9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

Originally posted by HowardRoark A couple of points that you ned to consider.

1. The columns shown on that diagram are not to scale. There was a lot more open space in between those columns then that diagram indicates. Since that diagram is a map of the damaged columns, it is not that surprising that they enlarged the scale of the columns so that they could color code them.
2. You have to figure that there was also considerable blast pressure from the exploding fuel as well. This would have contributed to the inertia of the debris movement through the building.
3. There was another picture that clearly showed the landing gear assembly in the debris pile.
4. Note that the debris, including pieces of the plaster wall are pretty much just outside the hole. If this hole was made by your missile, this debris would have been blown all over the place.
5. Your claims about the engine debris not being from the plane have already been proven wrong earlier in this thread. I will not waste my time going over that again.

1. This is practically irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. 2. Sure, and the blast happened outside, before the plane even entered the building. There was no jet fuel blast after that. 3. It showed a hydraulic cylinder, which could be used for practically anything. IIRC, that was never positively identified as a 757 part either. 4. Do things travelling fast enough to go through brick walls just stop when they break through? That's the most ridiculous thing I think I've seen anyone say, yet. 5. Those are some very light looking pieces of debris. There's no way in hell that anything in that picture made that hole, then just fell to the ground right there and stopped.

Remember also that this wedge was undergoing renovation at the time, so that there were no desks, filing cabinets, rooms full of people, etc. in the way. And, like most modern buildings, the interior partitions were probably drywall. Hell. I could smash through drywall with my fist.

You need to look at the pictures of the section before it collapsed. There's all kinds of furniture and stuff in it. In some pics, it's clearly visible. Contrary to your beliefs, the Pentagon was not an empty airplane hangar. [edit on 3-12-2004 by Damned]

ok, i just joined cuz i wanna post this site that has a very very convincing video of, well, basically says a missile hit the pentagon. this has really got me thinking, why isnt anyone asking questions about this stuff, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest a coverup. www.freedomunderground.org... its about 5 minutes long, i suggest anyone interested at all with either pro or anti pentagon conspiracy believes watch it. if that one gets u then a much longer video(55minutes) about the entire 9/11 incident being a huge conspiracy is out there. its called "In Plane Site" u can download on kazaa or whatever dl program u use. very convincing stuff and a very well done video. i highly recommend.

Well, Jimbo, welcome to this site. You really should read the entire thread before posting to it, I know that it is 34 pages long and tends to go over the same stuff over and over again, but it would probably answer you questions. The whole purpose of the original post in this thread was to debunk that video. Here are a number of other threads on ATS dealing with the same issue. www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com... www.abovetopsecret.com... As you will quickly see, there are two camps on this topic, those who believe that it was an American Airlines plane and those who don�t. There isn�t a lot of movement between the two positions once some one has made up their minds. Read the first few pages of this thread, most of the pertinent arguments can be found there.

OOppss...what happened to the first & third link supplied above...not to mention the guys who posted the first two links....I'm not sure,but I think I smelled sommthing burning....."Gee, it's my computer...it can't handle all these conspiracies............Blllahhh blllaaaa.....000 111 000

It can be adopted as a general, common sense principle that if a large, wide and heavy object, moving at a speed of hundreds of kilometers an hour strikes, but does not pass through a physical barrier, it must remain on the side of the barrier it struck. Although, large, heavy objects may be destroyed or damaged by such impacts, neither they nor their debris vanish after such an event. physics911.net... [edit on 7-12-2004 by Damned]

1. The majority of that mass was liquid (fuel) which burned up in the fire.
2. No doubt that we�ve all seen the photos of a major car vrs. tree auto accident where the car is not only totaled, but ripped open and barely recognizable as a car. Well if that is what happens to a steel car traveling around 100 mph when it hits a tree, what do you think would happen to an aluminum airplane wing traveling over 400 mph?
3. If the wings folded back and did not immediately shear off, they would have been pulled into the building with the fuselage.

