9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

zeitgeistmovie.com Look at part II about 41minutes in. Your facts are wrong. And why if a 757 ever did crash into the pentagon did the government never release the videos they seized from the neighboring hotels in the vicinity.

Originally posted by Zaphod58 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.

So if the wings did get damaged by hitting the poles where is thew wing debris that should be by the poles ? Also according to a military witness near the buidling the plane looked out of control.

Originally posted by HLR53K Ultima, you've posted a lot about the kevlar lining. How do you think that helps reinforce a wall against large masses?

But the point of my whole post was that the wall where the supposed plane hit was renivated and had been reinforced and given Kevlar to protect from a truck bomb. I am still waiting for an explaination as to how a composite nose and thin aluminum airframe would punch a hole through the reinforced wall, interior collumns and walls and punch through the outter wall with a nice hole shape. [edit on 14-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by Zaphod58 the hole in the inner ring is not possible from something punching from the inside out due to kinetic energy. there is no way for some mysterious 10 ft. circular object to punch a neat cartoon cutout through a brick wall, and then JUST DISAPPEAR. said object would have to be extremely dense(not quite debunker dense, though), and would need extremely good brakes to not SMASH A HOLE THROUGH THE NEXT WALL. and that's where the story falls apart. the only thing on the wall facing the hole, is a big patch of black soot, like you would see after a blast. the hole on the inner ring was blasted, probably from the outside. perhaps the 'cleaners' needed a backdoor to sneak in and do some 'cleaning'.

reply to post by billybob That inner wall was a fairly plain brick & mortar infill between the concrete columns as there was no perceived need for reinforced walls other than the outer wall. My car could punch a hole in such a wall and it's not a tank.

reply to post by Pilgrum that's not the point. i'm not saying it would be hard for a larde dense object to do that. what i'm saying is such an object would have a lot of kinetic energy left over after punching such a hole. the imaginary object would either need to be stuck in the hole(100 percent kinetic energy used getting that far), OR it would need to be visible outside the hole against the next wall in it's line of fire. however, there is no damage to the wall facing the hole. just soot. such a large, massive projectile would not just evaporate after making such a neat hole. it would still be intact.

Originally posted by Pilgrum That inner wall was a fairly plain brick & mortar infill between the concrete columns as there was no perceived need for reinforced walls other than the outer wall.

I am still waiting for an explaination as to how a composite nose and thin aluminum airframe would punch a hole through the reinforced wall, interior collumns and walls and punch through the outter wall with a nice hole shape.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 I am still waiting for an explaination as to how a composite nose and thin aluminum airframe would punch a hole through the reinforced wall, interior collumns and walls and punch through the outter wall with a nice hole shape.

With 100000kg of assorted alloys moving at >200m/s behind it, even a marshmallow would have made it through those walls - not completely intact of course. I'm starting to think that no matter what shaped hole was created or even if there was no hole at all, people would try to find something wrong with it.

reply to post by billybob The pictures I've seen of the hole in the inner brick wall show that it was hit by a torrent of high velocity debris like pieces of undercarriage etc, not an intact single object the exact size of the hole. If it was a single large object then like you said, it would have to be right there where it stopped but instead we see a pile of assorted plane bits among the broken bricks lying in the drive which looks about right to me. Just the impact of the separated landing gear could cause the brick wall to fail in that way making the large circular hole.

Originally posted by Pilgrum With 100000kg of assorted alloys moving at >200m/s behind it, even a marshmallow would have made it through those walls - not completely intact of course. .

The composite nose and thin aluminum would have been destroyed on impact and not punch through the walls in a nice hole shape. Please try again, do some research do not be afraid of the truth.

Originally posted by Pilgrum The pictures I've seen of the hole in the inner brick wall show that it was hit by a torrent of high velocity debris like pieces of undercarriage etc, not an intact single object the exact size of the hole.

Please show me what on the plane would have made the hole, in a nice round shape and that size. Please explain the hole shape on the outter wall. [edit on 15-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I'm I getting it correct, Ultima, that you're saying that it doesn't matter what the object was, it would not have punched through the wall just because the Pentagon had steel beams and the aircraft was made mostly of aluminum? Even if a 747, 777, or 787 had hit the wall, it wouldn't have gone through? The reason I haven't replied in 4 days was, oddly enough, that I had a business trip to Spirit AeroSystems. You may know them to be the primary sub-contractor that creates all of the Boeing commercial aircraft fuselages. Of course, I can't take any pictures there for security reasons, but needless to say, even empty of wiring or furnishings, those fuselages are humongous. There is no doubt in my mind that a fully assembled fuselage would have no problems punching through whatever was in its way. Some of the internal airframe have flanges at thick as .25". Regardless of what you may personally think, they are very, very sturdy frames. Unless you have personally stood next to one and inside it or have been near one that was hoisted up over your head... Every frame that touches the skin is secured to it by a massive robot that drills, reams, rivets, and seals the rivet 360 degrees around the fuselage. The fuselage itself is designed to take more than 2 tons of wind pressure constantly throughout its lifetime. I'm really sorry that you won't ever have access to a tour of Spirit AeroSystem's Boeing aircraft manufacturing plant. A lot of your questions would be answered right away. But it's up to you to decide how much to believe of my trip.

