9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by weedwhacker Since the Pentagon is part of the words in the topic, how is it a deflection? The logical answer is: It is not. Therefore, construction of the Pentagon and potential feasibility, or lack thereof, of something impacting and completely entering, through a hole too small to accommodate the size object alleged to be impacting and completely entering, is not a deflection. However, making irrelevant commentary related to the either a 757 or Pentagon would be a deflection. Personal attacks (ad hominem) on opponents is definitely deflection. As is any other tangent to irrelevancy (red herring) and tangent metaphorical grasping for straws (type of red herring know as creating a strawman).

reply to post by OrionStars What? OS, I have said it many times before, regarding the Pentagon impact. The fuselage had the same kinetic energy as the rest of the airplane, but as I tried to point out, there was much more mass centered in the fuselage. I did mention the engines, in great detail, and you have ignored that part. So, other readers can decide for themselves... Back on point...the fuselage had the energy, and the ability due to that energy to penetrate the building, the Pentagon. The wings of the airplane, while they had kinetic energy, would still, nonetheless, shred on impact. The engines were attached to the wings, of course. The CORES of those engines would have been deep inside the building. Why not try to find out what happened to them? I mentioned earlier that the construction of the Pentagon is NOTHING like the construction of the WTC Towers. Please do not try to equate damage patterns between the tow buildings...they just are not the same.

Originally posted by weedwhacker reply to post by OrionStars

 

What? OS, I have said it many times before, regarding the Pentagon impact. The fuselage had the same kinetic energy as the rest of the airplane, but as I tried to point out, there was much more mass centered in the fuselage. I did mention the engines, in great detail, and you have ignored that part. So, other readers can decide for themselves... Back on point...the fuselage had the energy, and the ability due to that energy to penetrate the building, the Pentagon. The wings of the airplane, while they had kinetic energy, would still, nonetheless, shred on impact. The engines were attached to the wings, of course. The CORES of those engines would have been deep inside the building. Why not try to find out what happened to them? I mentioned earlier that the construction of the Pentagon is NOTHING like the construction of the WTC Towers. Please do not try to equate damage patterns between the tow buildings...they just are not the same.

Exactly how does that explain the "official" report version, that a full sized Boeing 757 managed to full penetration "disappear", through any hole not nearly large enough to fully accommodate that entire bulky mass? Particularly, when the wall of the Pentagon proves it never happened.

reply to post by OrionStars OS, you and I have seen the same visuals, of the impact damage. I believe you to be a smart individual. I have told you about the kinetic energy, and the differences between the structures, the Pentagon vs. the WTC. What part of what I have told you are you missng? I have already suffered, from a Mod, because I accused you of just 'trolling' for points. Perhaps I was mistaken, in that analysis, perhaps not. Prove me wrong...SHOW something, some proof, ANY proof to back your claims. I write, in posts, and show that I know what i write about. You, SIR, write...and it is mostly nonsense. Please, write something that makes sense, then we can converse as normal humans.... edit spelling... [edit on 8-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Thank you. I am, indeed, intelligent enough to know that anything, larger than itself, cannot completely "disappear" into a hole smaller than itself. At least, not without enlarging that hole leaving visual evidence of same. That is why I am also intelligent enough to realize the Pentagon wall clearly, visually states that nothing the size of a Boeing 757 enlarged any hole, horizontally or vertically, to "disappear itself completely inside the Pentagon, and continue on through three 5 more reinforced concrete and steel wall rings of the Pentagon. Kinetic energy has nothing to do with what did not happen above. All the explaining about it, simply to tangent avoid, is not going to change the visual evidence truth appearing on the Pentagon wall. It also serves to prove the "official" reports lied, when bureaucrats gave out their ludicrous version to the general public. It is a gross insult to the intelligence of every man, woman and child fed that lie through the "official" reports version. That version completely defies the laws of nature. If people have a problem with the laws of nature, they should take up those problems with Mother Nature.

Originally posted by OrionStars Thank you. I am, indeed, intelligent enough to know that anything, larger than itself, cannot completely "disappear" into a hole smaller than itself. At least, not without enlarging that hole leaving visual evidence of same. That is why I am also intelligent enough to realize the Pentagon wall clearly, visually states that nothing the size of a Boeing 757 enlarged any hole, horizontally or vertically, to "disappear itself completely inside the Pentagon, and continue on through three 5 more reinforced concrete and steel wall rings of the Pentagon. Kinetic energy has nothing to do with what did not happen above. All the explaining about it, simply to tangent avoid, is not going to change the visual evidence truth appearing on the Pentagon wall. It also serves to prove the "official" reports lied, when bureaucrats gave out their ludicrous version to the general public. It is a gross insult to the intelligence of every man, woman and child fed that lie through the "official" reports version. That version completely defies the laws of nature. If people have a problem with the laws of nature, they should take up those problems with Mother Nature.