haha, ah well, i read the opening thread an mustve missed the part of how it was about that video. but still, how can people just flat out agree that a plane hit when there is no wreckage. well there were the little bits it showed, like the wheel and landing strut, but how is that all of a huge plane thats left. maybe if it was a missile it had parts of a plane attached to it or something.well its obviously been put in here again and again, but it just doesnt make sense, theres no effin way its a plane. ok im done. closing remarks, i just want the government to at least do a thorough investigation, and for the media to stop controling peoples minds.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

1. The majority of that mass was liquid (fuel) which burned up in the fire.
2. No doubt that we�ve all seen the photos of a major car vrs. tree auto accident where the car is not only totaled, but ripped open and barely recognizable as a car. Well if that is what happens to a steel car traveling around 100 mph when it hits a tree, what do you think would happen to an aluminum airplane wing traveling over 400 mph?
3. If the wings folded back and did not immediately shear off, they would have been pulled into the building with the fuselage.

1. Even if they were full of fuel, what happened to the aluminum? Even if it melted, there'd be pools of cooled aluminum. Don't forget that there was 10,000 lbs. of engine hanging on each wing, that didn't go through the walls on either side of the plane. I'd say that the majority was definitely not liquid at all. 2. And no matter how mangled a car looks, all the debris is still there, somewhere. 3. Wings can't fold back in a horizontal direction, period. They either fold vertically, or shear off. Either way, there would still be wing and tail debris outside the building. Once again, you fail to understand physics. I try so hard to make you understand, but you seem incapable. Do something for me....no really...do this for real. It'll help you understand. Find a piece of stiff cardboard. Cut off a long rectangular strip. Put the strip in your fist, with each end hanging out like wings. Now find something that only your hand will fit through, and try to punch the piece of cardboard through, holding it horizontally, as if it were wings of a plane. Now, watch how your wings are going to try to fold. They sure as hell aren't going to go back, no matter what you do. In fact, if you were to force them to go back at a high rate of speed, they'd tear right off. Now try the same thing with something even stronger, like a paint stiring stick. The horizontal strength of something so thin will probably amaze you. Now, as if that weren't enough, imagine a big, heavy 10,000 lb. engine on each wing. Where do you suppose they went? Inside the plane? Are you insinuating that those big, heavy engines went through the same hole (which wasn't even large enough for the hull to fit through), at the same time? Are you the one who said that this isn't the cartoons where planes leave plane shaped holes? Well, actually, they do, if the wings don't come off. In fact, you can see where the engines went through, too. The image above shows the shear strength of wings when impacted in a horizontal fashion. Did they fold? Nope! And you can bet that any part that didn't enter the tower fell to the ground or got stuck in the outer beams. This is the exact opposite type of collision, but look at the way the wings will not change their line of travel in a collision with a wall. They continue to travel in the same direction, as if they were still attached to the plane. The same thing should've happened at the Pentagon, except the wings would've stayed outside, no matter how many pieces they turned out to be in. www.sandia.gov... In a reversed situation, if the wings were to hit the wall, while the hull went through, the wings would indeed come right off. They'd probably explode into shrapnel, but they'd definitely remain on that side of the wall. One thing I'm not clear on, is it true that 757's can be flown remotely? Is this patented technology really installed on 757's, or not? Patent Let's all take one more look at the entry hole. Looks pretty small, doesn't it? [edit on 7-12-2004 by Damned]

In an open fire, with an abundance of oxygen, the aluminum would have oxidized to a powder. Consider the ground collision between two planes on tha Canary Islands in 1977. The planes were essentially intact before the fire not much left after the fire. another one that caught fire and burned. Remember that the above pictures of are of planes that were not destroyed in a high speed crash first, yet as you can see not much was left after they burned. I'm sure I can dig up a number of photos that show the aftermath of a high speed impact with the ground. The other thing is, if you notice that while the wings did not break through the exterior columns, there were a number of windows that were penetrated, so certainly parts of the wings would have entered the buildings at these points. The WTC photo is not really analogous, since the steel columns were nothing like the reinforced pentagon walls and columns. Also note that although the outer coverings of the columns, were cut, not all of the columns were cut through by the wings. They were bent and damaged, but not necessarily cut all the way through. Also, if you notice from the WTC photograph, many of the columns sheared off at the columns splice connections. [edit on 7-12-2004 by HowardRoark]

