9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by HowardRoark There are spaces between the columns, aren’t there? And as for your “chisel marks”

page 118 post www.abovetopsecret.com... the angles are off, there shape is nearly circular, but at ~50deg it shouldn't be, the debris is lying in the wrong direction, and close-ups showed chisel marks on the Exit Hole, until the links went dead, of course. I even commented on your column dodging airframe approx 30 pages and a few months ago. using your own pics, in this post I'll have to kindly ask you what actually severed all these columns shown in the second pic ok,ok this one: just by by-passing them? [edit on 1-6-2006 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by HowardRoark How many times do I have to explain this to you.

Do you feel it's confusing to answer this question: "how did the fuselage penetrate 3 rings" with saying: "the fuselage didn't, only heavier pieces DID" and then ask me how many times you have to explain to me that no "3 rings were penetrated" ? But if we base my question in this pypothesis that there really were not much resistance as no 3 rings were penetrated, then it only changes my question to: then why did the engines not even follow through the first wall? or even leave a footprint? How do you explain the difference in what the fuselage penetrated and what the engines did not? Sure the fuselage hitting the building takes off a lot of speed, but are the wings strong enough to resist the pull from something powerfull enough to slow down the whole plane? The point that I'm trying to get through to you with is the difference with what the plane "performed" at the pentagon and what the engines were not able to replicate by far. Some say the front was so hard that the plane vaporized, but then how did we get a punch out at ring C at the same time? Others say there was little resistance and only office material, but then why did the engines not penetrate?

The aircraft debris did not ”penetrate 3 rings’ as you state. At least not in the sense that it passed in and out of six separate masonry exterior walls. The first floor of the builidng is not divided into separate rings. It is a continous open office space.

...and why then could the engines not even follow through the first wall. I don't buy it. You obviously don't have to agree with me.

Between the initial hole on the outer walls and the “punch out” in the A-E drive, there were only drywall partition walls and concrete columns. The fuselage as a whole is a lot more massive than the engines.

Well it would have to be so much more massive that it could create a punchout at ring C while the engines did not penetrate the first wall. Is this really your hypothesis?

The initial impact of the airplane was at the nose of the plane, not the engines. Once the initial hole in the exterior was opened up, there wasn’t much to absorb the energy of the impact of the fuselage debris moving into the building.

If the fuselage penetrated the only really heavy part of the Pentagon, how did the wings take that pull without breaking off? I saw an animation (they won't show the video from all the different angles where we would be able to see the plane actually approaching the Pentagon.) where discovery channel I believe it was showed the wings breaking off BEFORE impact. No explanation, they just broke off BEFORE impact. Where are they? Do you have a different hypothesis than the one I'm refering to from the media? Sincerely Cade

STILL WAITING... Can anyone answer my questions? look at the last page. Mouth

Originally posted by Mouth STILL WAITING... Can anyone answer my questions? look at the last page.

I think I answered it. I would have expected at least to see an impression in the lawn going the direction the plane did from the air turbulance created underneath the plane as it came so close to the lawn. Of course the left engine should have dug in somewhere in the ground which is proof enough to me that a 757 didn't crash there.

From the "video" that was released, it didnt look like the engine was touching the ground. Yet, I definitely think there should have been some sort of trail leading up to the pentagon if the plane was flying that low.

Originally posted by Mouth From the "video" that was released, it didnt look like the engine was touching the ground. Yet, I definitely think there should have been some sort of trail leading up to the pentagon if the plane was flying that low.

Think of a 757 as 3 stories. the engines being the 1st story, the fuselage the 2nd, and tail the 3rd. The fuselage went through the 1st floor of the Pentagon. Do the math about the engines.

Originally posted by Mouth STILL WAITING... Can anyone answer my questions? look at the last page. Mouth

Originally posted by Mouth Still waiting for a response on the wake turbulence/burned grass questions. If the engines were at full throttle, would there not be a trail of singed grass? Or, possible earthing up of the ground from the wake turbulence?

Turbulence doesn't affect very small things such as grass and angle of attack would have made sure that the engines don't scorch the lawn either. think about hurricanes, the houses are gone, same for lamp posts and trees, but the grass is still there. the explosion is another matter, though but that wasn't your question, now was it?

Originally posted by Long Lance Turbulence doesn't affect very small things such as grass and angle of attack would have made sure that the engines don't scorch the lawn either. think about hurricanes, the houses are gone, same for lamp posts and trees, but the grass is still there. the explosion is another matter, though but that wasn't your question, now was it?

according to the security video, the large fireball spreaded over the lawn. Weird how none of the lawn was scorched from that, huh?

But what about the burning of the grass? should there not be some sort of burning as the plane came in?

wh would there be? the plane wasn't skidding across the ground when it crashed into the building the plane is only 20' tall with the fuselage. Who says it was 3 stories tall?

Originally posted by Mouth I have a quick question. When a plane takes off, right after the nose lifts up off the ground, there is a force called wake turbulence, almost like wind tunnels that come off of the wings of the plane. This force is dependant on 3 variables: Speed, Weight, and Cleanliness (flap configuration). The slower, the heavier, and the cleaner (clean meaning flaps are up) the more wake turbulence.

I believe what your talking about is called compressability. Its when the faster air over the top of the wings hits the slower air from the bottom of the wings it causes turbulance. That is why planes that fly 500 mph or faster have wings that are swept back to help decrease this effect. Their is also what called ground effect. Both of these would have made it almost impossable to control an aircraft at that speed and altitude, the plane would have been tearing itself apart. Several witnesses also claimed that the wing tip dug into the ground before the plane hit the building but you can not see any sign of this in any pics. [edit on 1-6-2006 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Wizy wh would there be? the plane wasn't skidding across the ground when it crashed into the building the plane is only 20' tall with the fuselage. Who says it was 3 stories tall?

At some point the left engine would have dug into the ground. 40'ish with the tail.

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by Wizy wh would there be? the plane wasn't skidding across the ground when it crashed into the building the plane is only 20' tall with the fuselage. Who says it was 3 stories tall?

At some point the left engine would have dug into the ground. 40'ish with the tail.

yeah, when it hit the buidling is when the plane 'hit the ground". of course physics dont factor into your theories. 40' with tail? considering that the hole it made was around 3 stories, I think that proves that a plane went through the building.

Originally posted by Wizy yeah, when it hit the buidling is when the plane 'hit the ground". of course physics dont factor into your theories.

Speaking of physics, can you show me where any part of the plane hit the ground?

40' with tail? considering that the hole it made was around 3 stories, I think that proves that a plane went through the building.

3 story hole? Try 2. And yes Wizy, 44ft 6in with the wheels down:

But the wheels weren't down.

Originally posted by HowardRoark But the wheels weren't down.

Duh.

Guys the hole was only 18 foot in diameter, where is this 2 and 3 stories comming from! The hole stopped at the top of the GROUND floor, start of the 1st floor...This has been shown over and over again. No way IMO could a 757 hit that low without hitting the ground first. Especialy if we are supposed to believe that blury object in the pentagoon video is a 757.

Nice photo! I wonder where the plane-huggers think the vertical tail hit the building?!

Originally posted by HowardRoark But the wheels weren't down.

Howard exactly what proof do you got that a boeing crashed there?

Originally posted by pepsi78 Howard exactly what proof do you got that a boeing crashed there?

Bet you he says "eye witnesses"!