Originally posted by HLR53K I'm really sorry that you won't ever have access to a tour of Spirit AeroSystem's Boeing aircraft manufacturing plant. A lot of your questions would be answered right away. But it's up to you to decide how much to believe of my trip.

Well i have been to plants. I have been to Fairchild when they were buidling the A-10. so i do know a little about what yor saying. Problem is there is too much evidnece that the aluminum airframe WOULD NOT have punchied a hole through the reinforced wall, collumns and interior walls. Please look again at the following photo of a aluminum airframe hitting some small trees and the amount of damage done to the airframe, then you might realize what would happen to the airframe hitting the Pentagon. i114.photobucket.com...

reply to post by HLR53K wow. two tons. do the math of one hundred and twenty tons flying at 400 miles an hour. is that more than two tons? [edit on 18-7-2008 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob reply to post by HLR53K

 

wow. two tons. do the math of one hundred and twenty tons flying at 400 miles an hour. is that more than two tons? [edit on 18-7-2008 by billybob]

Oops, I was looking at a light aircraft when I typed that. Obviously a huge aircraft like the 757 and 767 size would be feeling a higher wind pressure. Jet lag. Thanks for pointing out the mistake, but you didn't have to be so obnoxious about it... But I'm wondering if 120 tons of air pressure is correct... That's much more than some hydraulic presses use to bend sheet metal. I'll have to look into it. But taking that at face value for now, doesn't withstanding 120 tons of air pressure make the whole airframe just that much more resilient? Ultima, an A-10 is still nothing like what they have going on at Spirit. Like I said, unless you where there... These things are huge masses of titanium, aluminum, plastics, composites, and steel all riveted securely together. I would even dare say that the scale of what's going on over there is more massive than anything Fairchild has. Even though you didn't source that photo, it's alright. The question I have for you then, is that there are similar photos for even larger airplanes like the 747 and 777. Now, are you telling me that one of those would have no effect on the Pentagon wall? They're all pretty much built up the same way internally as the 757. It's just a difference in the total displacement.

Originally posted by HLR53K Now, are you telling me that one of those would have no effect on the Pentagon wall? They're all pretty much built up the same way internally as the 757. It's just a difference in the total displacement.

Do you need a source for the photo? Its a a plane that slid off the runway on landing and hit the small tress, doing a lot of damage to the aluminum airframe. I am telling (and have shown) that a basically all aliuminum airframe is not going to punch a nice hole through a reinforced wall, interior collumns and walls and out the other side, the aluminum is going to be destroyed before getting far into the building. I have shown photos of small birds putting holes in the wings and airframe. I have shown evindece and photos of wings being sheared off from hitting an obstical. (wings might withstand a lot of lateral or up and down movement but are not designed to withstand hitting obsticals.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 Didn't you take Kinetic Energy Class at NSA school? Have you ever seen the pictures of 2x4's thrown through trees during a tornado?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt Have you ever seen the pictures of 2x4's thrown through trees during a tornado?

Please stay on topic. We are not talking about 2x4s in a tornado are we? We are talking about materials and how fragile they are. I have proven that an aluminum airframe is fragile and would not hold up to hitting a reinforced wall, just like it did not hold up when hitting the steel towers.

reply to post by CatHerder hey I just figured I say this is about as dead on as you can get. I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that it was a plane. I can tell you this because i was there. I was in Bravo company in the old guard, i was putting body parts in orange biohazard bags and everything. and picking up tons of floor boards from the plane and one of the engines we carried out to make a path too about 10 of us to do it. my back still hurts from it lol. you know something that would be cool to see but i bet you will never find it anywhere in any of these photos due to the sensitive matter of it. is that just south of the actual hole in the pentagon south east in the parking lot(my directions are going off the photo i cant remember what direction is actually is cause i havnt lived in dc since 2003. anyways there was a area just south east of the hole where they were putting all the scraps of the plan for the fbi and cia to look at eventually. I could swear to god ive seen the actual footage of the plan hitting too. but i guess i will never know havnt seen it since it happened. my friend had it on his computer it banked right and almost hit the pentagon sideways. but yea. it was a plan either way.

reply to post by ULTIMA1 I think TY is actually on topic. The discussion was on kinetic energy, which is all pretty interesting. His example of a 2x4 shows that a mass at velocity can be very destructive. When tons of material moving at 400+mph and come in contact with a solid wall,where is all that energy going to go? I think science wins this round.