9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by billybob not only does the lightpole look like it was cut with extreme heat ...

Maybe it was cut by detonating cord? The metal looks discolored near the break. [edit on 11-9-2006 by In nothing we trust]

Shoulndt there be paint, or something on the lighpole to indiciate the colour of the object that hit it? I do wonder how a missle took out a lightpole, but then again, if your going to place evidence at a scene, you'd want to have more than 1 piece of proof of what happened. The pentagons grounds are closed off correct? So how long AFTER The 'object' hit, were there people on the scene.

I remembering seeing a diagram a while back of the light pole damage to the Pentagon area, and wondering how some of them were knocked over considering they weren't in the immediate flight path. Oh well :-/ More video tapes?

Analysis of this Photo? Wing/Tail damage? [edit on 9/12/2006 by Masisoar] [edit: image size] Mod Note: Image Size – Please Review This Link. [edit on 9/12/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by HowardRoark It sure looks like it broke off at the right place to me.

It was cut... look again... Maybe by the DOT worker, but look a little closer there Howardroark.

.... i think the pole was cut down, after wards. Judging by the bend in the top section, id say the pole was pretty much bent over, with the top sheared off. So the workers rather than repair the pole, cut it down.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop .... i think the pole was cut down, after wards. Judging by the bend in the top section, id say the pole was pretty much bent over, with the top sheared off. So the workers rather than repair the pole, cut it down.

Which would indicate that the "break away" feature DID NOT FUNCTION... Filght 255...

Originally posted by Masisoar Analysis of this Photo? Wing/Tail damage? [edit on 9/12/2006 by Masisoar]

Nice image. The windows are bullet and granadeproof, they shouldn't damage, anyway. The plane struck the building from an angle, one wing touched the wall first. Eyewitnesses said: The plane hit the buildings, the wings enveloped into the hole, and it became part of the buildings. I guess, the rest was done by fire. Remember, it's all aluminium. [edit: quoted image size] [edit on 9/12/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Thymus Nice image. The windows are bullet and granadeproof, they shouldn't damage, anyway. The plane struck the building from an angle, one wing touched the wall first. I guess, the rest was done by fire. Remember, it's all aluminium.

Do you have any clue as to the difference in kenetic energy from a grenade and a 757 flying at supposedly 500MPH+? The KE is exponentially greater from the plane. This argument is weak. Skip on the "eyewitnesses" as they are not proof or evidence of anything.

Nice image. The windows are bullet and granadeproof, they shouldn't damage, anyway. The plane struck the building from an angle, one wing touched the wall first.

meaning it will stop a bullet not tons flying at it's direction on a high speed. What would a asteroid do to the pentagon, would rocks be able to damage the pentagon?because that's what an asteroid is.

the rest was done by fire. Remember, it's all aluminium.

Aluminium, titanium , steel. Those windows should of been completely destroyed. the most important thing is we have been over this before, and the plane did not touch the ground on impact , other wise it would of not made it to the pentagon, what it was , was in the air at the time on the impact, which brings it to the level of the windows , that means it would impact the windows directly if it were a 747 . The pentagon didint get hit by an airlier, nothng makes sence, if you add a cruise missle the details fit perfect. Remeber not a single srach on the grass? [edit on 12-9-2006 by pepsi78]

Quick thought: The speed of a bullet (converted from 4000 fps, top speed for highpowered rifles) is roughly 2727 mph, where the plane was traveling at around 1/4 the speed. Also, a bullet would be hitting the window on a point, not spread out like a wing would be. Even looking at the average handgun (1000 fps = 681 mph) for bullet speed, it is still going faster. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but is it not easier to break an egg by poking it with a stick than applying the same force all around it? Would that principle not apply somewhat here? Source for speed Now, to the material:

Bullets are classically moulded from an alloy of lead and tin. Typesetter's lead (used to mould Linotype), works very well. Lead is common because it is highly dense (providing a high amount of mass — and thus, kinetic energy — for a given volume) and is cheap to obtain and fabricate.

Source I may be wrong, but isn't lead much more dense than aluminum?

Originally posted by Mouth I may be wrong, but isn't lead much more dense than aluminum?

Mass is the issue... Mass X acceleration = force... Supposedly the plane hit with such focre that the Al and steel and everything else VAPORIZED... Ever seen a bullet VAPORIZE? Didn't think so.

Supposedly the plane hit with such focre that the Al and steel and everything else VAPORIZED... Ever seen a bullet VAPORIZE? Didn't think so.

It vaporiesd on impact but did make a hole on the other side? This just does not make sence. By other examples, other planes crashed from high above at a much higher speed crashing on the grownd and they just splatered all over the place. [edit on 12-9-2006 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78 It vaporiesd on impact but did make a hole on the other side? This just does not make sence. [edit on 12-9-2006 by pepsi78]

But the wings didn't make a hole. The fuselage did.

If a 767's wings could penetrate through the steel perimeter columns of the World Trade Centers, I'm sure they would of caused some damage to the outer wall. By the way, it's impossible for the wings to get sucked into the impact hole if they impacted the walls. That's like saying... "Venus reflected off swamp gas on a misty night caused people to see a UFO." And considering they are laden with fuel, they would blow up on impact, not get sucked into the impact hole.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts Do you have any clue as to the difference in kenetic energy from a grenade and a 757 flying at supposedly 500MPH+? The KE is exponentially greater from the plane. This argument is weak. Skip on the "eyewitnesses" as they are not proof or evidence of anything.

Eyewitnesses are enough proof for the law. Therefore, it is way enough on a forum, too. As you can see on the photo, the plane only destroyed a certain part of the outside wall. Describing clue of energy from a bomb compared to a plane, which didn't even touch those windows, think of an armoured car being crashed, or simply being blown up... since the plane didn't touch those windows. I've seen many pics of blown-up armoured cars, and usually their windows, or at least some of them remain whole, uncracked. Why is this? The structure of bulletproof and granadeproof glass has the clue. Layers of glass, with layers of thick transparent but really tough plastic.

Originally posted by billybob not only does the lightpole look like it was cut with extreme heat, but, the weakest link, the BOLT HOLES, are NOT where it ripped away from the base. instead, the thickest, widest, part of the base 'ripped', .....except, ....NO BUCKLING, and NO ASSYMETRICAL DAMAGE! think of it, where a bolt goes through, the metal plate is a fraction of an inch thick, but at the base, the vertical thickness of the steel (aluminum, whatever) is what must be overcome, and it is several inches 'thick', perhaps a foot or so. a farce, plain and simple.

catalog sheet Note the part that says”20 to 60 MPH impact.” [edit on 9-12-2006 by worldwatcher]

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by billybob not only does the lightpole look like it was cut with extreme heat ...

Maybe it was cut by detonating cord? The metal looks discolored near the break.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by HowardRoark] [edit on 9-12-2006 by worldwatcher]

Originally posted by Mouth

Originally posted by pepsi78 It vaporiesd on impact but did make a hole on the other side? This just does not make sence. [edit on 12-9-2006 by pepsi78]

But the wings didn't make a hole. The fuselage did.

the engines mounted on the wing should.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark It sure looks like it broke off at the right place to me.

It was cut... look again... Maybe by the DOT worker, but look a little closer there Howardroark.

It looks to me like it broke off exactly where it was supposed to break off.