911 FOX footage of the Pentagon.

[balantz]

At 2:30 you can see a line of people searching for the airplane :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ9rvfWxrSg&feature=channel_page

[LARED]

1. What's the point of you posting this video? nt

[CJCRANE]

2. Great footage. Interesting nt

[hack89]

3. Sounds and looks reasonable.

what's your point?

[balantz]

4. If the entire, huge airliner completely disappeared into the building

what are the people looking for in the unmarred grass? Arabic passports?

[hack89]

5. Since there are pictures of aircraft fragments outside the building

perhaps you are tilting at strawmen?

[balantz]

6. I must have missed the wings and tail-section. Do you have pics of them? n/t

[hack89]

7. You really think they would be intact?

I see your problem.

[whatchamacallit]

9. You really think there would be virtually no trace of them?

You've got a bigger problem.

[hack89]

11. Thin aluminum wings filled with jet fuel? What do you think created the fire ball?

and what created the 147 foot horizontal scar on the facade? Not a missile, Global Hawk or truck bomb for sure?


What do you think hit the pentagon?

[defendandprotect]

8. They don't seem to recall that it disappeared inside a 22X15 foot hole -- !!!!

Good video -- thanks!

Nice reminder of what actually went on that day --

MIHOP --

[SDuderstadt]

10. More of your bullshit, D&P...

You totally ignore the larger, rectangular hole below the smaller circular hole. Unfortunatel, this kind of dishonesty is par for the course in the ironically named ''truth movement''...

[Subdivisions]

24. Do you have a pic of that? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

25. Absolutely...

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/pentagon-hole-revealed-by-composite.html

Locate the photo of the Pentagon and click on it so the photo enlarges. Look about the middle of the photo and you'll see the semi-circular hole where the fuselage hit the Pentagon. Now, look right below that, just above the spools. Do you see that large rectangular hole where the 1st floor used to be? That's where the rest of the plane struck. You can confirm this by looking up the plane dimensions and looking at a silhouette view from the front. You'll find it matches up perfectly with the 757.

Ask yourself a very simple question. Why don't any of the CT sites show this picture? Hint: because it totally destroys the "no plane hit the Pentagon" claptrap.

[go west young man]

27. A few things don't seem to add up within the photo.

1) The tail height on a 757 is 44ft from top to bottom. The photo shows a maximium height of 25 feet (2 stories) from ground to top of impact point.
2) If plane was at ground height wouldn't it of knocked the spools either into the hole with it or knocked them up in the air with great force as the spools themselves are at least 5 feet high? One must take into account the fact that the tail is 44 feet high and the maximum height of impact is probably less than 25 feet.
3) If you took the largest spool and placed it horizontally as it is shown in the frame and give it a generous 10 ft hypothetical width and then you filled the horizontal bottom hole with ten foot spools you could only fit 10 spools maximum between the two last standing pillars at the far right and far left of the bottom rectangular hole. That would be a maximum 100 feet from pillar to pillar. Yet a 757 is 125 feet from wingtip to wingtip. How is that explained? try to fit the spools. It doesn't add up.
4)Finally the windows directly above tailsection impact point are unbroken as are many other windows? Why? The explosion was obviously a huge fireball yet it didn't blow out windows in its midst. Just curious if anyone wants to answer these questions.

[hack89]

28. So just what exactly is consistent with the damage seen? nt

[defendandprotect]

51. A Bunker Buster used inside the walls . . . and problably a mixed

assortment of explosives --

[SDuderstadt]

53. Jesus, D & P....

are you fucking serious? Again, I ask. Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it?

[hack89]

56. What exactly proves it was a bunker buster?

I don't see any small holes punched through a wall. I also don't see any debris from an explosion on the lawn - aren't explosives omni-directional?

[defendandprotect]

57. Why would you see "small holes punched thru a wall" . . . ???

Look up bunker buster -- it's a big ring they attach to the wall of whatever it is

they're trying to bust into -- with explosives, of course -- and it creates a large

round opening.

This would have been done from INSIDE . . .

Meanwhile re explosives, military personnel are familiar with the smell of them --

and it was mentioned that there was that smell present.

And, in fact, for a time they thought that they had simply exploded a truck outside

of the Pentagon ... yes, there was some outside evidence of fire/explosion . . .

but nothing like from a plane -- nor the debris from a plane.

Meanwhile, did a 44' high plane go thru a 20X15 foot hole?

And, btw, this isn't my theory -- though I think it's quite likely.

It comes from the community of people studying 9/11.

[hack89]

61. So you are talking about a shaped charge

got it - at least we have moved away from missiles.

Wouldn't a large shaped charged leave a large fan shaped debris field on the lawn? That's a large hole - should be a large amount of material blow out. I would love for you to point it out on a photograph as I seemed to have missed it.


The fuselage of a 757 is 13 feet in diameter - I don't see the problem. The horizontal damage on the facade from the wings was 120 feet wide - did the bunker buster do that?

[defendandprotect]

63. The hole was 20' X 15' . . . and pictures of the Bunker Buster were posted at DU . . .

as I recall --

There are some that are "nuke" -- there are some that work underground . . .

And, the one I've seen -- believe here at DU - was roughly a 20' X 15' large circle

that would be attached to a wall you wanted to "open."

Presumably that was the kind used at the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, this is merely an arc not a circle but gives the general idea ....

http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Bunker-Buster-Bomb-3f77.html

[hack89]

66. So where is the debris from the explosion?

a large violent directed explosion would leave a swath of debris extending well in front of it - where is this debris?

[defendandprotect]

69. You mean bunker buster debris in front of the Pentagon?

Well, first of all there is a woman who seems to have been sitting right
behind whatever went off. She's suing the Pentagon -- no alert had been
given despite the fact that Minetta makes clear in his testimony to
9/11 Panel -- see the video -- that Cheney was being regularly informed of
"incoming" to the Pentagon . . . 50 miles out . . . 30 miles out . . . 20 miles.

No alarms went off in Pentagon and evidently the anti-missile system was turned OFF.

Meanwhile, there would have just been an explosion . . . and whatever remained of the
BB would have just looked like part of the building.

However . . . . .

Looks like they exploded a truck or something out front to perhaps hide what
was going on.

[SDuderstadt]

70. There was NO FUCKING anti-missile system at...

the Pentagon! You just keep spreading the same bullshit over and over. For the life of me, I don't know why you would think there would be one when the Pentagon is located so closely to a fucking airport.

Again, I ask. Is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it? I sincerely beg you to quit emnbarrassing DU with your nonsense.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html

[hack89]

71. There was no anti-missile system

a truther myth that won't got away.

