know you won't see this 'til tomorrow. No problem on the civility, there is no reason not to be civil. Like I stated previously, the missiles capable of doing this are not as big as what is shown in the video and do not approach the target on that trajectory, mainly due to the propensity to collide with something before hitting the target, like light poles for instance... This along with the blast and damage characteristics not being consistant with a missile, but being consistant with a crash, pretty much rules out a missile in my book.

Maybe a missile with a low yield charge and a narrowly shaped jet (forgive the layman's terms) was along for the ride on some kind of plane. Maybe not. I'm not claiming anything specific, I'm just throwing out possibilities for discussion and not making assertions. Maybe the gov't had the military configure something tailor made for this specific incident, something we wouldn't pick up because it would be irregular. Much of the military's hardware, weaponry and capabilities are highly classified, after all. At any rate, in such instances, it's good for all possible thoughts & scenarios to be researched and tested. After all, supporting a hypothesis (it was a 757) involves disproving alternative scenarios, which is what we are trying to do

Originally posted by AgentSmith The body of the aircraft did end up bringing down that whole section of wall, you keep talking like the wings are even comparable to it. What do you think is going to create more damage? 155 feet of main body or a few feet of wing (I'm not talking about how long the wingspan is either, I'm talking about it's width)?

If you are referring to how the wall came down some 20 minutes later, I don't buy it. The kinetic energy of such an impact, fierce enough to punch through five more walls, should have had the first wall caving in upon impact, much more than it ever did. It seems we won't agree on this point; you believe that such caving in would be limited to a few feet, I believe it should have been much more severe, given the high speed (kinetic energy). As for what you're saying with regards to the damage and forward motion of the wings vs the fuselage, I agree that the fuselage would plow into the building more severely than the wings. However, I still feel that the damage they would have caused to the first wall, impacting it at 500mph, would be sufficient to cave in that wall more severely. Since we've beaten this to death and cannot agree, allow me to add the factor of the tail. 1) From your diagrams, it seems it didn't hit the wall because the hole is too short. Where did it go? 2) If you speculate that it buckled or sheared off as the fuselage progressively collapsed in front of it, the only way it would fit in is diagonally or sideways. I can't picture that; even if it had buckled down, it would still be in a fairly vertical position, fairly intact before it reached wall and that's a pretty tall tale, er, tail (sorry for the pun ) with regards to the height of the wall and shortness of the resulting hole. 3) If it did go inside, why isn't it in any interior shots? Even in extreme crashes, the tail is recognizable. It's so big that even if it breaks up, parts of it should be identifiable to the eye. Yet, no tail anywhere. And let's recall that the tail would have been subjected to the least amount of damage, seeing as how so much fuselage in front of it absorbed kinetic energy and punched the wall ahead. In fact, I would imagine that in such a crash, the tail should be the best bet to be identified somewhere but it's disappeared? [edit on 25/5/2006 by Aris]

Furthermore, I'd like a clarification on the size of the initial hole, AgentSmith, before the wall came down later. I know it's been discussed at length but my query is relevant to what we're discussing. I attempted to search the beginning of the thread (trust me, I had slowly read all 105 pages last year before answering on the 106th) but the problem is that most of CatHerder's links obviously now don't work, so I couldn't find a good clear shot of the initial damage. Maybe such a photo is in a nearby page but I'm having a hard time finding it so please help me on this because I'm not sure if yesterday's picture with the red lines is this damage. The reason I am asking is this: I know you mentioned yesterday that the hole where the fuselage impacted was big enough to fit the fuselage but was the initial hole's size big enough to fit in the fuselage and both engines? One single initial hole that's wide & tall enough to fit a 757 from the left arc of its portside engine to the right arc of its starboard engine?

One engine never hit the building. Eyewitnesses saw (IIRC) the starbord engine hit the generator, spin it, and come off the wing and explode. And what I said was the INTERIOR was drywall, and the inner ring wall was standard masonry and not reinforced. However according to this page all the inner walls are standard masonry.

"A great deal of thought has been given to protecting the Pentagon from fire. Its steel-reinforced concrete construction makes it a fire resistant building. In addition, the main interior walls above the basement level are of masonry. The basement, where the maintenance shops, garage and storage rooms are located, is divided into fire areas by reinforced concrete firewalls with double, automatic firedoors. Transformer vaults and machine rooms throughout the building are protected by masonry walls and firedoors.

www.greatbuildings.com... Masonry wouldn't stand up NEARLY as well as the reinforced outer wall. The outer wall was designed to withstand the impact of a massive truck bomb, almost touching the wall when it goes off,without collapsing. Which is why you DON'T have the huge collapse you're insisting on from the 757.

Originally posted by Aris And btw, let me get this straight, you're telling me that the rear wall of Ring A, both exterior walls of Ring B and the outer wall of Ring C are all drywall?

The three outer rings are connected at the two lower floors, something like this: Here's a diagram that shows the damage to the columns. It also shows the inaccuracy of my above drawing, but you get the point.

