So who can answer my question? What part of the plane punched a hole thru the far wall

[lovepg]

On the third ring of the pentagon?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Read Firefight by Creed and Newman. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

3. I may have to read this my self...thanks Bolo

Facinating stuff

It took only eight-tenths of a second for American Airlines Flight 77 to strike the outer wall of the Pentagon, penetrate the concentric E, D and C Rings, collapse upon itself like an accordion and ignite chaos. The jet spewed thousands of gallons of fuel through hallways, offices and meeting rooms inside the nation's premier defense installation -- into every place that airborne mist could go on the wings of an enormous shock wave. A series of explosions sent an ominous mushroom-shaped cloud into the air.


The aircraft had punched a hole 90 feet wide at the entry point, then compressed into a bullet-like shape and burrowed 310 feet, or about twice its length, into the building. Its speed decelerated from 530 miles an hour to zero in less than a second. The bodies of the five hijackers were found about 100 feet from the point of impact; most of the bodies of the 59 passengers and crew, who had been herded to the rear of the plane, carried farther into the building.

"The plane crossed Washington Boulevard, . . . traveling more than 500 miles per hour and was less than 30 feet off the ground."

- "the planes wings knocked over several light poles that line the road."

- "As the Flight 77 flew nearly to ground level, its right wing sliced into a 750 kilowatt generator . . . The plane's right engine ripped a hole in a fence near the generator . . . the left engine grazed the grass . . . Both wings began to break apart, hurling metal fragments into the air."

- "The nose of the plane hit the facade, . . . about 14 feet above the ground, going 530 miles per hour."

- "The airplane's tail, 45 feet tall, was still attached to the plane as it plowed into the Pentagon."

- "Along the outer wall, 21-inch-wide concrete columns, . . . stood every ten feet, . . . The impact of the plane knocked out eight of them completely, and severely damaged two others."

- "The body of the hijacker who had been flying the plane ended up in the D Ring about 107 feet from the point of impact."

- "The punch-out hole . . . was created by explosive energy".

[whatchamacallit]

11. Yeah, thank goodness people keep producing these works of fiction for you to cling to

the explosive energy of a bullshit bomb.

[SDuderstadt]

12. I'm willing to bet that you know nothing about the book yet...

despite that, you already "know" it's bullshit, right? Tell me something, how does one become knowlegeable without an open mind?

[vincent_vega_lives]

2. I guarantee you

people who were there that day could.

Effort = results. Unless of course you are content to sit on your ass and ask questions on a message board.

[hack89]

4. What else could it be but an airplane part or a big chunk of debris?

show us some real evidence of what you think it was. At some point the Truth community has to stop "just asking questions" and start providing some real answers of their own.

[LARED]

5. What difference does it make what part(s) of the plane or building

made the hole?

[rollingrock]

6. Pretty neat trick

for something that was supposedly consumed/disintegrated in a massive fireball explosion, 300 feet away.

Maybe it was the plane's ghost?

[Realityhack]

9. I am going to make an educated guess here...

and say that you can not quote any official source saying that the plane was consumed in that explosion.

[rollingrock]

10. Yes

because official sources always tell the truth.

and we should always rely on the government to tell us what to think.

[Realityhack]

13. You said it was supposedly

"supposedly consumed/disintegrated" in the fireball.
Supposedly according to who?
Your straw man? An official source? One of the posters here?

I am guessing it is your straw man.

[SDuderstadt]

14. I would guess RR's source to be:

I also predict we'll hear nothing definitive from him as he hopes we'll stop asking him questions as his goofy claim dies a quiet death - kinda like the "truth movement".

[rollingrock]

15. If the plane did not disintegrate

then what happened to it?

was it taken away by the tooth fairy?

[Realityhack]

18. Queston dodging. Your doing it. n/t

[rollingrock]

20. No, you are. n/t

[Realityhack]

109. See #17

Then name your source for your explosion claim.

[rollingrock]

16. Whenever you ask an OCTer

what happened to the airplane, the standard reply is usually 'it disintegrated upon impact.'

[Realityhack]

17. Desintegrating on impact...

is different than disintegrating in the fuel explosion.
You need to be precise.

Furthermore you seem to be operating under the assumption that if it disintegrated it would suddenly stop moving. This is of course quite silly. You can look at the building performance report and easily see how much it took to stop the aircraft.

[Realityhack]

19. I should add...

disintegrating on impact is VERY VERY far from being "consumed" in the explosion.

[rollingrock]

21. So now you're admitting it disintegrated

when just moments ago you said it was a strawman for me to say 'it supposedly disintegrated.'

Yeesh. Can you people ever make up your mind?

[Realityhack]

110. For fucks sake... read the post. before responding.

I said your statement was a straw man.
It still is.
Yes the plane disintegrated, but it most certainly was not 'consumed' and it disintegrated for a completely different reason than you gave. Thus making your statement incorrect.

A straw man argument often includes parts of the actual argument but twists them in a way that makes it easy to knock down. That is what you did.