OK, OS...then do you wish to state, for the record, that pieces of AA77 went all of the way through all 'five' perimeters of the Pentagon? All the way through into what is called 'ground zero' by those who work there" In other words, OS, do you contend that the airframe components from AA77 managed to get all the way THROUGH the structure of the Pentagon?!? All of the way through, to the centre of the building? (the center is known as, 'Ground Zero'...an inside joke [no pun intended]). I am sorry, OS...you just do not seem to comprehend the immensity of the truth.......

Dear OS, "kinetic energy has not response to what happened above" Huh??? Sorry, OS, you seem to not understand science. Perhaps we are not speaking the same language. I can only write in English. I am trying to understand you, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. I try to understand your words, and I may misunderstand some of your words. If so, I send my humble apologies. edit to correct spelling...word 'misunderstand'... [edit on 8-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

OK, OS...then do you wish to state, for the record, that pieces of AA77 went all of the way through all 'five' perimeters of the Pentagon? All the way through into what is called 'ground zero' by those who work there" In other words, OS, do you contend that the airframe components from AA77 managed to get all the way THROUGH the structure of the Pentagon?!? All of the way through, to the centre of the building? (the center is known as, 'Ground Zero'...an inside joke [no pun intended]). I am sorry, OS...you just do not seem to comprehend the immensity of the truth.......

Exactly what is it you cannot comprehend concerning this? Since there was no hole large enough on the Pentagon wall to accommodate an alleged Boeing 757, any reference to alleged AA77, an alleged full size Boeing 757, is a moot point. Therefore, any reference to kinetic energy alleged to be exerted by alleged AA77, an alleged full size Boeing 757, is also a moot point. The Pentagon is being referred to as 'Ground Zero'? I do not find the inside joke amusing. What is your point of metaphorically, perpetually moving a pile of rocks from one side of the room to another and back again? Because that is exactly the conceptual type of arguments you keep presenting to me. You are entitled to you what you believe to be the truth. However, please do not insist I have to accept your personal concept of truth. At this point, after going full circle no less that 5 times, I agree to disagree with your opinions.

reply to post by OrionStars OS, it is a well known joke, among people who actually work at the Pentagon, that the center area...the Park...is referred to as 'ground zero'. This is not a sick joke, at least not by me...this is something the people who WORK at the Pentagon came up with. I know this, because I have talked with employees of the Pentagon. edit for spelling... [edit on 8-2-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by OrionStars OS, to answer your post, you seem to refer to Sysiphis (sorry about the spelling) when you tried to relate my posts to moving rocks to and fro. I know, I paraphrased, but so did you, Orion. IT still comes down to the original problem I, and others, have had with your posts, OS... I will call out, now to the Mods. 'Please look at these posts, and decide...who is true, and who is bold?' It is, now, in the hands of the Mods. As always, Carry on!!

Originally posted by OrionStarsExactly how does that explain the "official" report version, that a full sized Boeing 757 managed to full penetration "disappear", through any hole not nearly large enough to fully accommodate that entire bulky mass? Particularly, when the wall of the Pentagon proves it never happened.

Orion, Could you please identify which "official" report version you're referencing? Also tell me where, in said report, I can find the statements or information that indicate a 757

managed to full penetration "disappear", through any hole not nearly large enough to fully accommodate that entire bulky mass?

I'm not being lazy here, so please don't tell me to find it myself. You see I've completely read the Pentagon Building Performance Report and the 9-11 Commission report and have found no claims that the entire 757 "disappeared", or was "swallowed whole", or was squeezed through a

hole not nearly large enough to fully accommodate that entire bulky mass

Here are links to the only "official" reports I'm aware of that discuss the actual impact and aftermath: Pentagon Building Performance Report Bios of Pentagon Investigation Team 9-11 Commission Report [edit on 2/8/2008 by darkbluesky] [edit on 2/8/2008 by darkbluesky]

What happens when the primary vertical load bearing supports are removed from under the primary horizontal load bearing supports above them? This: www.youtube.com...

Here is one other "official" report I was previously un-aware of. Arlington FD After Action Report Since they are well known and recognized for their field data collection expertise and eyewitness interviews, maybe CIT would like to speak with fire fighters Mark Skipper and Alan Wallace from Fort Myer Foam 161...... From the linked report....

At 9:38 a.m. on September 11, only one fire crew, Foam 161 of the Fort Myer Fire Department, knew the exact location of the crash site. Captain Dennis Gilroy and his team were already on station at the Pentagon when Flight #77 slammed into it, just beyond the heliport. Foam 161 caught fire and suffered a flat tire from flying debris. Firefighters Mark Skipper and Alan Wallace were outside the vehicle at impact and received burns and lacerations.

reply to post by weedwhacker Sorry I missed ya before there WW. You were wondering

Caustic Logic, I am trying to wrap my head around what stance you are supporting here. Very simple...either one can agree that 9/11 was a co-ordinated and planned attack by al Quaida terrorists, or one will subscribe to a scenario where our OWN Government, or parties within our Government, orchestrated the whole thing...