GROUP A Those who like the "rank" structure of society and the hierarchy principle usually feel very uncomfortable when hearing accusations of misconduct within positions of authority. They will rather "go down with the NAZI ship" so to speak than listen to, no less consider, such accusations. They will deny, counter argue till the end of time. GROUP B Others are undecided in this spiritual decision, and can go either way according to the evidence presented. GROUP C And ofcause there are those who are the direct opposite to the first group. They always think that ANY individual who holds a positions of power is corrupt by nature. Ofcause group B is the only one who is in touch with reality, lives with their heads OUT of the sand Group B, those who are looking for evidence to consider before making a judgement: buy � Painfull Questions (book) Painfull Deceptions (DVD) � 911 In Plane Site And there are others, but just from watching these two you will see very clearly what can happen when the mass media of USA goes from being owned by about 50 companies in 1983 to being owned by only about 5 companies in 2004. You will see very clearly why the article here on ATS does not hold water at all. It is very well to do all that work, and it looks very well researched, but unfortunately the researcher is not in the "middle group"... When you see 911 in plane site you'll know why. It's simply physically impossible, but you will never convince group A of this, nor will anybody else ever convince group C that the article here on ATS is true. So which group am I? Well, we would probably all have a different opinion on that and what does it matter. What matters is that those of YOU who are looking for hard evidence have a chance. We are in a lot of trouble and the future of America, indeed of the whole world, will be decided within the next few years. We need enough people with enough ice in their stomac to look at these horrific accusations and send a clear message to those misusing their powers, that it is not ok for a group of powerhungry men to mass murder their own citizens and other innocent people from all over the world in the name of total control. Be affraid of terror, give us your civil liberties, we won't misuse it. That's what Hitler said. Where is your line in the sand? Sincerly Cade

www.911review.org... sums up many many conspiracies about or related to 911 even some of possible things to come, check it out, good read. sorry if im putting something thats already been put up.

Originally posted by HowardRoark In an open fire, with an abundance of oxygen, the aluminum would have oxidized to a powder.

Did you see any of the carbonized aluminum outside the Pentagon? Wait, let me answer that for you, since I know the answer. No! Furthermore, the wings would only be subject to a flash fire, not a long term heated burning, such as those planes, which you're referring to, experienced.

The other thing is, if you notice that while the wings did not break through the exterior columns, there were a number of windows that were penetrated, so certainly parts of the wings would have entered the buildings at these points.

You can bet your @ss that any part of the wing that didn't penetrate, fell off outside the tower. It sure as hell won't change direction of travel at those speeds, no matter what it hits.

The WTC photo is not really analogous, since the steel columns were nothing like the reinforced pentagon walls and columns.

But I was trying to show you what happens to wings when they hit something in that fashion. If the towers were of the same construction, the wings would also shear off in the same way they should have at the Pentagon. It sounds like your wing argument is indeed weakening, to me. BTW, did you try the experiment yet? I want you to see, first hand, how wings can't fold in the direction you seem to think. They will definitely shear off, or explode into a bunch of pieces. Either way, the majority of the debris will remain outside the building. I'd love to believe it was a 757, but everything I know about physics screams that something is horribly wrong with the logic here, especially where the wings are concerned.

Originally posted by Damned Did you see any of the carbonized aluminum outside the Pentagon? Wait, let me answer that for you, since I know the answer. No!

Well, you got me on that one I will leave it to the future readers of this thread to try and figure out what �carbonized aluminum � is. I will leave you with one last question, Damned: If it wasn�t an American Airlines, 757, then what did all of those eye witnesses see?

Originally posted by HowardRoark I will leave you with one last question, Damned: If it wasn�t an American Airlines, 757, then what did all of those eye witnesses see?