[vincent_vega_lives]

122. dis-integrated

I...will...type...slowley. Upon impact with the Pentagon facade, the aircraft begin to disintegrate. The nose Begin to crumple just as the facade began to fracture. The nose was made up of light aluminum and began to accordion in on itself. Mass and velocity however have a strength of their own. With tons of aircraft formed into a ridged tube moving at 700 fps, even the reinforced Pentagon facade stood little chance to resist the rest of the mass of the fuselage following the nose into the breach. At this point the fuselage had most likely decelerated several hundred MPH in a matter of a fraction of a second. The G forces in the cabin would have sent everything including passengers in their seats crashing forward at 500 mph killing everyone instantly and sparing them the inferno to follow.

The reinforced nature of the facade meant the break would not be clean. The force of impact was spread out by the blast resistant wall to the steel structural beams and supports where it failed forming a square hole. One I beam was struck directly by the aircraft fuselage cut into it like butter. Slicing it in two parts like a log.

The airliner would now be unrecognizable as a aircraft from the wings forward. But they were next. The right wing tip struck first shattering on impact, only cracking the facade, losing that battle. The facade held until the wing fuel tanks, heavy with dense fuel struck the facade with irresistible momentum. The fuel tanks disintegrated just as it crushes the facade sending thousands of gallons of fuel jetting into the now exposed Pentagon as a fuel air vapor. hard to say what ignites it. But ignite it does, expanding to several hounded times it's volume in hot gases. Some expands out into the open air, but most blasts into the Pentagon. Again several steel I beams survive the impact and shred the wings which are still moving for wared at some 300 fps. The right engine most likely damaged from an impact just prior would have began coming apart as it strikes the facade. But it has a dense structure the wing lacks and carries deep into the building cutting a swath of destruction in its path. One of the engines, perhaps the right one strikes an I beam inside the building, effectively stopping it's penetration and disassociates it.

The left wing suffered the same fate of the right and had pretty much the same effect. With the wings and engines now disintegrated, creating as swath of destruction with 100' of Pentagon facade penetrated, The airframe continues to collapse with each interior impact, while still maintaining significant mass and velocity. Finally the tall vertical stabilizer strikes the undamaged part of the facade above the hole. Again the reinforce facade wins this struggle. The VS explodes on contact sending pieces scattering over the lawn.

By this time several hundredths of a second has elapsed. The plane has come to a rest, it's velocity finally eroded by the friction of the interior structure of the Pentagon, and it's human occupants. The fuel has ignited a hellish inferno, and the structural integrity of a large swath of the Pentagon is compromised.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Find one instance where any of us said that....

dude.

Another one of your...



??

[lovepg]

88. Dude! And it only took 37 posts!

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. Aggggh

Read the book. Then perhaps you wouldn't make such ignorant claims.

[Realityhack]

111. I find it unlikely...

in the extreme that RR will read anything on this and even more unlikely that it would stop him from making these claims.

[spooked911]

7. Unfortunately the Pentagonresearch.com site is gone

but they had a good theory that the exit hole in the C-ring was made by a wall-breaching explosive device. They linked to US Army video of a wall breaching device that left a very similar hole in a brick wall.

They also showed how there was an official lie about the severity of the column damage near the exit hole.

I had posted on it here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-lies-about-pentagon-exit-hole.html
but unfortunately didn't save any of the Pentagonresearch.com material.

The Pentagonresearch.com site speculated it showed foreknowledge in that they used the device to escape from the damaged Pentagon. I think they simply used it to mimic plane crash damage.

The thing I find ridiculous about that exit hole is where one official report said that the remains of like 20 plane passengers were found outside of that hole, which is preposterous.

[Subdivisions]

8. Here:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://Pentagonresearch.com

You'll have to copy & paste the above url into your browser address bar. Some pages are missing and some are still there.

[BuddyBoy]

22. Your question includes a false premise.

There was no plane crash at the Pentagon. AA FL 77 was a non-existent flight on 9/11 and there is no credible evidence that another
plane crashed there. A heavy plane part could have been planted or was stored in the building and an explosion caused it to
punch a hole thru the far wall, but that seems far-fetched to me. Especially since the hole was almost perfectly round. spooked911's
post on this subject makes the most sense to me.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Tell that to the parents who put their kids on Flight 77 that day. n/t

[BuddyBoy]

25. Some or all of them probably know the truth by now, however,

I'm sure that before they received any monetary compensation they signed an agreement with the U.S. Gov't and with AA to not talk about 9/11.

They may have put their kids on an airplane and it might even have been the one which was normally used for FL 77, but if it was,
that plane did not crash into the Pentagon. Neither did any other plane.

[jberryhill]

28. So, how much do you charge to let people kill your kid?

How much do you think most people charge for that?

[BuddyBoy]

30. Are you asking how much $ relatives of those who were killed

on 9/11 received? I don't know exactly what you are talking about and I have a feeling that you don't either.

[LARED]

36. So those whose children were killed at the Pentagon and know about 9/11

have not come forth to say anything because they were paid off by the government?

That's a despicable thought. Not only do no planers have no brains they also have no shame.

[BuddyBoy]

41. Yes, it IS a despicable thought.

"So those whose children were killed at the Pentagon and know about 9/11

have not come forth to say anything because they were paid off by the government?"