[defendandprotect]

72. Yeah . . . why would we protect our Pentagon . . .????

:evilgrin:

And why buy them a better camera?

Meanwhile, we have an anti-missile system on the White House --

And, the night before 9/11, Bush stayed at a hotel in Florida where they

installed an anti-missile system on the rooftop!!!

Wake up!

[hack89]

73. They have handheld Stinger missiles

it is not an anti-missile system my any stretch of the imagination. Useful only against small airplanes. And completely useless against a high speed airliner coming head on at high speed.

What military threat do you think the military felt they had to defend the Pentagon from? With the exception of ICBMs, any external threat would be detected and intercepted well before they reached our borders. Any missile system beyond a Stinger has an extensive foot print - missile launchers and radars being the biggest. There are plenty of pictures of the Pentagon pre-911 - it should not be hard for you to point out any evidence of an anti-missile system.


Here are some pictures of a DHL Airbus surviving and landing after being hit by a Stinger type missile.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/025_DHLBaghdad/story025.htm

[defendandprotect]

74. Let's see . . . what were the four drills they were running simultaneously that day about????

airliners running into buildings by any chance?

How about Northwoods . . . ???

No ... why would the Pentagon ever suspect it would be under attack!!

:evilgrin:

[hack89]

75. Look, there was no missile system

you have no evidence what's so ever. You cannot provide an iota of evidence that there was ever a missile system defending the Pentagon.

Missile system that are able to shoot down a 757 at high speed are large and can't be hidden. They need radars and big missile launchers with big missiles. Show me one at the Pentagon.

[defendandprotect]

76. Of course the Pentagon had an anti-missile system . . .but it was turned OFF . . .

Show me your evidence that they didn't have a system --

There was no 757 -- unless you're suggesting that like Shanksville it hit and

disappeared????

They need "radars," eh?

And, American Airlines moved itself out of the conspiracy by making clear that there

were no scheduled flights for their #99 and #11 on 9/11.

[hack89]

77. You are making the claim - you prove it.

I challenge to find a single reference to a missile system other than stingers at the Pentagon ever! A simple challenge you will fail.

[defendandprotect]

82. Pentagon is UNPROTECTED ....and in 8 years we haven't moved to provide protection????

Which one do you believe?

Do you think that the Pentagon would publish information on their security system ???

Or do you think that we're dumb enough not to provide a security system at the Pentagon???

Meanwhile, 8 years later . . . does the Pentagon realize the need for a system and to

have it turned ON--!!???

They also seem to have lost $2.3 TRILLION to $3.4 TRILLION . . .

and I think the records on misplacing those funds were in the ... eh . . .

let's see, could they have been in the part of the Pentagon which was damaged?

They also seem to have misplaced NORAD . . . or were they simply turned OFF????!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And by the way .... Stingers, Stingers, Whose Got the Stingers?

How to Protect Airliners from Missiles - TIME
... eventually have to follow the Pentagon's lead in installing jamming equipment ... Pentagon officials credit the Stinger with downing about 250 Soviet aircraft. ...www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,395514,00.html

Pentagon has lost track of exported missiles / Terrorists could use ...
... detailing the Pentagon's inability to account for all of its Stinger shoulder ... Even when the Pentagon can identify where its Stingers have gone, the GAO report ...sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/02/... - 78k - Cached

Stingers, Stingers, Who's Got the Stingers?
GlobalSecurity.org is the leading source for reliable news and security ... Meanwhile, the Pentagon approved the sale of Stingers to at least 21 countries, ...www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011002-attack03.htm - Cached

[SDuderstadt]

83. The Pentagon did not LOSE trillions of dollars, D&P...

as usual, this is just you taking disparate bits of information and drawing unwarranted conclusions from them.

http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

Again, I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't embrace it? I sincerely beg you to cease embarrassing DU with your nonsense.

[hack89]

85. Stingers are not wonder weapons

They are extremely short ranged and have tiny warheads. They would not have stopped a 757 at full speed - did you bother to look at the DHL clip? More to the point - there is no "system". They are hand held and manually aimed. There was no automated, 24 hr, all weather missile system at the Pentagon on 911. Any thing bigger than a Stinger cannot be hidden.

[defendandprotect]

89. The terrorists were inside the Pentagon --

Evidently, we couldn't even afford to have the ALARM system turned ON!!!

Lawsuit over that --

[SDuderstadt]

92. More of your bullshit, D&P...

Again I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it? I soncerely beg you to quit enbarrassing DU with your utter nonsense.

[defendandprotect]

91. And, presuming that you really believe what you're saying, do you think they made a mistake???

And would you now recommend that they just might begin to think about a

system???

And, how about those records re TRILLIONS MISSING which Pentagon can't account

for ... what's your guess on them being in the wing which was destroyed by the

Bunker Buster and explosions??



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

78. Please prove that the Pentagon had...

an "anti-missile system", otherwise this is just more of your bullshit, D&P.

Again, I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it? Similarly, I sincerely beg you to stop embarrassing DU with your bullshit.

[Realityhack]

88. Um... NO.

Show me your evidence that they didn't have a system

Take a critical thinking class. You claim they had a system. Your only 'evidence' is that you think it make sense. Of course there are lots of things that seem to make sense after the fact that are never implemented. And as people have pointed out this does not necessarily make an sense.
It is up to you to provide evidence suggesting that they had a system other than your personal opinion that 'oh gee they must have'.

There was no 757

There is a boatload of evidence that there was and no clear contradictory evidence. The only rational conclusion is that their was. Lared's rule applies.

American Airlines moved itself out of the conspiracy by making clear that there were no scheduled flights for their #99 and #11 on 9/11.

Please provide a link to where American Airlines claims they did not loose those two flights on 9-11. Please link to where American Airlines states that those flights did not take off.
You can't because you are lying.

[defendandprotect]

90. We also thought our skies were protected by NORAD . . . surprise!!!

NORAD is probably only a rumor.

As for the Pentagon, any argument that the Pentagon wasn't protected is inane.

They're in the business of protecting America . . . or, at least, used to be.

As for a "plane" .... the CNN reporter who was on the scene makes clear that

there was "NO PLANE." That reporter was very busy on camera explaining to us

that "NO PLANE" hit the Pentagon and it is clear from the outside of the Pentagon

that nothing hit it. Beyond, perhaps a truck they set on fire. And some fake

plane parts -- all of which could be hand-carried which we know because we saw

FBI people carrying them off immediately by hand -- sprinkled over the lawn.

And as for flights #11 and #99, no one is here to feed you information.