I don't know, but anything can be painted like an AA jet. That's not even close to impossible, is it? But that's not the question that should be asked, IMO. You're only trying to distract people from the questions that should be answered first. Physics can't be speculated upon. That's why I'm sticking to the physics, and why they don't make any sense in this crash. If aluminum burns very hot, it carbonizes and turns into something like blackened sand. There was nothing like that outside the Pentagon on the nice green grass, and I've already explained to you (over and over) why the wings couldn't possibly have entered the building. Even if there was enough heat to melt aluminum in the initial flash fire (and there wasn't), it sure wasn't enough to carbonize aluminum. Flash fires can't even melt aluminum. It takes prolonged exposure to more severe heat to melt aluminum. Flash fires are not hot enough long enough. Those spools didn't even burn, if you recall from the pictures. Apparently, there wasn't much heat there. [edit on 9-12-2004 by Damned]

As I posted on the previous page, there are 3 groups of people in this thread and indeed in all of the world. This post is for mostly for group 2. This movie "911 In Plane Site" www.911inplanesite.com... can be bought here: www.thepowermall.com... Does this movie prove that no plane could ever have hit the pentagon? "Painful Deceptions" can be bought at the bottom of this page: www.erichufschmid.net... or downloaded for free here: question911.com... Does this movie show that the "plane wreck" that catherder has found is not consistant with a boing but is consistant with a special unmanned aircraft or a missile? "The Great Deception" www.viewerplus.com... "The Road To Tyranny" www.infowars.com... This one goes deeper, a lot deeper. What was shown on TV on the same day as the Oklahoma bombing, and what was changed in the following days. Was the FBI director taped giving the orders to bomb the building? Did the retired 43 year old Egyptian Army officer who they hired for the "sting operation" where he was supposed to give false explosives to a militant group planning to blow up the oklahoma building, a little too smart for the FBI when he recorded the big boss giving the goahead order? It also takes a scary look at the first bombing of WTC in 1993. This movie requires ice in your stomac, and perhaps a bottle of whiskey...ARE WE IN TROUBLE? Concerned Cade

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by HowardRoark If aluminum burns very hot, it carbonizes and turns into something like blackened sand.

Sigh, you should realize by now that you shouldn��t put too much faith in what passes for science on some of those wacked out web pages. There is no such thing as ��carbonized aluminum�� Now there is such a thing as carbonized aluminum silicate, which is just what you said it is, sand, coated with carbon. Now, the last time I looked at an airplane, it was made out of aluminum alloy metal, not sand. How do you get from aluminum alloy to aluminum silicate?

There was nothing like that outside the Pentagon on the nice green grass,

That is because it does not exist.

and I've already explained to you (over and over) why the wings couldn't possibly have entered the building.

Wrong. It is your theory that the wings could not have entered the building. You have not proven that they did not. In fact, your whole theory collapsed under the weight of your assumptions. You claim that ��I don't know, but anything can be painted like an AA jet.�� Which is true, but did they also paint on the wings? What about the windows and the faces inside, as well as creating some means of duplicating the effect of light passing though from one side of the plane to the other, were those ��painted on?�� Many witnesses specificly noted that it was a twin engine jet. Were those engines also painted on? If you claim that there were no wings, then how did the ��anything�� fly?

Even if there was enough heat to melt aluminum in the initial flash fire (and there wasn't), it sure wasn't enough to carbonize aluminum.

Aluminum melts at around 600�a C (1100�a F). As I have pointed out numerous times on other threads. These temperatures are well within the range of possibility, even in a typical office fire, let alone one fed by jet fuel. Furthermore, aluminum oxidizes. What happened to those aluminum beer cans I used to throw into campfires when I was younger? Did they turn into magic fairy dust and disappear?

Flash fires can't even melt aluminum. It takes prolonged exposure to more severe heat to melt aluminum. Flash fires are not hot enough long enough. Those spools didn't even burn, if you recall from the pictures. Apparently, there wasn't much heat there.

Flash fires? WTF are you smoking. The building burned dude! It burned for hours. (days actually, as there were a couple of pockets that flared up during the rescue recovery operations).

Originally posted by HowardRoark Sigh, you should realize by now that you shouldn��t put too much faith in what passes for science on some of those wacked out web pages. There is no such thing as ��carbonized aluminum��

Whatever. You know what I meant. Besides, that's not even an issue. There wasn't enough heat to burn aluminum, much less melt it outside. The fact still stands, there were no wings outside the building. The wings just magically disappeared, apparently. If you've ever burned aluminum until it's no longer liquid, you'd know what I mean.