Same thing happened to survivors of ADULTS.

[LARED]

60. So to be clear, you believe

there are family members of 9/11 victims who know that children and adults victims were not on planes but were "disposed" of in some manner by the US government, and they will not come forward because they are afraid.

Yes?

[BuddyBoy]

48. Sometimes perps do get caught despite efforts to keep things quiet

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08162009/news/regionalnews/rape_cops_called_my_mom__accuser_184783.htm

[defendandprotect]

95. The planes, if they existed, seem to have landed . . . probably thought they were

participating in a military training program of some kind.

[SDuderstadt]

39. This is precisely why your bullshit is so...

offensive, dude. I dare you to call one parent and accuse them of concealing the "plot" that supposedly killed their child for money. Your claims are despicable and you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.

You are an absolute embarrassment to DU and liberals everywhere, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

43. Bullsh**

Your special interest really does take up a lot of your time. What do you feel it accomplishes to dwell on it so intently?

[SDuderstadt]

49. My time and how I use it is...

not the issue, dude. Try to stich to the subject, if you can.

[BuddyBoy]

61. No one is disputing your right to divert attention from the truth.

DU is very tolerant of free speech rights.

[LARED]

64. As evidenced by allowing your non-stop BS to be posted nt

[BuddyBoy]

67. Said Lared, while staring into a mirror.

"As evidenced by allowing your non-stop BS to be posted"

[LARED]

71. Hummm, a no-planer calling someone out for posting BS.

Is there something beyond irony to describe this?

[BuddyBoy]

73. Yes.

Lared said "Is there something beyond irony to describe this?"

Yes, ironically it's called the Truth.

Will no-planers continue to call you out whenever you post BS? You betcha.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Why don't you post a poll asking how many here support "no-planes"?

If you want to really get your ass kicked, post it in GD.

[Realityhack]

113. That isn't appropriate.

Such a poll does not belong in GD.
And in here he would get a fair amount of support for such silliness.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Silly LARED. That's their job.

They have one job, posting silly BS, and they don't want anyone horning in on their job.

[LARED]

75. I should invoke "the rule" nt

[BuddyBoy]

76. "horning in"? It's been a complete takeover for many years.

Where have you been? Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists have been posting silly BS 24/7 since shortly after BUSHCO began telling
the 9/11 fairy tale. Read the archives and see for yourself.

[LARED]

78. I'm certain medical science has progressed to the point

where there is help.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Dude....

do you understand that people taking issue with your goofy claims is not
"diverting attention away from the truth"? Can you stand on your own two feet or do we need to spot you some points?

[Realityhack]

112. How do you propose a new rule on DU?

I think we should have a rule that if you accuse the families of 9-11 victims of lying you get stoned. It seems at least as rude as making a personal attack on another member of the board.

[Twist_U_Up]

145. your up for alot of censorship lately arent you hack ?

get a grip...please

[defendandprotect]

93. An astonishing number of relatives of people on the "planes" have made no claim . . .

[Maru Kitteh]

139. Please provide some astonishing links to this astonishing assertion.

[defendandprotect]

92. Where were they at the sites where the planes were supposedly landing???

They weren't there at the San Francisco airport, oddly enough!

And then they closed the airport down!!

At anniversary celebrations, evidently families from towers are represented . . .

but no one from "planes." More coincidence?

[Maru Kitteh]

140. Families of victims on the planes are ALWAYS included in annual mermorials.

I have seen it with my own eyes. I know a local family in rural NE who had a relative on one of those planes. I can assure you, they've not been bought off, nor do black helicopters hover over their home.

[SDuderstadt]

38. More of your bullshit, BB...

we've been through this silly "AA77 wasn't scheduled to fly on 9/11" bullshit. The BTS isn't a schedule, dude.

[chrisa]

134. There is no such thing as gravity, and the moon is made of cheese.

No offense, but your conclusions are based on lazy conspiracy talking points from the likes of Alex Jones. There is physical evidence that AA FL 77 existed. Family members were left behind. However, since this information is not readily at peoples' fingertips on the internet, people will believe that the evidence doesn't exist. ~60 people died on the flight, and ~150 died at the Pentagon.

[undeterred]

24. Maybe the nose of the plane had been recently reinforced

with several layers of concrete... not.

The nose of the plane is relatively fragile and it is inconceiveable that it would have stayed intact through those reinforced walls to produce a perfectly round hole larger than itself.

[hack89]

26. Who ever said it was the plane's nose?

For that matter, who ever said it had to be part of the plane?

[undeterred]

27. ...

:crazy:

[hack89]

29. I figured that was to subtle for truthers

read the ASCE Building Performance report - it will make much more sense.

[BuddyBoy]

32. Trying to be funny again, I see.

Nice word play, though it might be way too subtle for some. "To" is more subtle than "too".

[Realityhack]

114. I see you read the report and would like to discuss...

the contents of it. You seem to have a very specific criticism that many of us might be convince of...
oh wait...
You are just playing games with a typo/grammar mistake.

If that is the best argument you have I suggest you stop posting. You are making yourself look dumber by the post.

