The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

I'm neither from the US nor particular inclined towards conspiracies (in fact they depress me so I avoid discussing them with friends). However, on reading through most of this thread, I haven't found the answer to why the wings made no mark on entry or how a plane could have entered the wall parallel to the ground enough to have made such a hole. It would need to have run along the ground to do that or the hole would be a different shape and not a neat circle! And what are those other photos of The Pentagon with a large chunk of collapsed building? Was that the other side? Pieces of aircraft at the site could have been put there afterwards. I'm no Truther, but it definitely doesn't look like a plane made that hole.

a reply to: TiggyTiger

It would be helpful if you'd post a link to a pic of the hole you consider 'wrong'. The reason I ask is that there's still some confusion about the entry and exit holes with the exit hole being the one I'd consider in way a 'round hole'. The entry hole only existed for a short time before the outer wall collapsed.

There's been far too much of this "doesn't look right" stuff.
That's the bread and butter of conspiracy sites.

Unfortunately conspiracy sites and shows have lead to the dumbing down of America.
Remember how badly pizzagate went off track?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: AMPTAH

An Airplane is not designed to "penetrate" materials. It's designed to "float".

Please show us where any non sea plane is designed to float.

Sully's flight floated in the river, with humans standing on the wings.

Do you ever watch the news? They made a movie of it.

Aluminum airframes can float and do float, depending upon the actual conditions.

Aluminum airframes DO NOT penetrate concrete buildings and Pennsylvania coal country terrain. Is there no common sense at all?

Battleship’s float? What does that indicate? What a stupid line of logic?

Or how does a waterjet cut steel? The density of water 1g/cm^3 vs the density of steel 7g/cm^3?

Other than you don’t fundamentally understand kinetic energy......

So which is it? The jets shouldn’t have penetrated the towers? Or the crater at shanksville was to small? Can’t have it both ways?

Wasn’t there some argument about how titanium engine parts should have survived the impacts.

The truth movement is all over the place.....

And full of contradictions?

a reply to: TiggyTiger

Said wings did not make hole in Pentagon wall

Depends on what parts of the wings talking about . Section of wings between fuselage and engines, are the heaviest
and strongest part of wing. The ribs and spars are massive to support the wing and contain the fuel tanks

In this section are the pylons (mounts ) to which the jet engines attach.

The outer section of wings are made of much thinner and lighter materials

The section between the engines and fuselage, often called the wing box, is what penetrated into the Pentagon

Left a hole about 96 ft wide, wingspan of 757 is 125 ft.

The outer wing section left marks on wall, knocking off the outer façade and scaring the underlying brick

Ah, so the neat round hole iscwhere the nose came out the other side before it stopped. I hadn't realised it travelled right through to the opposite side of the building. We probably didn't get as much TV coverage as you did in the US.

originally posted by: TiggyTiger
Ah, so the neat round hole iscwhere the nose came out the other side before it stopped. I hadn't realised it travelled right through to the opposite side of the building. We probably didn't get as much TV coverage as you did in the US.

I think the round hole was made by the tougher and more dense landing gear....

a reply to: TiggyTiger

If I remember right, the jet went through the first ring. I think the second ring had some sort of open space, and then the denser jet wreckage like the landing gear went throuth the third or c ring. The most outer ring is the E ring. So the jet would have had to gone through the B and A Rings before it would have gotten to the central court yard. The pentagon is 5 Rings deep on each side.

a reply to: TiggyTiger

that post of yours is the finest I've seen.....proud to meet ya

a reply to: GBP/JPY

Ever going to post that picture of the entrance hole made on 9/11 in the side of the pentagon?

originally posted by: TiggyTiger
I'm neither from the US nor particular inclined towards conspiracies (in fact they depress me so I avoid discussing them with friends). However, on reading through most of this thread, I haven't found the answer to why the wings made no mark on entry or how a plane could have entered the wall parallel to the ground enough to have made such a hole. It would need to have run along the ground to do that or the hole would be a different shape and not a neat circle! And what are those other photos of The Pentagon with a large chunk of collapsed building? Was that the other side? Pieces of aircraft at the site could have been put there afterwards. I'm no Truther, but it definitely doesn't look like a plane made that hole.