The info on that has been posted here numerous times - look it up yourself.

Ta-ta

[Realityhack]

95. "NORAD is probably only a rumor."

oh my. I think DP needs help that I am not licensed or qualified to provide.

[defendandprotect]

97. Well . . . at least on 9/11 NORAD was only a rumor . . .!!!

Wake up!

[SDuderstadt]

98. Okay...

my irony meter just short-circuited.

[snooper2]

84. I hear a rumor that Sarah Palin planted those

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

93. You obviously have your ear to the ground . . .

no doubt in some lavatory...

[snooper2]

96. If only I could be as wise as you

:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

29. Okay...

so, what's your alternative theory? Did you just expect AA 77 to punch a cartoon-like hole in the Pentagon?

[go west young man]

30. I'm not looking for alternate theorys.

I'm looking for answers to my simple questions. Do you have the answers to those simple questions or not? Let's remember your the one who posted this video link as evidence. Also I'm being generous with my spool width theory. I give you ten feet per spool but they actually look a maximum of 8 feet in width, probably 7 feet.

[SDuderstadt]

36. So what?

Do you have a picture of the spools before they were hit by the plane?

[go west young man]

39. Why did the spools shrink or expand in size since then?

[SDuderstadt]

40. Why don't you ask the spools?

I think your line of questioning is silly.

[go west young man]

41. I'm sure you do.

Have a great day SD!

[jberryhill]

31. The spools

I gather you haven't seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Can you please provide an explanation for the circular damage to the retaining wall and the generator at precisely the engine separation distance and elevation which would result in missing the spools?

Thanks.

[go west young man]

37. The video link you posted raises more questions instead of answers.

For instance: 1) At 4:07 in the case study video link the wings are extended at least 20 feet past the two standing pillars to the far left in the composite shot. Why are the pillars still there?

2) The left engine in the case study video is shown to hit just to the right of these two standing pillars. How do the pillars remain standing?

3)At 4:57 in the case study video the top of the tail which is in actuality 44ft high is shown in blue as doing minor damage to the 5th window on the 3rd floor. The pent-rico photo composite shows a tail section hole only reaching two stories high and the 5th window on the 3rd floor as being intact/unbroken. If the fuselage broke the cement below as shown in the video link and the tail reaches 44feet in height in actuality why does the video link show only two stories worth of damage while the composite photo also shows only two stories worth of damage. The top of the tail should of done serious damage at least up to the 3rd floor possibly the fourth. The window should definently be broken if you take the case study link seriously.
That video itself shows the tail going through that window. How is that possible if the window is undamaged?

4)At 4:06 in the case study video the right engine is hitting at the pillar to the far right in the composite shot. If the engine hits there how is that pillar still standing?

5) My simple math is still left unanswered here. The plane is 125 feet in width from wingtip to wingtip. Not 100 feet. The plane at its greatest height is 44 feet. Not 25 feet. The 5th window is unbroken.

6) Now at 1:32 of the Fox 5 video that started this thread there is a fire engine from the Fort Meyer Fire department facing horizontally across the damaged part of the Pentagon. If it's a 1996 E-One Engine its a maximum of 35 ft long. If it's a Pierce Dash it's a maximum of 47 feet long. Looking at that clip one can see that you could only fit two of either engine into the damaged space. I believe the engine is the smaller of the two which would give you a 70 ft width but lets be generous and say its a Pierce Dash and we still have only covered 94 feet. How does one acount for the extra 31 feet that would give us the width of a 757 on the damage at the Pentagon?

7) The spools are right beside and slightly below the hole the fuselage went through. The cement is shown to be broken so the fuselage must of hit the ground there but one horizontal spool in the composite photo is actually where the bottom of the fuselage supposedly went through. How is this spool in that space as that space had to have been occupied by the fuselage. The video link implies the spools went under the right wing between the engine and the fuselage. Yet one spool is definently horizontal below the hole in the composite shot.

7) Now I want to point out that all these questions I ask are derived from the "evidence" supplied by those I am debating here. Your own "evidence" seems to contradict itself. The most alarming and odd piece of data being that window I'll call "3/5". How does 3/5 stay intact?

By the way I'm not a no-planer. I'm a smaller planer.

[defendandprotect]

52. Bunker Buster . . . and probably other assorted explosives.

[vincent_vega_lives]

33. answers

1. The vertical stabilizer did not penetrate the facade. It most likely disintegrated on impact, like the wing tips.

2. Only the engines were at ground height. The right engine struck the generator trailer. The wings and fuselage would have cleared the spools.

3. I am not following you on the spools. I dont think the spools are that interesting.

4. The windows were armored glass designed to withstand blast and fragmentation. A "huge fireball" created by fuel is not a very high velocity detonation, and does not create a significant pressure wave.

[go west young man]

38. So by your standards,

that little window is tougher than the steel in the World Trade Center? The tail of that plane was not 10 ft high or 20 ft high or 35 ft high. It was 44 feet high. It should have destroyed the window. Why didn't it? Your best argument is the tail just disintegrated on impact? My friend the window should be gone. It's not. Check the video link with the composite photo evidence and they do not pan out. Your math is off on the hole width as well. You say it's a 100 ft hole. The plane is 125 from tip to tip. As far as high velocity goes the plane was supposedly moving between 300-500 miles per hole. This mass at that speed should have created enough force/energy to easily destroy that window. Or maybe Isaac Newton was an idiot. Finally your indestructable window theory as a whole doesn't hold a lot of water as there are many other windows blown out.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. You are confused

The window was not struck by the aircraft.

The "tail" of the aircraft is not "44 feet high". The tip of the vertical stabilizer is 44' off the ground when it is sitting on the ground. The vertical stabilizer is about half that.

The math is not off. The wing tips disintergrated ie did not penetrate the facade, hence the hole not being the full wingspan.

[William Seger]

42. It won't "add up" if you don't use the right numbers.

> "The tail height on a 757 is 44ft from top to bottom."

No, that's the height off the ground with the plane sitting on its landing gear.

> "The photo shows a maximium height of 25 feet (2 stories) from ground to top of impact point."

No, the Pentagon is 77 feet high with 5 floors above ground, so two would be about 30 feet. However, the tail apparently didn't penetrate the wall: It was shattered, but you can see damage it did to the face of the wall where it hit. The large center part of the hole was made by the fuselage, which was a 13-foot cylinder, and it was just high enough above the ground that the left engine hit right at the base of the wall.

> "If plane was at ground height wouldn't it of knocked the spools either into the hole with it or knocked them up in the air with great force as the spools themselves are at least 5 feet high?"