[BuddyBoy]

31. Exactly. An explosion of some kind, yes. Airplane or part? NO.

"For that matter, who ever said it had to be part of the plane?"

[hack89]

33. What kind of explosion?

what is your theory? What kind of explosives would leave such a hole?


And how do you explain all the plane wreckage around the hole?




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

[BuddyBoy]

34. See post #7. Makes sense to me. Who planted the debris?

I don't know who planted the debris evidence, but whoever the planter or planters were, they must have been in a big hurry because they should have put it behind the bricks, not in front of them...unless it was done that way by a secret whistleblower leaving a clue for us.

Do you have an opinion of whether the explosive device was detonated on the inside of the building or outside of it?

[hack89]

35. So they blasted a incriminating hole that serves no purpose

in supporting the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon? They just did it for the hell of it?

Looking at the pictures of the inside of the building, it is hard to see how it could be explosives at all. Can you make sense of them? The damage to the columns and floors doesn't seem right to me - surely a Truther has analyzed them somewhere?

[BuddyBoy]

42. Maybe it was planned to mimic the WTC Pinnocchio

What purpose did having a fake plane nose appear to be exiting WTC2? Try applying the same reasoning they used for THAT.

[hack89]

44. So you can't explain the damage patterns inside the Pentagon?

I am sure a member of the truth community has done such an analysis - could you perhaps provide a link?

[BuddyBoy]

45. Only the perps know for sure.

But you can get all kinds of BS explanations from The Official Government Conspiracy Theorists community. Perhaps
you already knew that and really had something else in mind whenever you typed the post? Is that possible?

[hack89]

46. But the pictures are available for you to look at.

you, or some expert in the true movement, doesn't need to involve the government at all. Just look at the pictures and analyze them - we are inundated with Truther analysis of photos and videos of 911. Surely the Truth movement didn't fail to analyze these photos before coming to some conclusion? I thought the Truth movement prided themselves on their independent analysis.

[BuddyBoy]

47. Interpreting incomplete evidence is an OGCT tactic.

I'm personally more interested in the Big picture. What kind of explosives were used would be interesting to know, but
what kind and how the perps did it is something that I just don't dwell on. Thanks for asking, though.

[SDuderstadt]

51. More evasion...

hysterical.

[hack89]

52. Don't you first have to prove that explosives were used?

sounds like you can't if you are unable to articulate a plausible theory that explains all the damage.


Isn't the "Big Picture" built up from lots of little facts?

[BuddyBoy]

53. Explosives had to have been used since it wasn't a plane.

The only plausible explanation is explosives of some kind.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Circular answer.

Truly stupid.

[BuddyBoy]

55. Face it. Explosives are the only logical explanation.

The fact that it doesn't fit with what you are selling is your problem with the truth, not mine.

[SDuderstadt]

56. If explosives were the only logical solution...

you could prove it to someone other than yourself, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

57. That IS the only logical explanation. Your theory is BS.

If a plane had crashed there, we'd have been shown videos of it a million times.

[SDuderstadt]

58. More bullshit...

how many people do your think were just standing around with video cameras outside the Pentagon, dude? also, given the rate of speed of AA77 how much warning do you think anyone had before the crash?

[hack89]

59. I am actually happy with your answer

you do a much better job of marginalizing the truth movement than I ever could.

[BuddyBoy]

62. Don't be so modest about your efforts to "marginalize the truth..."

You may have a ways to go to catch up with some of the other Official Government Conspiracy Theorists in that regard, but
you aren't very far behind them.

[hack89]

63. And we are damn good at it, you have to admit

8 years down the road and you can't even outdraw the Birthers. Must hurt when Truthers like Philip Berg become Birthers.

And with the healthcare debate taking up all the attention, it has also has to hurt that 911 Truth is completely invisible outside various obscure corners of the Internet. The worse thing ever to happen to you was Obama winning the election.

[BuddyBoy]

68. Yes. I agree with your subject line.

"And we are damn good at it, you have to admit"

And while some people think they know why, saying so is, in my opinion, a fool's errand.

[SDuderstadt]

50. More evasion from BB...

what a surprise!

[defendandprotect]

99. Some have suggested a bunker buster for one . . . but I think also there were other explosives . . .

set off in the building --

April Gallop is suing -- she seemed to be somewhere right behind that wall -- she

and her son . . . if I recall all that correctly.

She's suing because there was no "warning" that went off -- despite always frequent

alarms going off and practice drills. Obviously the Pentagon was very safety conscious!!!

But seeming overlooked an anti-missile protection system??????

[hack89]

106. What kind of anti-missile system do you think was there?

you know that there is absolutely no evidence of one. There are plenty of satellite pictures of the Pentagon - can you point out the missile launchers and radars?

[defendandprotect]

107. Notice that I say, "they seeminly overlooked an anti-missile system" . . .

But . . . these are the people who have been protecting us!

Needless to say, not very well considering 9/11 and NO NORAD -- !!!

So why would they have been smart enough to put in an anti-missile system?

:rofl:

[hack89]

116. What missile would they be protecting the Pentagon from?

ABM missile systems were banned by treaty. What military threat do you envision a missile defense system for?