Now there is such a thing as carbonized aluminum silicate, which is just what you said it is, sand, coated with carbon. Now, the last time I looked at an airplane, it was made out of aluminum alloy metal, not sand. How do you get from aluminum alloy to aluminum silicate?

That's about the most ignorant thing I've ever seen. Planes made of sand! Jesus f*cking christ, are you really that stupid? (Go ahead and give me a warning. It was worth it!) I doubt there's any reason to explain this to anyone but you.

Wrong. It is your theory that the wings could not have entered the building. You have not proven that they did not. In fact, your whole theory collapsed under the weight of your assumptions.

You haven't shown me how they could enter the building. I've shown you, many times now, that it would be impossible due to physics, and the lack of space.

Many witnesses specificly noted that it was a twin engine jet. Were those engines also painted on?

So, where did the other two engines go? They didn't go inside the building. The only one they found didn't come from the wings, we all know.

If you claim that there were no wings, then how did the ��anything�� fly?

I'm not sure it was a 757. That doesn't mean it didn't have wings. You must really have to try to be so ignorant.

Aluminum melts at around 600�a C (1100�a F). As I have pointed out numerous times on other threads. These temperatures are well within the range of possibility, even in a typical office fire, let alone one fed by jet fuel. Furthermore, aluminum oxidizes.

Have you ever seen melted aluminum? It turns into a shiny liquid, which doesn't disappear. You'd need much more heat than that to turn it into anything but liquid.

What happened to those aluminum beer cans I used to throw into campfires when I was younger? Did they turn into magic fairy dust and disappear?

Throw a 757 wing into the campfire and see what happens. You're talking apples and watermelons, comparing beer cans to jet wings.

Flash fires? WTF are you smoking. The building burned dude! It burned for hours. (days actually, as there were a couple of pockets that flared up during the rescue recovery operations).

As I said, there's no way the wings entered the building. The fire outside wasn't even hot enough to burn the spools. Nice try. You've said the wings disintigrated on impact before. You also say they were pulled into the building. Which one is it? Did they disintigrate on impact, leaving not a single trace outside the buiding, or did they go inside through a hole, barely even large enough for the hull to fit through, and burn? Exactly how are you saying this happened? Are you saying both wings just folded, as if they were hinged, tucked themselves into the cabin of the plane, and slipped neatly into the building, even though they each had 10,000 lb. engines on them? That has to be the weakest theory I've ever heard. It could only be conconcted by people who have absolutely no comprehension of physics and/or metal/alloy properties. Would you agree that, even if the wings could've folded, the engines would have slammed into the wall on both sides of the entry hole? Is that a logical assumption? Or do you suppose they saw the wall coming, so they decided to get out of the way before any contact could be made? Is that what happened?

Originally posted by Cade As I posted on the previous page, there are 3 groups of people in this thread and indeed in all of the world.

You're 100% correct. HowardRoark is definitely in group A. [edit on 9-12-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by HowardRoark Now there is such a thing as carbonized aluminum silicate, which is just what you said it is, sand, coated with carbon. Now, the last time I looked at an airplane, it was made out of aluminum alloy metal, not sand. How do you get from aluminum alloy to aluminum silicate?

That's about the most ignorant thing I've ever seen. Planes made of sand! Jesus f*cking christ, are you really that stupid? (Go ahead and give me a warning. It was worth it!) I doubt there's any reason to explain this to anyone but you.

Why don�t you take the time to read what I actually said. You claimed that the aluminum would have turned into something called �carbonized aluminum� I pointed out that there is no such thing as �carbonized aluminum.� The closest you get is �carbonized aluminum silicate� Which is NOT the same thing. What part of that don�t you understand? Sheesh. I feel like I am talking to a wall. [edit on 9-12-2004 by HowardRoark]

I'm still waiting for you all to answer about all the witnesses on the highway and nearby that WATCHED the AIRPLANE, hit the pentagon ? anyone... anyone...

Originally posted by elevatedone I'm still waiting for you all to answer about all the witnesses on the highway and nearby that WATCHED the AIRPLANE, hit the pentagon ? anyone... anyone...

They were government agents! Er, wait, no..... brainwashed! They were brainwashed! No, that doesn't make much sense either....uhhh..... QUICK LOOK OVER THERE!