9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Comparing the empire state building crash and the WTC crash is pretty ridiculous. The planes arent even CLOSE to the same size. The impact speeds arent even close. Its like comparing a Volkswagon crash and a Semi crash. B-25 specs - length: 53 feet, wingspan: 67 feet, weight empty: 21,100 pounds. Fuel capacity: 964 gallons possible with auxiliarry tanks. 767 specs - length: 159 feet, wingspan: 156 feet, weight empty: 176,650 pounds, Fuel capacity: 23980 gallons. As you can see, the planes are not even in the same ballpark. Plus, the B-25 hit the empire state building at just over 200mph, the 767s hit between 450-500 mph. Just a little bit of a difference.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I don't care what the materials are made of, with the amount of force involved at impact nothing could have stopped it.

But the nose cone would have been destroyed on impact and cockpit would have been severaly damaged and not punch a nice hole in the reinforced wall and makie it through the interior collumns and walls.

Ok, and who says that the nosecone and cockpit are the ONLY things that punched through? You think that the rest of the fuselage is not going to have anything to do with it punching through? What, the radome and cockpit are the only parts that could have punched a hole? They would have been crushed, but the rest of that mass doesn't just stop instantly.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 They would have been crushed, but the rest of that mass doesn't just stop instantly.

The rest of the plane would have been crushed too and not make a nice hole in the wall and all the way through and and nice hole out the outter wall. I have shown a aluminum airframe destroyed by hitting small trees, so what do you think a reinforced wall is going to do to a aluminum airframe?

I was never the best in physics, but even *I* know that a 200,000lb airplane is going to punch right through any concrete wall ever made, unless it's 10 feet thick. The airframe WAS destroyed by the wall, the wall was also destroyed by the airframe. There is no way in hell that the airplane was going to hit that wall and NOT punch a hole in it. Not at the speed it was moving, with all that mass behind it. The wall was only 18 inches thick if I remember right. I don't care WHAT it's reinforced with, there's no way in hell it's going to stop a 757 moving at that speed. As for the "neat hole" in the wall, the hole in the outer wall was anything BUT neat. It was a 90+ foot tear in the wall that eventually caused it to collapse. The wall did just what it was supposed to do, and withstood the damage for long enough to get people out before failing. [edit on 7/10/2008 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58 As for the "neat hole" in the wall, the hole in the outer wall was anything BUT neat.

Thats funny all the photos i have seen show a pretty neat hole in the first and last wall. (before the collapse) So what made the holes in the first and lat wall if the airframe was crushed hitting the wall?

The same thing that damages walls when cars hit them. According to what you're saying here, if I drive my car into a wall that's stronger than the car, ONLY my car is going to be damaged. But oddly enough my car will go right through that wall if I'm moving fast enough. The airframe acted on the wall as much as the wall acted on the airframe. As the airframe was crushing against the wall, the EXACT SAME FORCE was being acted upon the wall, and it blew right through the outside wall. Funny, I can find pictures of the wall that show a huge tear in it. Here are a couple of them, precollapse: There's quite a bit of damage there on the ground level. Sure doesn't look like a small neat hole to me. Looks like pretty significant damage there.

That hole won't fit a plane that big man!!! if you want us to believe that...than Mickey Mouse is a real person!!! and the hole was caused from something that literally was few inches from the ground..no angle at all!! Who is paying you to tell us those tall tales?...and where the wing impact damage go...there so much non evidence that i am amazed that people still believe that myth that a plane hit the Pentagon. And look at the footage...you are superimposing the image of 757 over that very blurry image...and it doesn't match the dimensions to the background!! You shrunk the whole 757 compared to the rest of the picture ...what you think that we all stupid? a 269,434 lb plane at 400 MPH...and thats the whole damage to the building? are you kidding me?..and the color of that piece of fusolage..that is not American Airline !!!..i worked in an airport before...

Originally posted by Zaphod58 There's quite a bit of damage there on the ground level.

Please explain how a aluminum airframe did that much damage then. So where is the wing debris and damage, where is the hole made by the engine? Please show me debris that should be left from a 200,000 pound plane. Why didn't you show the neat hole made in the last wall ? [edit on 10-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I didn't show the last hole because there are conflicting reports as to what caused it. Some say landing gear, others say it was deliberately made by rescue personnel to get into the building. As well as the fact that there are TWO holes in the inner ring. If you look at the overhead shots of the Pentagon right after, you can see where there is the nice round hole with little or no fire damage, and then you can see a blackened area that has obvious smoke and fire damage. It's called kinetic energy. It's been explained to you many times but you still refuse to get it. I think now you're just being deliberately obtuse. An object made out of lighter materials, at a high enough velocity, IS going to penetrate a harder object. Just like when I said you can punch a car through a concrete wall, an airplane hitting a wall IS going through. I can show you pictures of planes that were barely moving that punched through walls. I used to have a great set of a Continental MD-80 sitting at the gate that jumped forward during an engine run and ripped right through the concrete wall. If it could do that just jumping forward, then there is NO WAY that a 757 could NOT penetrate the Pentagon wall. As for the debris most of it wound up inside the building, or was just outright destroyed in the impact. Not all crashes leave huge pieces of debris laying around for people to stumble over and find. I went to an F-111 crash site, where it hit a housing complex, at low speed, and was a low speed impact, and the only recognizable piece of the plane left was the radome. And that was only because when they ejected the whole cockpit came off, and the radome launched off and stuck into the ground.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58 I don't care what the materials are made of, with the amount of force involved at impact nothing could have stopped it.