Not if it was hit by an engine and just knocked to the side, with the wing then passing over it. Place a silhouette of a 757 over the hole, banked a little to the left, with the left engine at the base of the wall.

> "If you took the largest spool and placed it horizontally as it is shown in the frame and give it a generous 10 ft hypothetical width and then you filled the horizontal bottom hole with ten foot spools you could only fit 10 spools maximum between the two last standing pillars at the far right and far left of the bottom rectangular hole. That would be a maximum 100 feet from pillar to pillar. Yet a 757 is 125 feet from wingtip to wingtip. How is that explained? try to fit the spools. It doesn't add up."

The total width of the entrance hole is a little less than the wingspan of 757, which simply indicates that the wingtips did not penetrate the wall, either: Like the tail, they were shattered but in several photos you can see the damage they did where they hit.

> "Finally the windows directly above tailsection impact point are unbroken as are many other windows? Why?"

Because they were 2-inch-thick blast-resistant windows.

[go west young man]

43. Link to a You tube video of a guy standing under a 757-200

next to landing gear. I put him at 6 feet tall max and he has his hand up. So I say that gives you about 8 feet for landing gear height. You still say that window is as high as 36 feet. I see a maximum of two stories destroyed in the Pentagon photos. On a good day that would still only give you 30 feet if each floor was 15 feet tall. That leaves seven feet for that tailfin to go right into window 3/5 that is "still untouched, unbroken and a lot more flimsy than the World Trade Center Towers." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcKpHR7sGOQ

Two story high hole=30 feet if building is 77 ft tall divided by 5 levels at 15 feet each.
Plane=44 ft 6 inches
Landing= gear 8 feet

Subtract landing gear from plane you have 36 and one half feet of plane in height. Six feet of tail should have gone through your "super duper blastproof windows" according to all the photo and video evidence supplied above by SD and others.

You also wrote (However, the tail apparently didn't penetrate the wall: It was shattered, but you can see damage it did to the face of the wall where it hit.) Where is this damage you write of? Is it the beneath the firefighter foam sprayed across the wall next to the unbroken windows?

[William Seger]

44. Somehow, I didn't think you were seriously looking for answers

> "Where is this damage you write of? Is it the beneath the firefighter foam sprayed across the wall next to the unbroken windows?"

No, it's to the left of the foam, next to the broken windows. Did it occur to you that perhaps you need to look at more than that one photo to see it?

[go west young man]

45. When you say to the left of the foam ....

are you referring to the unbroken window? This photo only proves my point. The windows where the tail should have impacted are intact. The fuselage hole is directly below the two unbroken windows. The second window to the left is the only broken window close to the tail impact point. You still have two mysteriously unbroken windows. Seriously. Here's a link to a more detailed look at "The Pentagon Problem". http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/pentagon-details.htm

[William Seger]

47. In other words

... you were "just asking questions" because you think you already know the answers? Cool. Wow, the damage isn't where you think it "should have" been... now that's really suspicious. But hey, they almost got that plane-shaped bomb right, huh. :eyes:

But, hang on, if the fuselage was plowing through that reinforced wall at an angle, are you sure the tail "should have" hit right in the middle of the hole where the nose hit? I seem to recall one witness mentioning that he saw the tail twist a bit to the side as it went in. I don't recall if he said which way -- maybe I can look it up -- but which side do you think it "should have" twisted to?

Speaking of witnesses, my parents have a neighbor who saw the plane hit as he was driving past the south parking lot on I395. He seems to have a somewhat different perspective on what your "Pentagon Problem" is.

[go west young man]

48. When you get tired of speculating on what I'm asking questions for

why don't you explain that unbroken window. It still doesn't fit your explanation.

[William Seger]

49. I already did

It would appear that the tail didn't hit that particular 2-inch-thick blast-resistant glass, but it apparently did hit the one to the left, since it IS broken. And the reason for that isn't all that difficult to guess, since the plane didn't hit the wall squarely. I also explained why the entrance hole was less than 100 feet wide, while the damage to the wall facing was about 140 feet -- the wing tips shattered without breaking through the wall -- but I see you keep trying to make that into an Unsolved Mystery, too.

You've bought a load of bullshit and now you want to open a franchise.

[go west young man]

50. You did see what the same size planes did to the World Trade Center I assume?

They sliced through the entire steel structure. So a 757-200 weighing 220,000 to 250,000 pounds impacting that wall less than 2 feet from that window or directly on that window, moving at a speed of between 300-500 mph could not break your 2 inch thick super duper indestructible window? Yet the same indestructible windows are broken all over the place. You do see your conundrum I hope? Nice personal insult by the way. Maybe we should open that franchise together.

[William Seger]

55. First, it wasn't the "same size plane"

An empty 757 weighs about 64 tons; an empty 767 weighs about 88 tons.

Second, there is a rather significant difference between a "757-200 weighing 220,000 to 250,000 pounds impacting that wall less than 2 feet from that window OR directly on that window," especially if we're talking about 2-inch-thick blast-resistant windows. Your question concerned your inability to see any damage done by the tail section, not by the whole plane, and it appears to have indeed broken several windows, as well as broken the limestone facing, above the main entry hole.

Third, the wingtips of the 767s that hit the WTC towers didn't break through those steel columns, either. Look at the NIST damage diagrams and you will see that, while the aluminum facade was damaged over the entire width of the wingspan, the columns were only broken in (roughly) the same percentage of the total wingspan as the Pentagon wall -- which just happens to be (roughly) that part of the wings that contained the fuel tanks.

You are struggling mightily to continue to be mystified, but there isn't any "conundrum" for anyone who understands that whether or not any particular steel column or reinforced masonry column or blast-resistant window broke is simply a question of whether or not the force that hit that particular element exceeded its strength. I suspect that you might display greater common sense about similar questions, if you weren't trying to rationalize your speculations about what happened. Unfortunately, scrutinizing those photos of the wall damage and attempting to find "anomalies" that you don't understand is just the beginning of your task. You have to explain why so many people are pretty damn sure they saw the plane hit the building, and why the AA77 FDR and CVR were found in the building, and why the DNA from the known passengers was also found in the building.

Seven-plus years on, the "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory is just as idiotic as the day someone first pulled it out of his ass. If you take personal offense at my saying that, I'd suggest you give up any personal attachment to it and find yourself a conspiracy theory that isn't batshit crazy.

[go west young man]

59. Do me a favor then. SD posted this composite photo above as

evidence. http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/pentagon-hole-revealed-by-composite.html Please explain how those other blast resistant windows that were not directly hit by a plane happened to be broken. One other thing. I posted above that I am not a "no planer". You missed that earlier and have assumed it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. I love that composite photo

Anyone who looks at that and still thinks no plane hit the Pentagon is crazy.



