9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by snoopy Again, just like this notion I pointed out that the engines are big indestructable objects. Yet I point out again that a simple bird is enough to destroy one. Well, the Pentagon is a big more of a counter force than a bird.

I missed this one... Show me an engine 'destroyed' by a bird impact. The only thing a bird strike will do is brake or damage rotor blades. There is more to a jet engine than rotor blades. I want to know what happened to the engine casings and rotor shafts. BTW I was a jet engine mech for 6 yrs, I know what a jet engine consists of.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas

Originally posted by snoopy And let's forget that absolutely NO remains from a tomahawk missle were found. none what so ever. And yet they DID find remains from flight 77.

SNOOPY: How such a fragile fuselage of a 757 can create a hell-long hole, and such solid engines with some titanium parts left NOTHING in the pentagon wall!!! Can you think of any explanation? I can't... /FT

I already explained how. With the fuselage the energy is focused on a small point. Just like a bullet. once again the problem is that many people cannot comprehend what happens at these great speeds because we have little experience with them. Consider this. During a tornado, a fragile little playing card can slice through wood. That's a piece of paper. Imagine a commercial jet liner flying at that speed now. Also, once again, these engines are not indestructable. They just seem that way to some people because they are large in size. But this is the same reason people cannot believe a plane could elave such a small hole since it's so big. Also the same reason people don't believe a plane could even penetrate the Pentagon since the building is so large. And of course saying NOTHING was left is completely untrue. There was plenty left. Just no missle parts. So it one applies the same argument to the conspiracy theory, it proves there could not have been a missle. Yet that theory is supported by us CTers over a plane for the simple reason of we only want to believe it is so. hence the hypocritical logic applied.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by snoopy You fail to understand the physics. I suppose you too feel it works like a cartoon making a cutout of the shape of the plane? And I suppose that would be real physics to you.

I fail to see the physics?

How does the speed create enough heat to, your word, 'liquify' the wings? Pls explain the physics that does that. Maybe you need to look at a 757 a bit closer, the engines stick out in front of the wings by quit a bit. So no the wings are not going to impact first. And no, don't be silly, I don't expect a cartoon cut-out (funny that that is exactly what happened at the WTC) I expect to see pieces of wings, engines, and vertical stabilizer all over the undamaged lawn. Your theory doesn't work in the real world, if you really think it does, and you're not just trying to make excuses for the government, then it's you who fails to understand the physics. Just think about what you're saying for awhile. [edit on 26/9/2006 by ANOK]

I don't know how to put it any more simple. Perhaps reading a physics 101 book you will see that striking objects creates heat. Some people used to start fires on this basic principle of striking stones together. Right down to heat created by a nuclear explosion. Rub your hands together, what do you get? Heat. It's just basic principles wer're talking about here, nothing complex. So if an indian sunburn hurts, imagine metal striking concrete at hundreds of miles per hout. It's going to create enourmous amounts of heat. This is the same reason you see complete planes liquify when striking concrete blocks. There is nothing but dust left. but of course the Pentagon was not a solid block. Where the wings meet the fuselage if further in front than the engines. Therefore that area will hit the wall before the engines. you just chose a picture that hides the front of the wings and assume that the wings stick straight out rather than being angles back. Aparantly you DO expect a cartoon cutout. This is what your argument suggests should have happened. But if you expect the same results from the WTC as a concrete building like the Pentagon, then that would make sense that you would expect that. I think you need to think about what I am saying for a while. This is really basic stuff, nothing indepth. Stuff one would cover in grade school physics. If it makes you feel better, what lead me to the 9/11 movement was seeing the hole in the pentagon in films such as 'in plane site' and the others. I too thought it was impossible. it wasn't until I started researching it that I realized how wrong these films were and how misleading they are by playing on these common public misconspetions of how things work since most people don't actually experience them.

Originally posted by ANOK I missed this one... Show me an engine 'destroyed' by a bird impact. The only thing a bird strike will do is brake or damage rotor blades. There is more to a jet engine than rotor blades. I want to know what happened to the engine casings and rotor shafts. BTW I was a jet engine mech for 6 yrs, I know what a jet engine consists of.

I have seen pictures posted of them all over this forum. And thank you for acknowledging that these are not indestructable as even a bird can damage them. There is more to solid concrete than sand. However, I doubt there is an individual picture of every single individual piece of debre( for obvious reasons). So if you want to make a good conspiracy claim, simply think of a part where there exists no published picture and claim it's impossible to have been a plane, while ignoring all the other parts. The engines are a bad choice since there are pictures of many of the engine parts. I would be willing to bet that many of the pictures are in this very thread. but if not, they have been posted all over this forum. I too believed in the no plane theory due to lack of pictures until it was this forum that people started posting them.