But the nose cone would have been destroyed on impact and cockpit would have been severaly damaged and not punch a nice hole in the reinforced wall and makie it through the interior collumns and walls.

No reinforced walls were breached. The only walls breached were the outer facade and the outer wall of AE drive. Niether were reinforced. There were no interior walls...only reinforced columns which shredded the airframe. Please see the post below for more details. It's from Realtruth's thread "A 757 did not hit the Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof" www.abovetopsecret.com... [edit on 7/10/2008 by darkbluesky]

reply to post by Zaphod58 So you are applying Newton's 3rd law in the Pentagon wall impact? but then how was the plane able to defy the same law when plowing through the light poles on the way? The poles that were bent and or broken off had to have applied the same force to the plane that the plane did to them, right? So how did the several aluminum light poles not shear off the aluminum wings then?

Originally posted by darkbluesky No reinforced walls were breached.

The side of the building that was hit was recently reinforced and built with Kevlar to withstand a truck bomb. Please do some research before posting. [edit on 10-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO So how did the several aluminum light poles not shear off the aluminum wings then?

I have asked the question a lot and no one can come up with an answer, i even showed reports of planes having wings sheared off by hitting a light pole. There should be wing debris at the light poles.

reply to post by PplVSNWO Where on the wing did the poles hit? Was it engine? If it was the engine then how would that shear the wing off? And the wings of the 757 are strong enough that they could have withstood the impact. Especially since the light poles were designed to shear off at the base at impact. Ultima, you have shown reports of planes much smaller than a 757 suffering wing damage from light poles. The Northwest plane you claim had the wing torn off only suffered a PARTIAL shear of the wing, only about 4 feet total. Others have also shown planes 737 sized hitting light poles and barely suffering damage to the wings.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by darkbluesky No reinforced walls were breached.

The side of the building that was hit was recently reinforced and built with Kevlar to withstand a truck bomb. Please do some research before posting. [edit on 10-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

You are wrong, or at least obfuscating. Only the windows were upgraded to be blast proof. The structure was unchanged. You try doing some reasearch.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 Ultima, you have shown reports of planes much smaller than a 757 suffering wing damage from light poles. .

Do i also need to reshow all the photos of small birds putting holes in the wings of a 767? I can also show more reports of planes hitting light poles. DO NOT CHALLANGE ME TO POST PHOTOS AND SOURCES FOR EVIDENCE YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT I CAN DO IT.

Originally posted by darkbluesky You try doing some reasearch.

Its so fun and easy to prove you immature people wrong that do not do research. www.pentagonresearch.com... www.pentagonresearch.com...

This graphic creates some impression of just how substantial the newly renovated exterior wall of the Pentagon was. There was also a layer of Kevlar mesh, the same material bullet-proof vests are made of. The building performance report says, "The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete. The first-story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with no windows." The following photo shows the exterior wall. The rebar in the concrete is what is meant by "reinforced".

[edit on 10-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Its so fun and easy to prove you immature people wrong that do not do research. www.pentagonresearch.com... www.pentagonresearch.com...

This graphic creates some impression of just how substantial the newly renovated exterior wall of the Pentagon was. There was also a layer of Kevlar mesh, the same material bullet-proof vests are made of. The building performance report says, "The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete. The first-story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with no windows." The following photo shows the exterior wall. The rebar in the concrete is what is meant by "reinforced".

[edit on 10-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Who (what person) is the source of this information? What are their qualifications? What is there connection to the renovation project that would give them this information? They say there is a Kevlar mesh but it is not shown in the cute little illustration or the photo. The rebar in the photo is from the floor slabs, from the tie-in from the slab to the wall, and from the exterior wall colums which were spaced 10 ft on center. From your link.... "The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame. Nearly all remaining exterior walls are 10 in. concrete. The first-story at AE Drive is brick infilled in the concrete frame, with no windows."

reply to post by ULTIMA1 That's right, HOLES in the SKIN of the wing. Which is what probably happened with flight 77 when they hit the poles. But even if it suffered wing damage, the flight time from the poles to the building were so short that it wouldn't have affected the plane. And again, we don't know WHERE on the wing the impacts occured. The engine could have easily hit the poles, instead of the wing.

I'm going to weight in with a question here. Ultima, you've posted a lot about the kevlar lining. How do you think that helps reinforce a wall against large masses? Even though it's a "miracle" material used in, what I think is more appropriately called bullet resistant vests, it's hardly invincible. Repeated hits to the same general area will break through the fabric. That's why there are multiple layers (how many depends on the manufacturer and is usually a guarded secret). I'm sure that you, being a 12-year veteran as a Federal officer would know that if a vest was hit by a round and survived, the vest itself is ultimately useless and the wearer issued a brand new vest. Kevlar itself is generally rated for protection only up to a certain level of projectile, which is why SWAT teams that deal with the possiblity of higher-caliber rounds have ceramic armor beneth the kevlar. There's only so much kevlar can do. Do you know how the kevlar was installed in the Pentagon walls? Was it just dry layered like a bullet resistant vest? Or was it layered with a resin of some sort (much like what they do with carbon / fiberglass composites)?