[defendandprotect]

123. What missiles are we protecting against with Star Wars . . . ???

Maybe the aliens are coming?

Meanwhile, we obviously have a Pentagon/NORAD/CIA not up to the job --

They're unreliable, incompetent -- if not treasonous.

The Iranians are coming! The Iranians are coming!

:evilgrin:

[hack89]

124. ICBMs - that's easy

the GCI interceptors in Alaska. You do realize that to protect the Pentagon from ICBMs, the anti-missile system would not actually be at the Pentagon. The goal is to intercept at the beginning of their trajectory, not at the end. Prevents nuclear detonations over America. So actually, you are wrong - the Pentagon does have an anti-missile system, it's just in Alaska.

[SDuderstadt]

125. This actually goes in a direction that "truthers" don't understand when claiming...

the Pentagon and NORAD "stood down" on 9/11. We don't have to guess much when we detect that another country launches an ICBM...we know they're up to no good. However, one cannot say the same for a take-off of a plane, especially of a domestic take-off. Although I am, by no means, giving the Pentagon a pass for 9/11 performance, it's absurd to claim they "stood down".

[defendandprotect]

126. The "terrorists" have ICBM's . . .

You do understand that Star Wars is a farce . . . ???

Let's get back to the incompetency of our military protection --

including the fact that not even alarms were sounded at the Pentagon!!!

hmmm....

[hack89]

127. You are more incoherent than normal - are you feeling ok? nt

[SDuderstadt]

128. If D& P were more incoherent than normal, how could anyone actually...

tell?

[defendandprotect]

129. Translation: You need to revert to insults again . . .

due to your need to avoid subject of our military/intelligence incompetency ...

As usual, given the choice of the high road or the low road, you're on the low road again.


tsk-tsk -- bye

[SDuderstadt]

130. "Truther" Logic

It's an insult to call a "truther" on their lack of evidence, but it's not am insult to imply the fsmilies of the victims are willing participants in a cover-up.

[rollingrock]

65. What is that supposed to show?

1) The debris circled in red looks like random debris from inside the building (could be office furniture, desks, chairs, etc.) There's nothing to specifically indicate it came from an airplane.

2) The violent explosion at the initial impact point should have altered the trajectory of the plane, and yet that massive, violent explosion at the building facade somehow failed to have any effect on the plane whatsoever, as it continues to advance and punch neat round holes in the inner rings that are all perfectly lined up with each other. Amazing!

3) The violent explosion at the facade also fails to do any significant damage to the fuselage, because the fuselage remains so intact and undamaged by the explosion that it continues to travel 300 feet as it penetrates through six more concrete walls, making large, neat round holes in each of them. And then after all that, as if by magic, this relatively undamaged fuselage inexplicably disappears into thin air. lol.

[rollingrock]

66. In other words

the fuselage should be seen sticking out of the last hole after the plane came to a stop, relatively intact. but all we see here is a big black, empty hole.

so where is it? maybe this was some kind of super advanced, invisible stealth plane? like a star trek cloaking device? it's there, you just can't see it!

[BuddyBoy]

69. Where was David Copperfield on 9/11? n/t

n/t

[rollingrock]

70. Now here's something else

that is very peculiar.

Notice the large object, which appears to be part of the wall, circled in green.









I call it 'the plane that walks through walls.'

[hack89]

72. Where to begin.

1. Besides the green aircraft primer? Look at the link at all the other plane parts. There are plenty of them. Notice that the wall is not concrete?

2. The large fireball outside the Pentagon was from the fuel in the wing tanks exploding - those tanks carried up to 4200 gallons. We have photographic evidence that the wings did not penetrate the building - it was not the fuselage blowing up.

3. This is particular stupid. Have you even bothered to look at the photos of the interior damage? There were not six concrete walls with neat holes in them. Look at the infamous hole in the AE Ring drive - the wall is un-reinforced masonry. The Pentagon was build with concrete columns and steel girders - the walls were non-load bearing and not extremely strong. The damage was in a triangular swath 74 wide by 230 long. Where did you get the idea that the fuselage was intact in anyway as it penetrate - every official analysis has it disintegrating as it penetrated the building. Go look take a look at all the interior pictures - it is clear that you have not.

4. As for the plane disappearing, well, what do you think happens when you take a metal that melts at 1000 degrees F and have it sit in a hot building fire for a day or so? How much of the skin of the airplane would you expect to see left?

[rollingrock]

77. Green aircraft primer? lol

stupid. it looks like a pile of indistinguishable crap. unless you have superman X-Ray vision, you're BS'ing big time.

2. this is retarded. about half the fuel is stored in the fuel tank in the center of the fuselage of the fuselage, the other half in the wings. to say the fuel is stored in only the wings proves you don't know what you're talking about.

3. Open your eyes. The exit hole in YOUR photo shows a neat, circular hole, with no big jagged edges. That is the definition of a NEAT round hole.

4. So somehow after colliding with all those CONCRETE COLUMNS, in addition to several MASONRY WALLS, the aluminum fuselage is still intact??