Originally posted by Aris Maybe a missile with a low yield charge and a narrowly shaped jet (forgive the layman's terms) was along for the ride on some kind of plane. Maybe not. I'm not claiming anything specific, I'm just throwing out possibilities for discussion and not making assertions. Maybe the gov't had the military configure something tailor made for this specific incident, something we wouldn't pick up because it would be irregular. Much of the military's hardware, weaponry and capabilities are highly classified, after all. At any rate, in such instances, it's good for all possible thoughts & scenarios to be researched and tested. After all, supporting a hypothesis (it was a 757) involves disproving alternative scenarios, which is what we are trying to do

It is possible, but the only eyewitnesses that report "seeing" anything, claim to have seen an American Airlines jet. Someone, somewhere would have seen something other than that if there was something other than that. If this is some "custom" job from the military, that involves yet more people that have to be kept quiet in what is already largest conspiracy ever heard of. The conspiracy theories make too many assumptions for my liking. Not the least of which is the assumption that the hundred (if not hundreds) or so military people, FBI agents, and CIA agents (well maybe they would do it) would just abandon their oath and keep quiet about the whole thing while their leaders perpetrated mass murder on the people they have sworn to protect? Sorry, I don't buy it, no way. You may get some to go along with it on some fairy tale of the "greater good", but no way they all go along with it.

Originally posted by vandalizor If this is some "custom" job from the military, that involves yet more people that have to be kept quiet in what is already largest conspiracy ever heard of.

That is a very good point. Another point is this question: Why use something different than the boeing in question, if you have get rid of the planeand kill the passengers anyway. Also the risk of having identifyable debris from a Global Hawk, a missile or anything else would be very, very high - even after an explosion Same goes for the planes that hit WTC. Once there is a time difference between the hits, the chances are very high, that this city has literally hundreds of cameras pointing at these buildings. What if somebody would take a shot good enough to reveal a military plane? If I had to layout such an attack, I would never take that chance! The problem with any kind of other plane like a Global Hawk, is the fact that even from a different plane the inside and outside debris would be missing. I hope I am not repeating something that has already been said, because I only read the first 30 pages and the last 10. I found the documentary by Dave von Kleist on the Web, and actually these questions were the first I came up with. Why would they make it even more difficult than it already is, when they could have it the easy way?

Originally posted by Zaphod58 One engine never hit the building. Eyewitnesses saw (IIRC) the starbord engine hit the generator, spin it, and come off the wing and explode.

Could you please source that for me? I'm not saying I don't believe you, it's just that I've read what I imagined to be a plethora of eyewitness reports so far but I can't recall this.

And what I said was the INTERIOR was drywall, and the inner ring wall was standard masonry and not reinforced. However according to this page all the inner walls are standard masonry. ....... Masonry wouldn't stand up NEARLY as well as the reinforced outer wall. The outer wall was designed to withstand the impact of a massive truck bomb, almost touching the wall when it goes off,without collapsing. Which is why you DON'T have the huge collapse you're insisting on from the 757.

So, the supposed 757's aluminum fuselage punched through the first reinforced concrete wall, only leaving a cookie cutter impression, and then went on to punch through five more masonry walls....... Still sounds unbelievable. By the way, reinforced concrete walls such as the Pentagon's are reinforced with steel. What this does is it spreads the impact to the rest of the wall, thus making the wall less prone to getting punched through. You do understand this basic fact? So, when a reinforced with steel, concrete wall does get compromised to the point of getting punched through, the wall will cave in beyond the impact point. A simple masonry wall (simple bricks); yeah, an object ramming into it will basically leave its silhouette only, because only the immediate bricks that the object dislodges will fall, for all intents and purposes. A reinforced wall, though, is designed to absorb as much energy as possible, which means that steel is running across it in the concrete. Thus, when the impact is severe, as in 100 tons impacting it at 500mph, the wall will fail to a much greater extent. It's designed that way because while you may have less wall standing as a result, it's helped lessen the energy that managed to go behind it, compared to a simple masonry wall that won't absorb and collapse beyond the impact point, resulting in much more energy passing through to the interior.

Originally posted by vandalizor It is possible, but the only eyewitnesses that report "seeing" anything, claim to have seen an American Airlines jet. Someone, somewhere would have seen something other than that if there was something other than that.

"'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. "Marine Corps officer Mike Dobbs was standing on one of the upper levels of the outer ring of the Pentagon looking out the window when he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building. "It seemed to be almost coming in slow motion," he said later Tuesday. "I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running. They evacuated everybody around us." "Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the parts?... There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the building. I want them to find it whole, wedged between floors or something. I know that isn't going to happen, but right now I pretend. I want to see footage of the crash. I want to make it make sense. I want to know why there's this gap in my memory, this gap that makes it seem as though the plane simply became invisible and banked up at the very last minute, but I don't think that's going to happen." "The plane was a two-engine turbo prop that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building." - Ford, Ken "The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said." "Don Wright from the 12th floor, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, in Rosslyn: " .. I watched this ...it looked like a commuter plane, two engined ... come down from the south real low ... "" "This is a hole in -- there was a punch-out. They suspect that this was where a part of the aircraft came through this hole, although I didn't see any evidence of the aircraft down there. (...) This pile here is all Pentagon metal. None of that is aircraft whatsoever." - Mitchell, Terry "Jim Sutherland, a mortgage broker, was on his way to the Pentagon when he saw ... a white 737 twin-engine plane with multicolored trim fly 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon.." " It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots." - Morin, Terry "Levi Stephens 23, courier Armed Forces Information Service - According to one witness, "what looked like a 747" plowed into the south side of the Pentagon, possibly skipping through a heliport before it hit the building." So much for "the only eyewitnesses that report "seeing" anything, claim to have seen an American Airlines jet". I wish you guys would get your facts straight because this was the easiest part to research, from years ago.