9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by Shadowflux perhaps I worded that statement poorly. What I meat was that the number of molecules effected by the heat would be smaller than the real thing, you would have to be able to count the number of air molecules, steel molecules etc and then create a fire that would be equal in relation to size and heat. However even if you could do that it would turn the experiment into a control thereby negating any useful information. But that's getting technical, I'm sure it might answer a few questions, particularly the aircraft's interaction with the brick wall

Yeah, but if everything is of accurate scale, it's going to react the same. It's do-able, with some math. Number of molecules in aluminum, masonry, etc. is a constant. That doesn't change with scale. Everything has an atomic weight, understand? You're getting off track with that, I think. As long as the same materials are used, or materials with the same density, then it should react the same. Keep in mind, everything would have to be scaled perfectly...thicknesses, weight, fuel, densities. It's probably beyond my ability to cover everything that would have to be scaled, but I'm sure it can be done. [edit on 4-10-2004 by Damned]

We got into a conversation about this topic today with my coworkers. Peronally I don't know what side of the fence I sit on at the moment, but some interesting questions came up. How long was that plane flying that low for before it hit its target? Wouldn't it have caused more damage on the way to the pentagon? Back 4 years ago there was an incident where Van Gundy's (coach of the knicks) car was blown away and demolished by a charter plane. As loud as a plane flying that low would have to be I'd imagine that hundreds of people should have seen it and been able to identify it and seen it fly right into the building. Isn't there a hi-way that this flight would have had to pass over right over to get to the pentagon?

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Shadowflux perhaps I worded that statement poorly. What I meat was that the number of molecules effected by the heat would be smaller than the real thing, you would have to be able to count the number of air molecules, steel molecules etc and then create a fire that would be equal in relation to size and heat. However even if you could do that it would turn the experiment into a control thereby negating any useful information. But that's getting technical, I'm sure it might answer a few questions, particularly the aircraft's interaction with the brick wall

Yeah, but if everything is of accurate scale, it's going to react the same. It's do-able, with some math. Number of molecules in aluminum, masonry, etc. is a constant. That doesn't change with scale. Everything has an atomic weight, understand? You're getting off track with that, I think. [edit on 4-10-2004 by Damned]

That;s my point, if the molecular count is a constant then the fire wouldn't affect it in the same way. Lets say that the molecule count per inch of steel is 100 if the fire is only and inch in diameter it would affect (theoretically) 200-300 molecules, where as a fire the is 100 feet in diamter would affect a vastly greater number of molucles, a bigger number than a simple multiple due to heat cunduction. This is known in welding as "The Heat Affected Zone"

Originally posted by Shadowflux That;s my point, if the molecular count is a constant then the fire wouldn't affect it in the same way. Lets say that the molecule count per inch of steel is 100 if the fire is only and inch in diameter it would affect (theoretically) 200-300 molecules, where as a fire the is 100 feet in diamter would affect a vastly greater number of molucles, a bigger number than a simple multiple due to heat cunduction. This is known in welding as "The Heat Affected Zone"

I doubt that's going to come into play here. I could be wrong, but I don't think the size of the blast/spray determines the heat. You're talking more of heat sinking properties. There won't be much heat sinking going on in this type of experiment, since it's an explosion. We wouldn't exactly be heating anything in that manner. It happened so quickly, there was no time or place for heat to conduct. Even more so, there wasn't anything to conduct the heat, supposedly. It was all shrapnel. Different principles, IMO. But hey, these are the kinds of things that would have to be thought out. I'm still more interested to see what happens to the aluminum when it hits something that hard and punches through. The fire probably didn't really come into play immediately, since it was more spray than confined explosion. [edit on 4-10-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Shadowflux That;s my point, if the molecular count is a constant then the fire wouldn't affect it in the same way. Lets say that the molecule count per inch of steel is 100 if the fire is only and inch in diameter it would affect (theoretically) 200-300 molecules, where as a fire the is 100 feet in diamter would affect a vastly greater number of molucles, a bigger number than a simple multiple due to heat cunduction. This is known in welding as "The Heat Affected Zone"

I doubt that's going to come into play here. I could be wrong, but I don't think the size of the blast/spray determines the heat. You're talking more of heat sinking properties. There won't be much heat sinking going on in this type of experiment, since it's an explosion. We wouldn't exactly be heating anything in that manner. It happened so quickly, there was no time or place for heat to conduct. Even more so, there wasn't anything to conduct the heat, supposedly. It was all shrapnel. Different principles, IMO. But hey, these are the kinds of things that would have to be thought out. I'm still more interested to see what happens to the aluminum when it hits something that hard and punches through. The fire probably didn't really come into play immediately, since it was more spray than confined explosion. [edit on 4-10-2004 by Damned]