5. The plane melted?? Never heard that one before. That's a good one LMAO.

6. You still have yet to explain how the airplane could make that round shape, and yet leave the big black object untouched. David Copperfield?

[hack89]

81. Once again

1. There are plenty of other shots of aircraft wreckage in the Pentagon. Enough said.

2. Did I say that all the fuel exploded outside the building - we know there was plenty that was inside the Pentagon to fuel the fires. The only point is that big explosion outside was merely the wing tanks exploding as they hit the wall.

3. One hole does not equal 6 holes. Do you agree that there were 6 neat holes neatly lined up? That is the issue.

4. Did you notice that the wall with the hole was not concrete? Where are all your concrete walls?

5. Who ever said that the fuselage was intact? Where did you get that notion? Don't you agree that there are components on a 757 like the engines and landing gear that could make a hole like that?

6. Don't be dense - do you really believe that aircraft alloys can't melt? Fires certainly get hotter than 1000 F.




http://www.tennalum.com/td2024.htm

7. The hole is easy to explain. Notice how the backing wall is not connected to the brick wall? There were two separate failure modes with the brick wall being less strong than the backing wall.

[rollingrock]

82. Pentagon walls

reinforced with 10 inches of concrete. Each wall is 2 feet thick.

The masonry is layered over the concrete, probably for aesthetic reasons.

[SDuderstadt]

83. What is the source of this info/graphic?

You don't provide it, so how is anyone supposed to confirm it? More importantly, are you claiming that every wall within the Pentagon is constructed in this manner? Why do I think you're trying to pull a fast one?

[rollingrock]

84. Do you enjoy eating crow?

Apparently, you do.



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

Pentagon Renovation
Renovation Program Had Hardened the Facade Attacked on 9/11/01

The renovation program included the following improvements to the building:

* Exterior walls reinforced with steel
* Exterior walls backed with Kevlar
* Blast-resistant windows installed
* Fire sprinklers installed
* Automatic fire doors installed
* Building operations and control center created



An article in Structure Magazine provided background on the project. It cited the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City as the motivation for the renovation program. It noted that the original design was constrained by the material demands of World War II.

The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events. 2

Steel Reinforcements

The steel reinforcements to the walls consisted of tubular frames surrounding the window openings and attaching to the reinforced concrete floor slabs. Each windowed wall panel (between vertical concrete columns) was retrofitted with a piece consisting of two horizontal tubes welded to two vertical tubes running from the floor to the ceiling. 3

This illustration shows reinforcements added to the Pentagon's walls as seen from the inside. Reinforced concrete columns are shown in gray, and tubular steel reinforcements are pictured in red.

The reinforcements were to be sequentially applied to the five wedges of the Pentagon over time. Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01. Wedge Two was apparently yet to be retrofitted. The plane crashed into the building's exterior entirely within Wedge One.

Kevlar cloth was stretched between the steel columns to provide blast resistance to the short spans of brick wall. 4
Windows

The original windows were replaced with blast-resistant windows nearly two inches thick.

References

1. Security Improvements Made by Pentagon Renovation Program, DefenseLink.mil,
2. Retrofitting the Pentagon for Blast Resistance, Structure Magazine,
3. Pentagon Battered but Firm, ArchitectureWeek.com, 10/3/01


http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/renovation.html

[SDuderstadt]

85. Dude...

can you point to anywhere in the post where you sourced it? Hint: no. I didn't claim the information was false, because there would be no way to tell, since you didn't source it. It was a natural suspicion, which you brought on by not sourcing it, dude. It's kinda stupid to get called on not providing something, then claim you're making someone eat crow. Very strange.

[rollingrock]

87. Fair enough

but you still get to eat crow for jumping to a conclusion when you could have simply asked.

[SDuderstadt]

89. I fucking DID ask!

Read my post again. What do you expect when you post unsourced info? We'll just buy it lock, stock and barrel?

[Realityhack]

117. He did ask...

and he said he 'thought you were pulling a fast one' not that you definitely were.
Hack seems to have pointed out that this is the outer wall which seems accurate as we can tell from the picture of the hole that some of the items in your graphic are missing.

Now it is up to you to:
1. Provide the source.
2. Show that this is in fact the construction of the inner wall not the outer.

[vincent_vega_lives]

121. This is explains why

the windows survived intact.

Of course the windows surviving intact is often used by truthers as evidence that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. :crazy:

[hack89]

90. No - that is the outer wall

not the inner walls. Look - there are not 6 concrete walls with 6 round holes in them. Do you understand?

[defendandprotect]

101. It was REINFORCED concrete and STEEL . . .

and, evidently, after the "plane" knocked the hell out of the new Pentagon

wing, Todd Beamer's father got a $40 million dollar contract from the Pentagon

to redo the work!!