@Cade: the entrance hole in the Pentagon wall is wide enough to accommodate both engines. Meaning they did penetrate and did enter the building.

NOTICE THAT THE FOUR REPILES ABOVE ME GIVE NO REFERENES? Gee... Suprising considering the soucres and their POV... FELLAS: Please provide your photographic evidence of: - Both engines enternig the hole. - "Many" engine parts. (I recall ONE photo of a turbine hub) - "Liquified" aircraft parts. lol Otherwise you are just BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... Snoopy: Your understanding of physics is rather odd. Care to elaborate on your background in physics? [edit on 27-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Wow it's like debating a 3 yr old! Yes pls show us these pics of many engine parts. And yes snoopy pls, like I asked already, explain the physics that would cause the speed of the plane to create enough heat to, again your word, 'liquefy' the wings. 500 mph is not that fast...Remember I used to work on jets so I know what 500 mph is like. I used to work on an aircraft carrier flight deck, I've seen (and heard) F-14's fly over my head at supersonic speed many times. Where did you learn your physics? I certainly not 101, more like 000... Slap is right you have a habit of posting with nothing to back up your claims, you might fool the ignorant but this is ATS, you must love wasting your time...

Originally posted by tuccy @Cade: the entrance hole in the Pentagon wall is wide enough to accommodate both engines. Meaning they did penetrate and did enter the building.

So the fuselage penetrates 3 rings, but the wings make but a scratch and fold up behind the plane and enter the hole? When I said no one could explain the points in my post on the last page, what I should have said is that no one can explain it within the world of science. The force to fold back the wings would have to be concentrated on the point where the fuselage connects with the wings. This is after the engines hit the walls on top of that. This point in the wall would have to be so hard, that the wings would bend backwards, a force stronger that the force comming from mass and speed of the wings and engines. If such a force was present in the Pentagon walls, then how could the fuselage penetrate 3 rings into the pentagon? Fuselage penetrates 3 rings of the Pentagon, wings fold back and squash the remaining of the fuselage thinner and follows together into the same hole. While I see this explanation fits with the photografic evidence, it's the kind of imaginary stretch of reality, one finds in the mind of the citizen who cannot belive his own government has elements willing to create more power by attacking it's own. Fascism never comes about by a few fascist leaders, first the population must be thought a fascistic mindset, where the government is always free from suspicion. A mindset where our leaders take over the role of fatherhood to the child inside of us. The father who is perfect, strong and just. The fuselage penetrates the 3 rings, but the wings and engines hardly leave a scratch? Only when you consider that Rumsfeld did NOT speak in error when he said a missile hit the pentagon, only when you consider that the reason they still will not release the videos, and the reason there were government agents in place at the scene minutes after the crash to confiscate them from the gas-station and hotel, only when you consider how an airplane could survive the most advanced airdefence system in the world... only then does the hoorible horrible thought arrise inside of you. The thought that could not be true. Don't be affraid, you are by far alone out here. We are growing, becomming more and more each day. 36% now believe the government was involved one way or the other in the attacks and this happened with at first with a silent media, next with a ridiculing media. I realize that there will be those who will defend the dream of a government system where no one ever tries to take complete power, and defend it with their lives. Just know that many americans right now has long realized what is really going on in the united states of america and they don't want to live en anarchy, they just want a NEW kind of government. Sincerely Cade [edit on 28-9-2006 by Cade] [edit on 28-9-2006 by Cade]

and by the way: the theory about mass being concentrated on a small area (the "nail theory) also works for the engines, sticking out from the wings. And on top of that, if the theory of the "folding wings" should work, then it would in affect be the very engines themselves that would hit the wall, be met with unbelievable force that resist the impact and in stead folds back the wings. Dear sweet friends and fellow world citizens, please wake up. It is you we are trying to save, along with ourselves, from a group of people who has gained control of the power. It's you and I they are after. Will you realize before you wake up at a FEMA camp? Scary? you bet! that's why we need your help and not your head in the sand. It's time to be brave now. Demand a new investigation so all this can be put to rest. This won't mean the END OF GOVERNMENT, only the beginning of a new one. And would it be so bad without the Iraq war etc ? I hope you see the connection here. Sincerely Cade [edit on 28-9-2006 by Cade]

Originally posted by snoopy

Originally posted by mcfunthomas

Originally posted by snoopy And let's forget that absolutely NO remains from a tomahawk missle were found. none what so ever. And yet they DID find remains from flight 77.