It clearly shows the wing damage.

[defendandprotect]

54. Wow. . . interesting to see how big the landing gear is . . .

and agree MIHOP --

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. that was just the hole for the fuselage

If you look beneath it there is ground floor level hole some 10'x100' made by the wings.

[LARED]

12. Actually what you see is a line of people looking

for something. The reporter states they are looking for evidence. In reality you have no clue what they are looking for?

[balantz]

14. Well, we know they weren't looking for another goofy looking cartoon plane

or they would have shown us that.

[SDuderstadt]

15. You know, when you can show that thousands or even hundreds of people have...

come forward and said, "Hey, I was a witness and the tower just blew up; there was no plane", maybe people here will stop laughing at you.

[LARED]

16. No planers

You guys must be for real, as none could even imagine something that goofy.

[wildbilln864]

13. Civilians searching for evidence?

Isn't that a job for the CSI guys.
hmmm. :hi:

[LARED]

17. Do you think the reporter is a no planer? nt

[defendandprotect]

18. In fact, FBI guys came and took the fake logo/plane parts which could be "hand-carried" . . .!!!

They took those off the lawn . . .

Your comment is interesting --

could it be that they were looking for human remains?

I mean what else would be such an emergency to get civilians out there?

[SDuderstadt]

19. How do you know they are "civilians"?

n/t

[hack89]

20. Why not?

Doesn't take a lot of training to walk in a straight line and look down at the ground. When you find something you give a yell and an expert comes over to take a look.

300 "civilian" volunteers searched the Shanksville site

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010930search0930p3.asp

[Xenotime]

35. Exactly.

[CJCRANE]

21. Why can't OCTers admit

that it's strange that there is no sign of the wings, tail and fuselage of all four planes?

I found this video fascinating. I'm not a no-planer but there are so many things that don't add up, I don't know what to make of it.
I guess that makes me a "9/11 agnostic".

[LARED]

22. Why would anyone admit to believing something established as BS?

BTW, some large pieces of fuselage were at the WTC.

[CJCRANE]

23. I haven't admitted to believing in no-planes...

There's enough evidence for LIHOP/MIHOP in the public domain without CD or no-planes.

When it comes to CD or no-planes I have to admit it's unlikely (and doesn't fit in to my view of things)...but I can't really explain some of the evidence (or lack of it).

[LARED]

26. I don't beleive I accused you of being a no-planer - nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

34. No sign

There is "sign", that one would expect of an aicraft that struck buildings at 500 kts, burn and have the building collapse on it.

[whatchamacallit]

46. One did once

One of the brighter OCTers, sort of, admitted it. I asked: If the attacks had never happened, and someone showed you this picture (pentagon lawn and hole), would you say "Ah, this was obviously caused by a fully load 757"? In a stunning moment of candor he said "no". I'm sure he still believes the OCT, but I found the answer refreshing compared to the normal reflexive wagon-circling.

[Realityhack]

86. I would agree with that.

But you are using it as evidence of something it does not support.
Shown that image with no prior knowledge and having never seen what a building looks like when a plane slams into it I would say there was likely an explosion and fire.
But if you then said it was caused by an aircraft hitting the building and showed me the evidence we have I would agree that it fits the evidence.

[Realityhack]

87. No sign? Actually there are pieces of them visible in the images.

Several parts were recovered. And videos have been posted here repeatedly of rocket sled tests showing exactly why you would NOT expect to find the tail snapped off and laying on the ground somewhere when the impacts are at this speed much less the wings and fuselage.
Frankly you are factually incorrect regarding wither their is any 'sign' of these aircraft parts.

[defendandprotect]

94. It's like the Vatican having to fight birth control no matter how insane . . .

once they lose the birth control argument, they've also lost the abortion argument.

And, then -- poof! -- organized patriarchal religion will have lost its control over

female reproduction.

[Nathan_Hale]

58. The question is, what kind of plane was it?

The problem with a 757 is basic aerodynamics. To put it simply, you can't fly a 757 at 500 knots only 10 feet, level above the ground. This plane's wing surface area is too large-the wings are body are compressing/pushing too much air. Sure you can take it in nose down at that speed but not level. If the OCT version were true, then planes wouldn't fly. It is exactly this characteristic that allows a body to "plane" through the medium (air). So it must have been a smaller craft.

One thing that struck me about 9/11 is that all the scenarios (planes into buildings, decoy planes, etc.) can be found in 3 or 4 of Tom Clancy's books from 1985-2000. Rather strange I think.

[LARED]

60. A better question is

can a 757 crash at 500 knots only 10 feet off the ground?

[Nathan_Hale]

62. How to crash a plane.....

No...not if you accept that the plane took down the light poles out at the highway, then you must accept that it was flying level for several hundred yards and it wouldn't have bored through rings E, D & C.

[hack89]

67. 500 mph equals 200 yards per second

I don't think that flying level for an entire second is an aerodynamic impossibility at that altitude.

on edit: And those light poles were higher than 10 feet weren't they? So perhaps it was actually in a shallow dive instead?

[Nathan_Hale]

79. It really doesn't matter if.....

the light poles are 10 feet or 30, as soon as a plane of this size flying at that speed got that close to the ground, it would have been immediately unstable - the powerful vortexes around the wingtips would have IMMEDIATELY rolled, pitched and yawed the plane (regardless of the pilot), it would have caught a wing and tumbled as a big mess into the pentagon wall and wouldn't have penetrated at all. If the plane had been higher, say 100-150 feet this speed might have been possible but then it wouldn't have come in level.

The penetration of the three pentagon rings is also strange. Many people think of the plane as a bullet but in reality the nose is for all practical purposes empty-the nose cone is just a carbon fiber cap with no mass. So, one is left with a 'can' with the end missing and it doesn't have the structural integrity and strength to punch through hardened walls. If it had been a 757 or 767 for that matter, the engines are by far the densest, hardest parts of the plane with the highest mass & force at that speed-they would have punched through the walls but we don't see those holes.

It's not exactly the same but google the video of the F-4 disintegrating against the cement block.

[hack89]

81. So how is this possible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Rloe5J7RM

As to penetration, I think you have overlooked the cabin floor - it is a critical strength member that ties together the wing center box. It is made from high strength aluminum alloys and certainly has the structural integrity and strength to punch through walls. The wing center box is equally massive and strong enough to punch through the walls - hence the square opening in the Pentagon that corresponds well to the distance between the engines.