True, I was thinking more about the subsequent fire afterwards, but for the explosion it wouldn't come into play except for the force of the blast

Have you seen this one? Did you know there are better pics and video? www.freedomunderground.org... It would be best if they just release the good video and let us see it. [edit on 4-10-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by chap We got into a conversation about this topic today with my coworkers. Peronally I don't know what side of the fence I sit on at the moment, but some interesting questions came up. How long was that plane flying that low for before it hit its target? Wouldn't it have caused more damage on the way to the pentagon? Back 4 years ago there was an incident where Van Gundy's (coach of the knicks) car was blown away and demolished by a charter plane. As loud as a plane flying that low would have to be I'd imagine that hundreds of people should have seen it and been able to identify it and seen it fly right into the building. Isn't there a hi-way that this flight would have had to pass over right over to get to the pentagon?

Hundreds of people DID see a large airliner, hundreds of people DID see it heading towards the Pentagon, dozens of people DID see it crash into the side of the Pentagon. The eye witness accounts of this is everywhere, news sources, libaries, and even conspiracy theory websites that refuse to take it into account or dismiss it as some sort of mass-hypnosis. In my original post, I eliminated (choose to ignore) all the eye witness accounts of seeing the aircraft ONLY if those same eye witnesses did not see it actually ram into the side of the building (because it went behind a hill or trees or a building in their line of sight). How can you even begin to think there were no eye witnesses who saw the 757 when there are dozens upon dozens of eye witness accounts of this exact thing all over the web. What about the cars on the highway in front of the Pentagon that are smashed by falling debris? What about the cab driver (I have included photos of in the original post) who you can call and ask about his experience? There are even eyewitnesses who have posted their contact information, including their telephone numbers, if you'd like to contact them and see if their accounts are fiction or fantasy. [edit on 4-10-2004 by CatHerder]

Woha this thread is still going ...... Cant believe it...just on e quick question Is Reinforced Steel more resistant to impact than a very thick stone, limestone and concrete? Is it or is it not?

You asked what was behind the plane, I told you, but this is your answer??? some-where-in-between stated: "Trees are behind the plane? Trees with sides and corners? Beige looking trees? Oh my, I learn something new every day. Okay, with that you have managed to make me believe both you and Catherder where a thousand wouldn�t." YES! Trees are behind the plane, then an incline to the highway. Behind the highway are complexes/buildings/parking lots and garages... Here in the USA we have a lot of garages due to lack of space you know, they expand up and out. Have you ever been to the States? What country are you posting from? If you REALLY wanted the answer... And if you REALLY read the thread, you should have seen the links and evidence that I did post. But you aren't seeking the truth. You got your mind made up. You stated it's "propaganda", like I stated you are soooo easy to analysis.... sooooo sheer....

About the Israeli passenger that was killed, if in fact he was murdered in the way that you have stated (throat slit), the terrorist more than likely identified him as an Israeli. Which may prove terrorist were on the plane, as why select a retired Isreali as the first victim? One can really learn a lot reading through the bookstores and saving money...

Originally posted by LL1 About the Israeli passenger that was killed, if in fact he was murdered in the way that you have stated (throat slit), the terrorist more than likely identified him as an Israeli. Which may prove terrorist were on the plane, as why select a retired Isreali as the first victim? One can really learn a lot reading through the bookstores and saving money...

lol, you really can, most people don't even read a newspaper these days. What stuck out to me about that Isreali was, unless he was wearing a uniform and I believe he was retired, how could they have identified him. Maybe they just killed the first guy they got their hands on. Amazing coincidence that he just happend to be sitting right in front of them. If they didn't know he was an isreali, maybe he knew they were terrorists? Again, just conjecture, personally I think the conpsiracy would lie more in complicity or at least a forknowledge than the actual attacks.

The presentation is very well put together and compelling. I especially liked the animated simulations by Purdue. To be honest I had a difficult time getting through the presentation because I had already seen "Painful Deceptions" by Eric Hufschmid and was fairly won over by his analysis--especially the explosion which he insists is not from aviation fuel, but from some kind of explosive. I think he also showed the hole in the wall, but I think he may have done it in a way that is contradictory to the facts--I need to check the video again. I did however over the last two days finally sit down and spent the time to go through the presentation. Overall, I personally think the evidence presented is the most cogent of any I have seen (which isn't much, but still says something) and summarily I have had to reevaluate my own thoughts, which is cool. Catherder--some of the most vexing line of questions that have tested your patience may be resulting from the contradictions brought up by the "Painful Deceptions" video and also from websites like these 0911.site.voila.fr... that folks have already lent their beliefs to. I was wondering if you had any input on "Painful Deceptions" in particular. Props. Thanks for the work on putting that together. I am in a better, more neutral place for it. Peace