SNOOPY: How such a fragile fuselage of a 757 can create a hell-long hole, and such solid engines with some titanium parts left NOTHING in the pentagon wall!!! Can you think of any explanation? I can't... /FT

I already explained how. With the fuselage the energy is focused on a small point. Just like a bullet.

I couldn't agree MORE !!!! [a bit of irony? maybe ] So, please, imagine that bullet... smaller and harder than a fuselage, and 'flying' with HIGHER speed...so supposedly the impact point is much better to come through the wall!!! BUT ...BUT ...BUT ...BUT ...BUT ... BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN, IN MY WHOLE LIFE, A BULLET ABLE TO PASS THROUGH A NORMAL CONCRETE WALL, NOT MENTION THE PENTAGON WALLS. And plz dont say the fuel could do that wonder of passing through more than 2 pentagon walls. yet, you based on impact heat , not fuel. Thus, as for me, your ''puncture-nail'' theory fails again, sorry...I won't buy it. :/ /FT "the truth shall set you free"

Jet blast is POWERFUL

video.google.com... This means something.

Cathearder and Slapnuts and all the rest, have not answered my point. Cathearder even dodged it at about page 160+ something. They are free to do so, and I take no offense, but when the supporters of the government conspiracy theory either dodges the question, gives a respons that doesn't address the point or simply ignores, I think we can all see where this leaves us. People, use your strenght to get the information out to as many people as possible. Amongst those will be lots of people who see the obvious and horrible truth, and lots who refuse to accept that elements within our own government has purportrated these attacks. It's really just an old repeat of history, going all the way back to the Roman empire in the year 64 where Emperor Neo torched the city and blamed it on the christians to undermind their increasing popularity and to strenghten his own. It worked for Neo, it worked for Hitler, but we won't let history repeat itself this time. Game over NWO. Sincerely Cade

Slap Nuts: I agree. Jet blast is powerfull. But the jet blast effect when plane is on the ground "standing" isn't the same when plane is in the air and that jet blast is used to fly. Am I wrong ? [edit on 28-9-2006 by STolarZ]

Originally posted by ANOK Wow it's like debating a 3 yr old! Yes pls show us these pics of many engine parts. And yes snoopy pls, like I asked already, explain the physics that would cause the speed of the plane to create enough heat to, again your word, 'liquefy' the wings. 500 mph is not that fast...Remember I used to work on jets so I know what 500 mph is like. I used to work on an aircraft carrier flight deck, I've seen (and heard) F-14's fly over my head at supersonic speed many times. Where did you learn your physics? I certainly not 101, more like 000...

Slap is right you have a habit of posting with nothing to back up your claims, you might fool the ignorant but this is ATS, you must love wasting your time...

So you want me to explain principles of physics a 3rd time now? I don't know how many more easy examples I can give. 500mph is slow? So it the speed at which you give an indian sunburn, and that hurts. multiply that by 100000 times. The motion of atoms and molucules creates heat. Check the principles of thermodynamics. The word 'liquify' is not mine, its a term used by the engineers at Perdue university. And likewise I fail to see how you having jets fly over you at fast speeds is in any way relevant. Did any of them crash into a wall next to you? That might be applicable. But then we wouldn't be having this conversation because you would realize how much heat would be generated. Slap is not right, you guys simply ignore what I say because you don't want to believe it. Well if you want to deny basic scientific principles and even with easy to understand examples to guide you, then I cannot help you. So enjoy living in your fantasy comic world where physics don't apply and the rules of cartoons take over.