[Nathan_Hale]

99. How fast...

do you think this KC10 is flying?

[Nathan_Hale]

100. Navy Man....

so how fast do you think the Kc135 is flying in your video? This is important.

[hack89]

102. 400 - 450 knots. nt

[Nathan_Hale]

105. Uhh....no...

he's doing well under 200 knots. What you are seeing in that video is a simulated aborted landing, a practical exercise every pilot must master. But, back to the point..watch the video again, watch how, even at that low (relative) speed, his right wing dips. That might not seem like much but I guarantee you that pilot was sweating.

No, a plane this size, with that wingspan and surface area (you chose a close similar to the 757) could not dive and level out at 10-30 feet above the ground and still maintain level flight without making himself into a fireball.

Ain't gonna happen. You might see somebody try and demonstrate via simulator that it's possible but then it's a poor piece of software,

[hack89]

108. And it is routinely done over desert, scrub and army vehicles?

sure. Look at 4 seconds into video where the plane flies over a group of vehicles - the shadow is right on top of them.

Here is your real problem in regards to the Pentagon - people saw the airplane hit the Pentagon. It flew over a crowded freeway. Nothing personal but I take the word of the eyewitnesses.

This is one of the issues that really drives home just how divorced from reality many truthers are. They honestly believe that some google engineering somehow invalidates something hundreds of people saw with their own eyes.

[Nathan_Hale]

109. No, they don't do this routinely....

over desert, scrub and vehicles. One reason is that flying so close to the ground, any surface unevenness is going to present a different drag flow on different areas of the wings-not a good idea. This terrain may account for his control problem with his right wing.

But speed does matter. Yes, big jets can fly low (and slow) above the ground but not at 300+ knots like the object that hit the pentagon.

As for the witnesses, well you know what they say about witness reliability. Good witnesses (like police officers) have to be trained. Remember when hundreds of people, live, thought David Copperfield really did make the statue of liberty disappear? But it didn't really disappear, did it?

Besides, 300+ knots is soooooo fast, anyone with a close enough perspective to 'ID' (some people said they saw passenger's faces in the windows) something, they would have broken their neck turning their head to follow the object.

I have a problem in that the data from the flight recorder (besides the speed) also indicates the plane was at least 100 feet above the pentagon, which lies under one of the Reagan National approaches anyway so I suspect some incoming flight was just a decoy..

[hack89]

113. No ... it is not hard at all to track and identify a low flying aircraft

any air show demonstrates that. So what did they see? Do you have any witnesses that say that this "decoy" overflew the Pentagon?

No - you can handwave away the eyewitnesses but you know very well that without eyewitnesses that saw something radically different your CT is screwed.
So the fake flight recorder from a fake flight has fake information that disproves the plot? Is that what you are saying? Really?

[Nathan_Hale]

116. Well for instance....

a p51 mustang can't hit 300 knots until 15,000 feet. Look it up. You are not watching 300+ knots at an air show. Besides, it's a poor comparison. Air shows are set up for maximum visibility and you are watching the plane in its loop, its approach, you are anticipating. How far can you see right or left from your car on the highway? Not very far generally.

Here's a little demonstration. Stand in front of someone about a foot apart and hold a pen vertically in your hand. Have the other person place their hand about 6-12 inches below yours. Tell them to catch the pen when you let it fall. Now, on the first attempt, let the pen slip through your fingers without any motion. They'll never catch the pen. Well, maybe a carrier pilot could but I digress. Now, on the second attempt let the pen fall by suddenly and fully opening your hand. They'll catch the pen every time. That's the difference between what people saw that day and your air show.

The data released from the NTSB indicated a plane that was too high to have hit the pentagon.

[hack89]

120. Blue Angels, F-15, AV-8B?

Saw all three do low altitude, high speed (500 knots +) passes at the last air show I went to - no problem at all detecting and following them. And what about all those that were a mile or so away - large field of view and plenty of time to see the plane.

Again - what did all those people see? They definitely saw a large plane. And no one saw a missile. No one saw a plane fly over the Pentagon.

Care to show me the NTSB report?

[Nathan_Hale]

101. What square opening?

We're talking about the 9' ROUND exit hole in Ring C. Besides, the floor provide latitudinal stablility, not longitutidal(the direct of motion & force in this case)strength.

[hack89]

103. The hole the plane made when it crashed into the Pentagon

the C ring hole was most likely caused by a big piece of debris - engine or landing gear is possible but it could have been a chunk of the building.

What do you think caused it?

[Nathan_Hale]

106. Well....

You seem to buy the official explanation so I am asking you, how would a piece of debris cause a circular hole?

Don't bug out on me now, Navy.

[hack89]

107. Have you ever watched a wrecking ball and a brick wall?

It doesn't punch out cartoon silhouettes - rather a four foot wrecking ball knocks out 10 foot circular holes. It has everything to do how the wall first tries to absorb the impact before it fails.

Besides, what else can it be? Way to big for a missile warhead. No need to blow a hole in that particular interior wall - especially since it is so obviously fake (why is it that they released so few pictures and then released only the ones that gave away the plot?).

Tell - I give up. You give me reasonable alternative. Perhaps I simply lack the imagination to see what is right in front of my eyes and need your expert guidance to see the light. So what caused that hole?

[Nathan_Hale]

110. You're right...

wrecking balls will make a fairly round hole except on the edges where the brick masonry (we see brick masonry in the exit hole) will break away along the mortar. Well, we didn't have a wrecking ball here and I would simply love to see the exit hole in E Ring, both holes of D ring and the entrance hole of the c ring.

But, it's preposterous to contend that an aluminum 757 had enough structural integrity after crashing through 5 walls, of which at least the first was blast-hardened, to punch this hole. After all, we didn't see fuselage 'bullets' emerging out of the relatively empty WTC towers did we?

What bothers me is the smooth right edge of the hole where the brick are simply sliced through. The only thing I have ever seen that comes close to doing is the plasma of a shaped charge. I've seen round holes in Humvees in Irag big enough to put your fist through the four inches of steel composite armor, all created by three anti-tank mines and a coiled cone of household copper wire.

[vincent_vega_lives]

112. The entrance hole

was squared off due to the facade construction. It failed at the joints.

But, it's preposterous to contend that an aluminum 757 had enough structural integrity after crashing through 5 walls, of which at least the first was blast-hardened, to punch this hole.

Are you deliberately playing ignorant? There are five elements of a 757 that had enough structural integrity and more importantly MASS to punch such a hole. Two Engines and three landing gear assemblies. One engine struck a structural I beam directly inside the building and came to a rest after disassociating itself. The other punched further thru the building.