[hack89]

135. No - it was 4 million for business for business software

In a separate $4.3 million award, PENREN will utilize LEGATO Software's business continuity solutions for automated monitoring and failover of critical applications


http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Pentagon+awards+EMC+$40+million+contract-a0112697332

[snooper2]

146. you guys love to make shit up ROFL

The slab under my house is 7-8 inches thick with a 24 inch footer...

you could have at least made the drawing a little more realistic :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


guess we will see the updated picture next time :rofl:

[rollingrock]

86. 'Two separate failure modes'

I have no idea what you're talking about there, or how it explains why a large section of the black object was untouched by the airplane.

btw, the large black object appears to be the Kevlar reinforcement that was put in as part of the Pentagon renovation program.

[hack89]

91. Bricks under stress act differently then concrete

not a hard concept.

The Kevlar was only for the outer wall.

[rollingrock]

94. Non-sequiter

Brick acts differently under stress? So? How does that explain why the hole in the wall has a completely different shape then the Kevlar? LOL. In other words, why is the shape of the damaged kevlar completely inconsistent with the shape of the damaged wall?

Just admit it, you can't explain it.

2. How can the nose of the plane miraculously retain its shape (as well as its trajectory) after plowing through a dozen or so steel-reinforced concrete columns, in addition to several thick concrete/masonry walls?

3. A normal building fire could have distorted the shape of the fuselage somewhat after burning for a while, but when you're talking about melting this massive object to the point until there's virtually nothing left of it, not even a big pile of dried up liquid aluminum? That's a really absurd idea.

[hack89]

103. Are you deliberately being obtuse?

why do you think that the nose of the plane made the hole? There is no reason what so ever to think it was the nose that made that hole.

It is not Kevlar - Kevlar was used only on the outside wall.

So you explain it - why did they use explosives to blast two different shapes?

The plane disintegrated then burned. Not a hard concept - the fuselage was not intact once it hit the first wall.


Here, you really need to read this - it explains everything. It also has pictures of the damage inside.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

[Realityhack]

119. Ahh...

See that is exactly the problem. Hack is demonstrating that he knows more about how walls behave and thus look when something large slams into them.
And you are revealing that it does not even seem to have occurred to you that such differences might be important in explaining what you are seeing.

This is IMO where most 'truthers' run into problems with their questioning. They assume they understand what they are looking at and ask questions like 'how did the nose of the plane make that hole' which is a complete straw man or massively ignorant, when they should be asking where they can learn more about engineering, reasoning, etc.

[lovepg]

141. How is he revealing any such thing?...

So far he is spouting alot of unsourced conjecture.
We are not supposed to just buy that remember?

[Realityhack]

120. "six more concrete walls, making large, neat round holes in each of them"

All I am going to do is ask for you to please provide a picture of each of those holes.
That's all. Just show me the "six more...neat round holes"

I won't even address all the other egregious errors in your post. Just show me the SIX neat round holes.
For extra credit show where the holes are on a building diagram or aerial photo.

[defendandprotect]

133. First, the "Magic Bullet" and now the "Magic Plane" . . . !!!

[defendandprotect]

98. Wow -- never saw that junk pile in front of the HOLE before . . .

some of the insides evidently fell out, but the outside of the plane

still continued on thru the hole!!!

:eyes:

We really have to start making trains and ships out of that alumimum stuff!!

:)

[defendandprotect]

97. In fact, it could have been a train . .. ????

Meanwhile, since the NOSE comes before the tail . . . the presumption

would be that IF a plane had hit the Pentagon that the NOSE would continue

to be in front of the tail!

[SDuderstadt]

100. I hereby nominate this as...

the absolute dumbest "truther" post ever. The reason should be obvious.

[Realityhack]

118. I don't know

#65 is up there too.
And remember PetGoat's rake diagram.
And Spookes nuke theory.

So many dumb posts...

[undeterred]

102. Maybe one of the Pentagon employees brought an IED

to work that day, and the plane crash set it off!

[hack89]

104. You misunderstand

there was no intact nose - the plane disintegrated on impact. There were lots of heavy airplane parts and building debris. There were many things that could have made that hole.

[defendandprotect]

108. And . . .

There were lots of heavy airplane parts and building debris.



Are you talking about the same Pentagon we're talking about?

There were a few pieces that could be hand-carried on the otherwise undisturbed lawn

of the Pentagon!

:rofl:

[hack89]

115. Since I know you have seen the pictures of the engine parts and landing gear

I am not sure what game you are playing.





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

[defendandprotect]

132. I love watching the guy who explains how the wings of the plane peeled back . . .

and that's how the 44 foot high airplane went thru the 20' X 15' hole -- !!!

Yes -- I also saw the "engine" buried under a tarp in the area of the WTC . . .

All of it without any ID and, in fact, I believe some have found they matched up

the wrong engine with the WTC plane -- or was it the Pentagon plane?

Meanwhile, are we taking up a collection yet for the Pentagon?

Think they need some new cameras . . . ???

The CNN guy who saw "no planes" might be able to help them with a spare camera -- ???


:rofl: :blush: :rofl: :blush: :rofl: :blush: :rofl: :blush:

[hack89]

136. The hole was 85 feet wide - stop lying.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

and no one has ever proved that they were the "wrong engines" - that was simply truther ignorance.

[defendandprotect]

137. The hole was 20' X 15' until 45 minutes or more AFTER the "plane" went thru . . .

Check the "no plane" guy who points out that 45 minutes AFTER the "plane"

supposedly went thru that 20' X 15' hole the exterior wall fell --!!!