Yes, these seem the two prime possibilities. It's quite off-topic so I won't go into detail, but I don't subscribe to the predominant 'Truther" school, or the Official Story. I don't believe anything, because I don't know enough. But I know who failed to stop it (accident?), and then benefitted massively (coincidence?). It wouldn't be just Bush. Planning would go back, The whole system benefits, the next President inherits the powers given by 9/11. If you can't believe a gov would attack its own people, google "Operation Northwoods" and "Reichstag Fire." (no death in that one actually but still...) At the Pentagon all I argue is the obvious case that it was some kinda big 757. It just irks me how people deny evidence while looking for the "9/11 Truth." Plain ol' truth only for me, thanks. I don't know who was at the controls for sure - I'm willing to entertain RC but the evidence for real hijackers is there of course (could be faked). I'm leaning I guess towards the latter. I believe all the normal passengers were there and did indeed die horrifically at the scene. The famous photos of charred bodies confirm it - one pic shows three SEATED bodies in one spot. Even with the seats themselves burned away we can tell these can almost only be passengers. And I just remembered how terrible and tragic this whole thing is. You can really forget that working with the details all the time.

Originally posted by weedwhacker reply to post by OrionStars

 

Once again, OS, You refuse to answer any questions...valid questions posed of you. You, SIR, are a fraud!!

If you've been around a while you get used to it. Some people - screen names - cannot be reasoned with. Who knows why, I have my hunches, but it's best not to take them too seriously. This one I've probed and found no sign of human reason at work. OS - if I'm wrong and you'd really like to figure things out PM me, but I have nothing more to discuss with you. Good luck in your endeavors.

reply to post by darkbluesky Ah! Funny you should ask about them. I've got the first step down in linking up with one or another of those guys. CIT hasn't yet but say it would be way cool. They love to point out 2 things here: 1) They didn't see THE IMPACT. Because they saw it coming in REAL low REAL close and REAL fast with no sign of a pull-up so they turned and ran. And then missed the sudden pull-up and fly-over I guess. 2) Wallace describes the plane as "white!" Just like their flyover white jet and the white blur seen on CCTV cameras flying in low and fast and impacting. Silver + sunlight = ???

Originally posted by Caustic Logic OS - if I'm wrong and you'd really like to figure things out PM me, but I have nothing more to discuss with you. Good luck in your endeavors.

It all depends on what you mean by "to figure things out". Do you mean figure them out according to what agrees with you? Or did you mean something else? I will not waste time answering irrelevant questions deliberately intended to derail topics of discussion. I could care less who demands me to do that.

To the moderators: The paragraph break function seems to have ceased working in this discussion. I have to manually place paragragh html for breaks between paragraphs.

In my journey among all the Pentagon 911 pictures the one picture that has deluded me and most other's is the one showing a rather small hole about 15 feet in diameter with a no parking sign and no sign of smoke or flame damage. I think OS is referring to this picture as well as John Lear did early on. This picture was NOT the entry of the plane into the pentagon but the egress of one of the engines or one of the heavier parts of the main fuselage in one of the rings. They are allowed to drive amongst the rings, the entry of the plane took out over 50 feet of the pentagon leaving some but not all of the building columns intact. Huge smoke and flame damage and a few pictures before the facade collapsed and allowed someone to post that small 15 foot picture deceiving all of us. A picture is not WORTH a thousand words, here it generates a thousand or a hundred thoussand words. If this picture By eagle1229 at 2008-02-12 is the one we are talking about then thats where parts of the plane egressed the pentagon. Look here for pictures taken prior to the collapse of the facade when the plane entered, It wasn't very long before the collapse. www.geoffmetcalf.com... www.geoffmetcalf.com... has a pretty good picture of the width of damage, remember the columns were just strengthened prior to the plane entering with kevlar, It wasn't (at this point) a soft target like the twin towers. From picture 5.jpg it appears to me that their is at least 5 to 7 windows worth of spaceto fit both the fusilage and the engines at the angle the plane hit without having to fold back the wings. Since the facade collapsed before smokeless pictures could be taken, alot of work in other topics has been done on the remains of the building columns rebar etc. but even the 911 truthers havn;t suggested the plane went thru a 15 foot hole as that first picture shows. [edit on 13-2-2008 by Eagle1229]

An engine would have had to break through 6 walls and other internal reinforced concrete steel supports to get that far. Is it realistic to believe a 757 engine could do that but other one could not? Actually, I was referring to the front of the building, with no hole big enough to accommodate a full size Boeing 757, as easily seen when the smoke cleared.