After all, we didn't see fuselage 'bullets' emerging out of the relatively empty WTC towers did we?

Actually we did have pieces punch thru the building. There are pics of engine parts on the city streets of Manhattan.

[Nathan_Hale]

115. I don't deny...

the mass of those objects. Regardless, such an object is not going to shear masonry as you can see in the right edge of the hole.

[hack89]

114. Do you know how small a shaped charged jet is?

the normal ratio is 1 to 10. In other words a 10 inch warhead burns a 1 inch hole. That's the entire principal behind them - they focus the explosive energy into a narrow jet. Are you arguing for a 90 foot warhead?

And what was this shaped charge on? A missile? Check the diameter of a typical cruise missile and get back to me.

Why couldn't the forward landing gear assembly make the hole - it is a very massive, solid chunk of steel weighing over a thousand pounds.

[Nathan_Hale]

117. Go ahead and...

explain the sheared masonry. It has the characteristics of a shaped charge.

Hell, I don't know how it was done.

We didn't know anything about neutron bombs until nearly 20 years after they were practically theorized and 15 years after they were tested did we?

To say it had to happen with the current technology you and I KNOW of is a copout.

My uncle was a laser scientist at Mac in St. Louis after retiring from the Air Force. I remember watching TV with in '82 or '83 and Reagan was on talking for the first time publicly about the Star Wars program. Uncle Jack just chuckled and said, "We've been doing this for 10 years." That was all we ever got out of him.

It really is as stupid as Rumsfeld said, we don't know what we don't know.

[hack89]

121. There is no sheared masonary. There are aircraft part though.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

[Nathan_Hale]

132. Didn't you say...

It was the nose landing gear? Where is it?

[hack89]

140. No - I asked what reason there was for you

to eliminate it as a cause. I also presented several other potential heavy objects including parts of the building if you recall

[Nathan_Hale]

118. And your 10 to 1 ratio is not correct....

..otherwise the German Panzerfaust wouldn't have stopped tanks after making a .75" hole would they?

I can tell you that a 4" wide copper coil will produce a 4" wide plasma slug.

[hack89]

119. A RPG makes a .70 " hole

you need to read up on how shape charges work.

[Nathan_Hale]

125. It doesn't have to be like that.....

The smallest German Panzerfaust, using shaped charge technology, was the 10 cm diameter warhead and it made a 14 cm hole!!! The Panzerfaust 150 m, with a warhead of only 10.4 cm produced a hole 28-32 cm diameter!! That's a ration of 1 to 3! That's why it stopped tanks. The point is, you can "shape" the charge - you can make funnel to a point, you can make it a stable diameter or you can make it expansive like the Panzerfaust.

When I look at the hole of the pentagon, I imagine you could line the fuselage of a small, very fast plane with a thick copper sleeve, and with enough speed, you could could create the plasma slug because you had a very hard outer wall for impact. A soft wall would not allow for the rapid compression of the copper to produce the plasma. In essense, you could turn a small jet into a Panzerfaust warhead. If this were true, it makes sense that the airborne vehicle had to circle around because it had to hit the hardened wall.

This is why it would be important to see all the holes, to see if there is a consistent diameter or perhaps expansion or dissipation or something else.

[vincent_vega_lives]

128. Nooooooooooo

The Panzerfaust does not make a hole 140mm in diameter!!! it penetrates 140mm of armor!!!

Later versions penetrated 200mm of armor.

PLEASE stop.

[Nathan_Hale]

131. "Shaped charge for large diameter perforations"

the right idea but a bad translation of a now non-applicable reference.

So....lessee....shaped charges create large bore hole. What's that you say? Shaped charges are used in the oil industry? Like Halliburton maybe? Say it ain't so Joe!

Well, tis so Joe.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6305289.html


"Abstract
A shaped charge for generating a large hole in material such as well casing downhole in a wellbore. A shaped charge liner is oriented about a longitudinal axis, and a disk is positioned at the liner apex. When an explosive material is initiated the liner collapses into a perforating jet."

It doesn't matter if you call it a shaped charge of and EFP or anything else. It works and it makes big holes in solid rock. Imagine what it does to buildings..

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090050321

Patent title: Oil well perforators

http://www.stormingmedia.us/99/9954/A995414.html

"Design of Largest Shaped Charge: Generation of Very Large Diameter, Deep Holes in Rock and Concrete Structures" (Sandia Labs).

We ain't talking about RPGs here anymore.

[vincent_vega_lives]

135. It makes small holes

ITs the nature of shaped charges. sorry if you don't get it.

[SDuderstadt]

136. LARED'S RULE

n/t

[Nathan_Hale]

137. Hey, it's you fellows who say....

the round exit hole was caused by the nose landing gear....where is it? Can you show anyone a single photo that shows the nose landing gear that cause the hole? If this were true, we would expect it to behave like a wrecking ball, wouldn't we? Wrecking balls don't go through walls, they transfer their energy into the wall to burst it. So, we should see the landing gear lying in this hole. Where is it? Where is it?


http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6758143.html
Warhead configuration
United States Patent 6758143

Abstract:
A warhead configuration for forming a large-diameter hole through a wall of a target includes a shaped charge of explosive material presenting an annular front surface portion circumscribing an axis of the charge. The annular front surface portion exhibits a concave profile as viewed in cross-section through the axis, at least part of the concave profile being configured such that a vector projecting outward from the part normal to the annular front surface portion diverges from the axis. A liner is provided adjacent to at least part of the annular front surface portion.

[SDuderstadt]

139. Dude, you're a "no-planer"...

some theories are so fucking goofy, they don't need to be countered.

[vincent_vega_lives]

129. Uggggh

Yes they would when plasma and spall enters the fighting compartment of an armored vehicle at supersonic velocity. The diameter of the hole matters little.

[vincent_vega_lives]

122. What you are tallking about is EFP

Explosively Formed Projectiles and not shaped charges.

an 85mm shaped charge warhead will make a hole less than an inch in diameter. Its the jet and spall entering the interior at high velocity that does the damage.

An EFP doesnt use and explosive jet to penetrate the armor, it uses kinetic energy thru a metal slug, like a common AP round.

[Nathan_Hale]

126. What shape would you like?

The smallest German Panzerfaust, using shaped charge technology, was the 10 cm diameter warhead and it made a 14 cm hole!!! The Panzerfaust 150 m, with a warhead of only 10.4 cm produced a hole 28-32 cm diameter!! That's a ration of 1 to 3! That's why it stopped tanks. The point is, you can "shape" the charge - you can make funnel to a point or you can make it expansive.