You are just like so many of us--an ordinary person with questions that have never been answered by the official explanation regarding 911. The Commission didn't really answer any questions, it generated more questions with its ridiculous "explanations."

The use of the term "truther" seems to be some sort of propaganda technique, taken somehow from Goebbels methods.

a reply to: TiggyTiger

The neat circular hole was in an internal ring of the building not where the plane struck the outside wall

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: TiggyTiger
I'm neither from the US nor particular inclined towards conspiracies (in fact they depress me so I avoid discussing them with friends). However, on reading through most of this thread, I haven't found the answer to why the wings made no mark on entry or how a plane could have entered the wall parallel to the ground enough to have made such a hole. It would need to have run along the ground to do that or the hole would be a different shape and not a neat circle! And what are those other photos of The Pentagon with a large chunk of collapsed building? Was that the other side? Pieces of aircraft at the site could have been put there afterwards. I'm no Truther, but it definitely doesn't look like a plane made that hole.

You are just like so many of us--an ordinary person with questions that have never been answered by the official explanation regarding 911. The Commission didn't really answer any questions, it generated more questions with its ridiculous "explanations."

The use of the term "truther" seems to be some sort of propaganda technique, taken somehow from Goebbels methods.

What does the commission have to do with that flight 77 struck the pentagon?

The truth movement killed its own credibility by ignoring the only valid explanation for what happen at the pentagon was being struck by a large commercial jet.

Ever going to refute this work by Scientists for 9/11 Truth. The groups last ditch effort to fight the con artists of the truth movement?

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016 |

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses.

Break

Most rank and file members of the 9/11 truth movement take their cues on the Pentagon from well-known speakers, writers, and acknowledged leaders of the movement. The quickest way to end the ongoing damage to the movement’s credibility and bring closure would be for these prominent individuals to publicly repudiate their former endorsements, views, and statements on the Pentagon event and acknowledge the scientific method and its conclusion of large plane impact. In the absence of public repudiations, the damage caused by false Pentagon hypotheses is likely to continue indefinitely, even if those who fueled their spread cease to promote them. Consequently, the surest way to end the debate and enhance the credibility of the movement is for each individual to study, without bias or prejudice, the evidence for themselves.

The recent papers by scientists, engineers and others showing large plane impact at the Pentagon have been collected together on a website that invites feedback and discussion. Comments can be sent to the Scientific Method 9/11 website which specifically invites feedback on many of the papers listed below.

a reply to: Salander

Funny the conspiracy debunkers actually use facts!

While salander and gbp/jpy can only use sensationalized innuendo. The propaganda tools of the truth movement. Bait and hook tactics to catch those that cannot discern truth.

a reply to: neutronflux

If I remember right, the jet went through the first ring. I think the second ring had some sort of open space

Lowest 2 floors of Pentagon have no wall (D Ring) inside the building

After penetrated outermost wall (E ring) would have no substantial resistance until hit C Ring

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: neutronflux

If I remember right, the jet went through the first ring. I think the second ring had some sort of open space

Lowest 2 floors of Pentagon have no wall (D Ring) inside the building

After penetrated outermost wall (E ring) would have no substantial resistance until hit C Ring

Wow? Facts. You sure the design of the pentagon was not part of the conspiracy? Just joke’n.....

What happened about that report by specialists from Scandinavia that claimed explosive material at Ground Zero?

originally posted by: TiggyTiger
What happened about that report by specialists from Scandinavia that claimed explosive material at Ground Zero?

How about linking or citing a source?

Are you taking about actual level one, two, or three explosives?
unoda-web.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com...

Or did they find chemicals that are common building materials that also might be found in explosives? Fuels? Paints? Primers? Electrical transformers? Batteries? electrical systems? Computers? Adhesives?

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't remember the name of the explosive except it began with T and was apparently something only governments would be able to get hold of. I only asked because I thought people here would know what I was referring to. I don't know what level. It was a report compiled by one of the Scandy universities following a multidisciplinary investigation.

originally posted by: TiggyTiger
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't remember the name of the explosive except it began with T and was apparently something only governments would be able to get hold of. I only asked because I thought people here would know what I was referring to. I don't know what level. It was a report compiled by one of the Scandy universities following a multidisciplinary investigation.

You would think credible evidence of explosives would be the toast of the conspiracy world?