Originally posted by mcfunthomas I couldn't agree MORE !!!! [a bit of irony? maybe

] So, please, imagine that bullet... smaller and harder than a fuselage, and 'flying' with HIGHER speed...so supposedly the impact point is much better to come through the wall!!! BUT ...BUT ...BUT ...BUT ...BUT ... BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN, IN MY WHOLE LIFE, A BULLET ABLE TO PASS THROUGH A NORMAL CONCRETE WALL, NOT MENTION THE PENTAGON WALLS. And plz dont say the fuel could do that wonder of passing through more than 2 pentagon walls.

yet, you based on impact heat , not fuel. Thus, as for me, your ''puncture-nail'' theory fails again, sorry...I won't buy it. :/ /FT "the truth shall set you free"

*slaping forhead* have you seen a bullet the size of a commercial plane hit a wall? But now you are arguing that a plane is not capable ot penetrating the wall, while the same group is arguing that the hole is too small. You guys are contradicting yoruselves. The theory does not fail, it's the laws of physics. your ability to understand it properly has failed, hence comparing a commercial plane to an actual size bullet. Of course it wouldn't make sense if you think that way. Of course I am sure you completely buy the theory of a tomahawk missle that zigzagged around hitting light poles without taking damage that CTers feel should rip off a commercial plane wing, and crashes through a building without explioding and making a hole much bigger than the missle itself. All the while spreading a mass halucination that fooled thousands of bystanders. And In that theory they would have to crash the real plane somewhere else, and bring the parts bodies and contents of an entire plane to the scene, plant the evidence without anyone seeing. Not to mention someone was talking to their kid who was on the plane as it crashed, so that means they crashed the real plane at the exact instance the missle hit the pentagon. And of course the missle managed to 'liquify'i guess since there were no remains from one found anywhere. yeah, you're right, the CT theory is pretty sound. Who could possibly find that hard to believe?

Simple. A plane hit the WTC towers, more and more and more footage is released. We are told a plane hit the pentagon, They refuse to show us proof of the plane, and they refuse to show us the video where a plane hits. To me, obviously a plane didnt hit. The impact hole DOES NOT accomodate for a whole plane.. there would be some parts of wings OUTSIDE .. the ground would be chewed to hell, and some of the plane would of atleast gone over the TOP of the pentagon... for a boeing plane to completely enter a building, without touching the ground, or destroying the roof is outrageous. no matter how much physics you put on it, its all guess work.. because you havent been at the site, you cant see the result of the impact.. photos dont give you definitive aspects. and by the way, striking rocks together causes heat because of the material being struck.... rubbing your hands produces heat because your rubbing over and over, causing fricton.. when car has a head on impact with another car... 9/10 times they dont liquify.. they dont procude enough heat to destroy each other... two impacts going head on, will not cause enough friction and heat to liquify.. how ever rubbing them against each other hard and long enough will. I avoid these threads because if you get technical enough about the most simplistic of things ' ie 2 + 2 ' you can always find good reason as to WHY it doesnt work... when common sense tells you the answer without needing to be so damn technical.

Snoopy^Pay attention... Nothing else to add to that, if you still hold on to the ludicrous notion that the plane hitting the concrete cause enough heat to liquify the plane then you are either lying and hoping it sticks, missed physics class in high school, or you are just a troll, which is it?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop Simple. A plane hit the WTC towers, more and more and more footage is released. We are told a plane hit the pentagon, They refuse to show us proof of the plane, and they refuse to show us the video where a plane hits. To me, obviously a plane didnt hit. The impact hole DOES NOT accomodate for a whole plane.. there would be some parts of wings OUTSIDE .. the ground would be chewed to hell, and some of the plane would of atleast gone over the TOP of the pentagon... for a boeing plane to completely enter a building, without touching the ground, or destroying the roof is outrageous. no matter how much physics you put on it, its all guess work.. because you havent been at the site, you cant see the result of the impact.. photos dont give you definitive aspects. and by the way, striking rocks together causes heat because of the material being struck.... rubbing your hands produces heat because your rubbing over and over, causing fricton.. when car has a head on impact with another car... 9/10 times they dont liquify.. they dont procude enough heat to destroy each other... two impacts going head on, will not cause enough friction and heat to liquify.. how ever rubbing them against each other hard and long enough will. I avoid these threads because if you get technical enough about the most simplistic of things ' ie 2 + 2 ' you can always find good reason as to WHY it doesnt work... when common sense tells you the answer without needing to be so damn technical.