When I look at the hole of the pentagon, I imagine you could line the fuselage of a small, very fast plane with a thick copper sleeve, and with enough speed, you could could create the plasma slug because you had a very hard outer wall for impact. A soft wall would not allow for the rapid compression of the copper to produce the plasma. In essense, you could turn a small jet into a Panzerfaust warhead. If this were true, it makes sense that the airborne vehicle had to circle around because it had to hit the hardened wall.

This is why it would be important to see all the holes, to see if there is a consistent diameter or perhaps expansion or dissipation or something else.

[vincent_vega_lives]

127. completely Wrong

where are you getting your info. The Panzerfaust absolutely did NOT create a 14cm hole in armor. It penetrates 200mm of Armor!!

The hole it creates is very small. You have no idea how HEAT warheads work.

Here is an 85mm RPG strike on an M48 tank in Vietnam:




Here are two 85mm RPG hits on the front slope of an M48

[Nathan_Hale]

130. Yes....you are right!! I had

the right idea but a bad translation of a now non-applicable reference.

So....lessee....shaped charges create large bore hole. What's that you say? Shaped charges are used in the oil industry? Like Halliburton maybe? Say it ain't so Joe!

Well, tis so Joe.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6305289.html

"Shaped charge for large diameter perforations"

"Abstract
A shaped charge for generating a large hole in material such as well casing downhole in a wellbore. A shaped charge liner is oriented about a longitudinal axis, and a disk is positioned at the liner apex. When an explosive material is initiated the liner collapses into a perforating jet."

It doesn't matter if you call it a shaped charge of and EFP or anything else. It works and it makes big holes in solid rock. Imagine what it does to buildings..

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090050321

Patent title: Oil well perforators

http://www.stormingmedia.us/99/9954/A995414.html

"Design of Largest Shaped Charge: Generation of Very Large Diameter, Deep Holes in Rock and Concrete Structures" (Sandia Labs).

We ain't talking about RPGs here anymore.

[vincent_vega_lives]

134. I give up...good luck to ya. (n/t)

[Nathan_Hale]

138. Aww, c'mon, don't give up, just show me!

It's you fellows who say....the round exit hole was caused by the nose landing gear....where is it? Can you show anyone a single photo that shows the nose landing gear that caused the hole? If this were true, we would expect it to behave like a wrecking ball, wouldn't we? Wrecking balls don't go through walls, they transfer their energy into the wall to burst it. So, we should see the landing gear lying in this hole. Where is it?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6758143.html
Warhead configuration
United States Patent 6758143

Abstract:
A warhead configuration for forming a large-diameter hole through a wall of a target includes a shaped charge of explosive material presenting an annular front surface portion circumscribing an axis of the charge. The annular front surface portion exhibits a concave profile as viewed in cross-section through the axis, at least part of the concave profile being configured such that a vector projecting outward from the part normal to the annular front surface portion diverges from the axis. A liner is provided adjacent to at least part of the annular front surface portion.

[hack89]

141. So expain to me why

they would want to blast a suspicious hole in an interior wall?

[SDuderstadt]

133. Vinny...

I love you man but, with all due respect, you seem to be trying to reason with someone who appears to be a "no-planer". It's time to invoke "Lared's Rule" and conserve precious time AND brain cells. Some theories are just too fucking goofy to even deal with.

[vincent_vega_lives]

104. Nose knows

the nose cone is just a carbon fiber cap with no mass.

not the nose cone, the nose gear assembly.

it would have been immediately unstable - the powerful vortexes around the wingtips would have IMMEDIATELY rolled, pitched and yawed the plane

Not true. Wing tips would have been 15-20' off the ground to allow for engine ground clearance. vorticies would not be large enough to effect stability.

[Nathan_Hale]

111. Well, there's no nose

assembly in the pictures...is there? And it's not going to cleave the masonry as we see on the right edge of the hole.

Watch Hack89’s video of the KC135 at SLOW speed almost lose control on such a maneuver http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Rloe5J7RM

[LARED]

68. Just out of curiosity

You know this how, if it was flying level?

then you must accept that it was flying level for several hundred yards and it wouldn't have bored through rings E, D & C.

[Nathan_Hale]

80. My mistake....

I meant to say 'since it bored through rings E, D & C.'

The altitude difference between the light poles and the exit hole in Ring C is only a few feet difference over nearly a quarter mile, i.e. level for practical purposes.

[chrisa]

124. If you look at the stills,

The plane actually crashes into the ground long before it hits the Pentagon. It does a bounce up, before hitting at the base of the Pentagon. Even if the building wasn't there, it would have probably crashed at that instant anyways.

Just as impossible as it is to hover a 757 so low to the ground, it's even more impossible to do so with a missile. Looking at the stills, what hit the pentagon does not "swoop" in or glide in like a missile would. It's at ground level, going extremely fast, and hits at ground level soon after.

[chrisa]

123. It is impossible that it was anything other than an airplane.

Missiles cannot hit at that arc. If it was a missile, it would have hit the top of the Pentagon, exploding downward. Missiles also don't bounce off of the ground.

There are such falsehoods perpetuated about the Pentagon crash. For example:

"@ 2.56 civillians , (not CSI) removing crime scene evidence . (of missile and drone ) .
No dead bodies , luggage ,seats, engines , plane bits
ABSOLUTLY no sign of a large passenger filled jet what so ever." (You Tube Comment)

It was an American airlines flight. What do CTers suppose? The flight landed safely somewhere else, and the passengers' memories were erased? Were they paid off? Did it never exist in the first place? Well, in this case, you would need to get American Airlines on board with the conspiracy in order to 'cook' their flight records. Employees on duty that day would need to also be in on it, along with those who actually flew the plane.

Plane wreckage was found. An engine has smashed through the Pentagon, creating the infamous "missile hole" that CTers are so eager about. Also, look at any wreckage of any plane that crashed at full speed into something. There's very little left. The plane is going so fast, combined with jet fuel, that it acts like a gigantic missile. There were also shiny pieces of plane everywhere, along severly destroyed pieces of luggage.

----------------------------------

What happens when a plane crashes into a solid wall:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/fighter_impact2.wmv

(Ignore the source it's from, but the video was not created by that site).

---------------------------------

Unfortunately, part of the problem is that the Pentagon is often shown out of proportion. The building is what? 5 or 6 floors? When shown from a distance, the impact actually looks smaller than it was, when in reality, the hole created from the crash was actually pretty wide.

Also, how about the launchers of the missile? Nobody came forward? How could thousands of people be in on the conspiracy, with nobody saying anything?

[Name removed]

142. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.