@ catherder (forgiving that there are more witness contradicting the official version, smelling cordite, talking about a cruisemissile with wings, whooshs & so on..) & your security cam mesures are wrong.. good mesures here: 0911.site.voila.fr... @shadow flux 1st, forgiving that the left engine would be in the ground before touching the wall.. no traces in the lawn.. 2nd.. a plane crashing make some scares on the walls, reinforced or not.. it s not the fact. the traces left are 8m too small.. no scratch no dent on the natural limestone, not bunkerised, walls decoration. no mention to the intact windows directly in contact with the alleged wingspan.. (panzerised? some are broken outside the plane "shadow", but many are best directly where wing contact would be..) 3rd wings filled with kerosene.. do you see some burns on the wall, after splash? lol.. btw, reinforced walls? mercyless cutted down on the base, after collapse it looks like a cheap construction, when you see this pict, it doesn t look like a bunker.. sorry.. [edit on 6-10-2004 by aspic]

To LL1 This was the most recent question I posed on the background, post 833429:

Now look again closely at your photo specifically at the scenery where you have placed the craft. how many buildings do you see being obscured by the front half of the craft? Then examine the CNN photo again, enlarge same to full screen view and notice the building behind the front half of the craft and the colour of that building, then locate same on your photo.

And your response on the number of buildings obscured by the craft in that photo of CATHERDERS adjusted for angles is �trees.� Did you address the CNN photo as I requested as well? No! Why? Because there are no trees behind the craft, it is a building. Please do so because the photo I offer is the photo within which Catherder bases his claim, it is not the photo where he juxtaposes some angular lines and claims that the craft in the line of vision of the camera is where he places it. So, to simplify for you since you have responded to one-half of the question only: what is behind the craft in the CNN photo I have provided? By the way, I asked the question of Catherder, and I note his/her responses seem to give way to yours. Are you Catherder? If not then it is good to understand I debate two different individuals, if you are Catherder however, I do not understand the need for the ID obfuscation. Relative to the degenerative questions you post next, first let me say, I have never seen square trees, or trees with corners. Now to the remainder of your questions:

Here in the USA we have a lot of garages due to lack of space you know, they expand up and out. Have you ever been to the States?

Yes I have, several times to many of these states; California, Florida, Michigan, new York, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Boston, Iowa, Pennsylvania. If you are looking for my worldy travels you may add to that the countries of: England, France, Scotland, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Guyana, Venezuala, Trinidad & Tobago, Grenada, St. Vincent, Puerto Rico, and Barbados. Amazingly I have never ventured to Mexico. in all of those ecountries, I have never seen garages or buildings that look like trees. Now do you have a point to this question?

What country are you posting from?

Canada, where I reside and hold one of two citizenships. Does that preclude me from educating you about your own country?

If you REALLY wanted the answer... And if you REALLY read the thread, you should have seen the links and evidence that I did post. But you aren't seeking the truth. You got your mind made up. You stated it's "propaganda", like I stated you are soooo easy to analysis.... sooooo sheer....

The only answers I seek from you since you interjected on Catherder�s behalf, are those which both of you go out of your way to evade. I do not ask you for the answer to the riddles of the Pentagon crash if that is what you insinuate, mainly because I have given you the information you lack and because you cannot acknowledge the most basic facts facing you. Are you through diverting now? I hope so. In which case, let me jolt you back to the topic at hand and ask again; Now look again closely at your photo specifically at the scenery where you have placed the craft. how many buildings do you see being obscured by the front half of the craft? Then examine the CNN photo again, enlarge same to full screen view and notice the building behind the front half of the craft and the colour of that building, then locate same on your photo.

Once you have publicly posted, it's open to all. Why not U2U CH? Have you thought of that? Then you may have a private conversation, if that is your intent. And there ARE trees, the incline to the highway, the complexes(commercial/residential) behind the highway, all behind the plane... Have you been to DC?