Are you going to hide all the pictures of the 20' X 15' hole with the firemen standing

around it?

And, btw, where did the wings go--???

Oh, yeah, after they peeled back to allow the aluminum 44 foot high plane to go thru

the 20' X 15' hole, they exploded and disintegrated . . . hmmmmm.....



And you have the nerve to mention "lies" . . .!!!!


:eyes:

:blush: :blush: :blush:

[vincent_vega_lives]

143. the hole was 100' long and 10' high

at ground level. The 20' high by 15' wide section was in the center and caused by the fuselage.

LOOK at the photos. Before and after. You will see the undercut facade. You will see the the 4"x4"s used to prop up same.

100' because the wing tips DID NOT penetrate the facade. This is too easy if you just SEE what you are LOOKING at.

[defendandprotect]

96. Very funny response . . .

These were highly unusual aluminum planes, evidently !!!

In fact, we should start making ships, boats and trains out of that aluminum stuff!!!

:)

[hack89]

105. Why do you think it was the nose?

read this study - it will make more sense than your simple strawman:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

[lovepg]

138. Hack the study you gave me the link for, shows at least eight of the columns..

Directly in front of the punch out hole were not taken out by the debris you claim made the whole in the wall.
Pretty amazing trick huh? If the debris in question was large enough to punch out the hole how did it avoid having its momentum interrupted by the intervening columns?
And if it was interrupted by the columns how did it maintain enough momentum and mass to make the hole?
Plus if it was able to punch out the hole how did it not take out the columns in its way?

[hack89]

142. If you actually read the entire study

you will find your questions answered.

[lovepg]

144. No i won't cause i read it and the report does not say what caused the punch out hole.

Link the section you claim I am missing please.

[defendandprotect]

131. ANSWER; Same part of plane that sliced thru center core of steel in WTC--!!!

Going right thru the building to exit on other side -- !!!!


:rofl: :blush: :rofl: :blush: :rofl: :blush: :rofl: :blush:


PS: In fact, the "nose" is the odds on favorite for having done that as it
poked out from building after having done all of that . . . eh . . . intact...!!!


:rofl: :blush: :rofl: :blush: :rofl: :blush: :rofl: :blush:

[Xenotime]

147. A missle could

[hack89]

148. But a missile couldn't also make the damage to the front of the building.

unless you envision some super dooper secret warhead we have never seen before.

[BuddyBoy]

149. Only explosive devices could do that. Remember the cordite ...

odor that witnesses reported? Before you try to impeach THEIR credibility, remember that THOSE witnesses are military/defense
department people. YES, I know you can pull out the "well, even they can be wrong on occasion ... especially if they say
something before they've been gently informed it would be better to NOT say it" weasel.

[hack89]

150. Cordite is not a high explosive and has not been use since WWII

You do realize that cordite is a low explosive? ie - it is a propellant and was never used for warheads. There was no cordite at the Pentagon.

You will impeach the credibility of any and all military/defense department people that say it was a Boeing 757. How do you reconcile that blatant hypocrisy?

[BuddyBoy]

151. Are you accusing them of lying?

Pentagon witnesses reported smelling cordite. If it wasn't cordite, then what kind of explosive was it? How do you reconcile
the blatant hypocrisy between saying on the one hand that cordite hasn't been used since WW2, and Pentagon witnesses saying
they smelled it there on 9/11?

[hack89]

152. Cordite is smokeless gunpowder - it is a propellant

The US never made extensive use or Cordite - it was a British invention. We developed a different type of propellant.

BuOrd was unhappy with this propellant, as Cordite N was brittle and, even worse, it contained nitroglycerine, which the USN considered to be highly undesirable for use in naval propellants. BuOrd instituted a major research program to develop a flashless propellant that did not use nitroglycerine.

Modern Propellants

In the early 1950s experiments with a solventless propellant known as NOSOL progressed into the current formulations of single-base propellant known as "Navy Cool" or NACO which is composed of 91% nitrocellulose (12.0% N), 1% ethyl centralite, 3% butyl stearate, 1% basic lead carbonate, 1% potassium sulfate and 3% volatiles.

The ERGM rocket projectile currently under development uses a special mixture known as EX-99 propellant which, according to one open-source document, is composed of 76% RDX (cyclonite, cyclomethylene trinitramine), 12% cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB), 7.6% acetal/formal (A/F), 4% nitrocellulose and 0.4% ethyl centralite. The high percentage of RDX gives this propellant the unusually high "kick" necessary for this relatively heavy projectile and is one of the reasons why the 5"/62 (12.7 cm) gunhouse was greatly strengthened over the earlier 5"/54 (12.7 cm) gunhouse.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-100.htm

I don't know what they smelled - but it wasn't cordite. I spent 20 years in the navy and never smelled cordite - because we don't us it.

A simple challenge - show me that Cordite is used in modern weapons. A simple google search should be adequate.

[lovepg]

153. Perhaps they meant to say they smelled the propellant from a can of Secret

deodorant. the only kind the Pentagon will use!