They refuse to show us proof? So the 1000s of people who witnessed it are all lying? How about the remains of the plane which were found there? how about the remains of the victoms? how about the belongings of the victoms? How about the radar tracking and everything else? It seems here the issue is that you simply don't want to acknowledge the evidence. How can you deny all these things that are in front of you? You seem to want them to show you some video that does not exist. how fair is that? you claim that to you it clearly isn't a plane? Under what expertise? I suppose if I ignored all the vidence, then I too might come to the same conclusion. however I cannot pick and choose the evidence, I have to accept it all. The impact hole PERFECTLY accomidates the events that happened, to a T. It doesn't however support a missle hitting the building. The ground was chewed right before the impact hole. This notion that the plane would have skidded along the lawn is absurd. Of course it did not. had it, it would have exploded before hitting the building. The video clearly shows this. The video also clerly shows the tail flying over top of the building and debre spread across the lawn and roof of the building. And no there would not be wings outside of the building. had there been wings outside the building, THEN you would have a conspiracy because this would defy the laws of physics. Thank you for being someone who finally understands the basic laws of thermodynamics which explains how heat from an impact is generated. And you are correct cars impacting do not generate heat. This is because they are not going as fast and not hitting a solid object. They are also not made of thin aluminum encasing jet fuel. Nor are they of the same mass and shape.

Originally posted by ANOK Snoopy^Pay attention... Nothing else to add to that, if you still hold on to the ludicrous notion that the plane hitting the concrete cause enough heat to liquify the plane then you are either lying and hoping it sticks, missed physics class in high school, or you are just a troll, which is it?

you are right, hundreds of the worlds top engineers don't knwo what they are talking about, nor does the engineering department at Perdue university. They are all lying and have no understanding of the basic principles of physics, engineering or thermodynamics depspite devoting their lives to it and their credentials. Perhaps you should write a peer reviewed paper on your theory that explains the magical missle?

Originally posted by snoopy *slaping forhead* have you seen a bullet the size of a commercial plane hit a wall? But now you are arguing that a plane is not capable ot penetrating the wall, while the same group is arguing that the hole is too small. You guys are contradicting yoruselves.

Don't slap your forhead any more. it might hurt and,moreover,it 'looks' childlish. to the point: Let's make it clear: wasn't it you telling the stories of a "puncture hit"?Wasn't it you comparing beating sb's forhead with a board an a nail to explain the difference and convince us that the smaller surfice the better penetration [pressure talk etc]? am I right? Or I got you wrong then? might be, so make it clear, ok? as to penetrating the wall by a plane: what kind of wall was there? paper, normal or reinforced? so, please, don't assume we contradict ourselves 'cause I see you understood me wrong. the shape of the front of an airliner is not enough to withhold the theory. I think that what is it made of plays the key role here. Just take a look at pictures of air crashes with birds,I assume you've seen then somewhere.

Originally posted by snoopy The theory does not fail, it's the laws of physics. your ability to understand it properly has failed, hence comparing a commercial plane to an actual size bullet. Of course it wouldn't make sense if you think that way.

1. oki,type the laws here for me or give me a link to them. 2. explaining physics by making analogy between a commercial plane to an actual size nail [not even a bullet] wasn't my idea

Originally posted by snoopy Of course I am sure you completely buy the theory of a tomahawk missle that zigzagged around hitting light poles without taking damage that CTers feel should rip off a commercial plane wing, and crashes through a building without explioding and making a hole much bigger than the missle itself. All the while spreading a mass halucination that fooled thousands of bystanders. And In that theory they would have to crash the real plane somewhere else, and bring the parts bodies and contents of an entire plane to the scene, plant the evidence without anyone seeing. Not to mention someone was talking to their kid who was on the plane as it crashed, so that means they crashed the real plane at the exact instance the missle hit the pentagon. And of course the missle managed to 'liquify'i guess since there were no remains from one found anywhere.

As to the poles: have a look at www.911studies.com... and the next pages. there you find about planes encouter poles...faked poles shots and more. feel encouraged as it might dismiss your imputation and deduction. as to being sure I buy the tomahawk theory. I wish you wouldn't talk to me like that anymore.You can never be sure what I buy when I haven't even mention anything like that! I'll take you to school. Instead of putting forward your 'beeing sure bla bla bla' use a wiser and assertive way of communication by, for example, asking sb for explaining something as 'did you mean that...' You may benefit. as to the bodies:were they from the presuming airliner, or were they pentagon workers? who gave the info about DNA analyses of the bodies? what about the bodies of the passangers who presumingly hit the WTC's? One more thing, a simple question, don't feel offended,ok?: have you ever seen a crashed plane? What did it hit? what was its speed? what left? what liquified?

Originally posted by snoopy yeah, you're right, the CT theory is pretty sound. Who could possibly find that hard to believe?

The truth doesn't have to be believed in, actually. It is to be accepted, so if the official story of those events is true, all the OFFICIAL pictures on the Internet ARE FAKE. Unfortunalety, the more I read and watch about 911, the more 'hard to believe in' the official explanations become. /FT