I have never seen a bigger buch of tards in all my life. The aircraft that hit the Pentagon did what aircraft do when they impact something they should not. When the aircraft hit the outer Pentagon wall it did a few things. First it started to deaccelerate at a very fast speed. Second it started to accordian up. Third, when the wing roots and leading edges hit the building they sheared off and folded back along the fuselage. Who was the jackass who said that jet turbine engines are designed to take massive damage to the turbine blades? Did you pull that yout of your ass? Those engines are called TURBOFAN engines for a good reason. Someone gave an excellent description of a turbofan engine and some morons trashed him On a turbofan engine the first two or three stages of the engine are fans, almost ducted fans. These produce about 80 percent of the total thrust of the engine. The smaller part, called the core produces about 20 percent of the thrust. Destroy the first stages of the engines and you lose 100% of the thrust. Why? Because when those fans are reduced to rubble they go down the core and FOD it out. FOR=Foreign Object Damage. Why are the engines so trashed? In addition to being part of an aircraft that slammed into a fucking building they were also OPERATING. That means that the turbine was probably turning at about 23,000 rpms. Do you know what happens when something made of metal that is turning at 23,000 rpms suddenly stops? Have any of you "experts" been on an actual aircraft mishap investigation? I have. I have seen a Navy EA-6B that went into the ground at an estimated 450+ knots nose down leave a hole about 30 feet in diameter and about 50 feet into the ground. The biggest part not in the hole was one of the horizontal stabs. The bigest part left in the hole was the core of one engine. The other engine slammed into the hole and bounced back out in about 12 pieces, along with a bunch of metal no bigger than your fist. I have seen the remains of an A-7 that slammed into the side of a mountain at over 200 knots. The biggest part of that was left was the engine. Imagine that. The wings and fuselage burned and left noting more than melted metal and an outline of burnt grass and shrub. I have seen the accident investigation photos of the DC-10 that slammed into the side of Mt Erebus in 1979. Fuck, what do I know, I didn't spend 24 years in the US Military doing aricraft mishap investigations with both the Military and the FAA. No, really, this is what happened. Bush and the Nazi's living in Antarctica got together and stole three aircraft. They transported the bodies of the living to the future to help re-populate a decimated Earth. The rigged an F-16, a Predetor drone, a radio controlled 757, AIM-9 missines and a cople of Estes rockets to launch into the side of the Pentagon. The night before they did this they FEDEX'ed a bunch of dead bodies to the Pentagon and placed them inside. They also parked a Ryder rental truck outside that was packed with fertilizer and diesel fuel. The Nazi's launched and controlled the aircraft from one of their secret hidden stealth submarines they have. At the moment when the FAA lost the transponder signal from the fake aircraft the Nazi's, the Illuminati and Haliburton uploaded the virus to the mothership behind the moon to take out our satellite communications. Right before the moment when the radio controlled Predator, F-16, 757 and the Estes rockets were to hit the Pentagon Cheney went out to the video recorder and placed the recording device from R2D2 in front of it and ran a holographic image program of the Pentagon that was photoshopped by Mrs. Smiths third grade class from Portland Oregon. Ted Kazinski pressed the button to explode the Ryder Truck while the Nazi's guided the rest into tragic history. Now which sounds better to you.......

If u see the WTC crash u can clearly see that the wings of the planes left prints in the building...just watch the vids....ffs Just look at the evidences: 1. There was no signal of wings prints at the pentagon.... 2. There was some stuffs infront the pentagon which remained untouched and the windows were not shatered.... 3. Why they hide the security cams images ? 4. As some say the airplane body is so weak, how come it managed to cross through so many "reinforced" walls ? 5. And final question, if was not AA plane.....where did it goes ? PS. question "5" applies to th 2nd WTC crash too... Seems some ppl r rdy to accept anything their government says.

CatHerder excellent job... Modern passenger planes are made out of ALUMINUM FOR SKIN... the same stuff beer and coca-cola is put into. And everyone on this board has smashed an aluminum can with one hand. The damage from the wings is minimal as this is the SAME side of the pentagon that was recently renovated and improved (the bulletproof windows, sturdy walls and columns etc) The wins are not stainless steel swords, they are again aluminum and VERY flexible. Anyone ever look out a plane's window while it is in flight and notice the wings actually FLEX in the air? They do NOT make planes out of such things as kevlar, cement steel etc, as they would be far too heavy and costly to fly. Excellent debunking CatHerder.

What about the direction of travel? If it hit the Pentagon at an angle, wouldn't every part of the plane continue on it's path to the left? Presumably, anything that broke off of the plane would have bounced off the wall to the left of the entrance hole. We've all seen what happens when I plane hits something at high speed. They don't "accordion". They come apart. There should've been pieces of plane scattered all down the side of the building, mostly to the left of the impact point. This isn't a cartoon, where vehicles turn into accordions when they hit something. This is real life. There have been alot of high speed jet crashes. Have you ever seen one that looked like an accordion? BTW, the windows were supposedly bullet proof, which means they're plexiglass. The don't shatter, but they do melt. [edit on 11-10-2004 by Damned]

Well, you obviously put some real time into your research. I've sat here reading the entire thread, but it still doesn't wash with me. My main problem is why are the walls in some of the photos still pristine white? In one of the photos you can even see paper in the office which isn't burnt! I'd love to know how you can explain that away. After reading ATS for a long time, it's a real shame to come back after a while and see how the place has changed. I agree with some of the other posters, please take ATS back to it's roots. This isn't a comment labelled at the people posting at all, simply at the way the general ethos of the site has changed.