A B757 hit the Pentagon, reported by GOFER06

a reply to: hiddenNZ

Pentagon walls are BRICK - can see this in photo of exit hole

The outer E ring had a façade of limestone over the brick wall to simulate marble

Also on 2 lowest levels there were no substantial interior walls between the impact hole in E Ring and exit hole punched
into C ring wall

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FlyingFox

Look at WWII. A dive bomber was designed with a larger than normal tail, with a larger rudder for control, and dive flaps, designed to slow the aircraft as it dove down on the target. And they missed more often than not. An aircraft not optimized for a diving attack is going to be extremely difficult to control all the way to the target.

Compared to a ground level attack? I thought the GLA was the more difficult of the two. I noted that the aircraft was well controlled, why not go for the higher damage strike? The damage of a top attack would be profound.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hiddenNZ

The Towers were a tube in a tube. They were essentially hollow shells, that were assembled by putting sections together on the outer wall. When the planes hit, the sections where the panels were joined broke apart where the rivets attached them.

Rivets?

Yes, aluminum airplanes are a rivet style of construction.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I can believe it all pretty much the whole OS. Building 7 the whole 9 well 8 yards . Until I get to the no video of the Pentagon.

It all falls apart right there. I watched live in living color the 2nd plane hit the tower. There were great video cameras back then.

I dont believe it was a missile, but I also dont believe there is no video.

So They are hiding something by not letting us see the videos.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In the grand scheme of things, the Pentagon is important, but isn't the most important building in the Defense Department. It's their headquarters, but when it comes to actually fighting a war for example, NORAD is far more important.

In the grand scheme of things video camera were not that expensive. We are talking about the US military.

We literally had them attached to bombs in the 90s.

originally posted by: Shangralah
a reply to: Zaphod58

In the grand scheme of things, the Pentagon is important, but isn't the most important building in the Defense Department. It's their headquarters, but when it comes to actually fighting a war for example, NORAD is far more important.

In the grand scheme of things video camera were not that expensive. We are talking about the US military.

We literally had them attached to bombs in the 90s.

The government doesn't do things unless it has a reason.

The Pentagon having video cameras was most likely considered a security issue. If the wrong people got a hold of the feed... For a variety of reasons which are easy to imagine.

a reply to: TarzanBeta


I think they would have had cameras in the parking lot and camera on the grounds around the building with security guards sitting at desk watching the monitors,. You know like every other major building in the country.

a reply to: firerescue


Some Good Pic.s and Video of the Pentagon on 9/11 here . It's Very Hard to Believe a 757 was Involved .....




www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

a reply to: FlyingFox

Coming in wings level, you're in an attitude the aircraft was already designed to fly. If it's trimmed right, it's going to fly much easier in a wings level attitude. Coming straight down, you're far more affected by winds, and the aircraft possibly overspeeding and suffering damage that could throw it off the path, or making it harder to control.

I'm curious as to how the landing gear managed to slalom around the columns to make that exit hole

a reply to: Shangralah

The cameras around the Pentagon were there, but they were looking down at the parking lots and personnel entrances. There was no reason to point them up and out. They had the lowest cost cameras that did the required job.

a reply to: Flatcoat

I'm curious as to how the landing gear managed to slalom around the columns to make that exit hole

Lets go in our Way-Back Machine to July 1945 - on that date a B25 bomber lost in fog slammed into Empire State Building
in New York

One of the planes engines travelled through the building, punching out other side then travelling another block to
land on roof another building starting a fire

So great was the impact that one of the motors of the twin-engined bomber ripped through seven walls on a continued due south course to tear out the 33d St. side of the building, shoot across 33d St. and land with a final explosion on the roof of a 17-story building at 10 W. 33d St. Miraculously, no one there was hurt.

Travelled through seven walls .......
Other engine struck elevator shaft and fell into basement

a reply to: Zaphod58

I get that that's what I'm supposed to believe, I just dont.

They had a reason to have them pointed out, they have to monitor the entire grounds right? And they would not have to be pointed up seeing how the plane was at ground level.

It just seems so unreasonable to me that the same people who had cameras attached to everything including bombs ,would not have them all over their HQ.

a reply to: Shangralah

They were only concerned with the areas the vehicles were and the helipad, outside the personnel entrances.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shangralah

They were only concerned with the areas the vehicles were and the helipad, outside the personnel entrances.

Why?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: firerescue


Some Good Pic.s and Video of the Pentagon on 9/11 here . It's Very Hard to Believe a 757 was Involved .....




www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

HAHA man I forgot how misinformed some of these sites can be. The one were they claimed people called the engine disk as part of the APU had me laughing. Th Disk is bigger around then an most APUs. lolol

EDIT*
I read more they are trying to pass it off as a disk from a "JT8D from an A-3 or something similar" I dont think the A-3 ever used the JT8.... or anything that small ever....

"Karl Schwartz, former GOP Stratagist, Patmoz Nanotechnologies Inc. security systems CEO recognizes the part as a JT8D Turbo from from a US Air Force A-3 Skywarrior." this guy needs his eyes and google foo checked.

a reply to: Shangralah

The helipad in case there was an accident, the vehicle areas, because that was the area that was deemed the biggest threat. That's why they were in the process of reinforcing the walls. A car bomb was believed to be the biggest threat to the building.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shangralah

The helipad in case there was an accident, the vehicle areas, because that was the area that was deemed the biggest threat. That's why they were in the process of reinforcing the walls. A car bomb was believed to be the biggest threat to the building.

They have a missile defence system there now don't they?
Wonder if they upgraded the entire exterior of the Pentagon to deal with the threat of a carbomb.

a reply to: Pyle

Yeah, that is amusing. The A-3 used the JT3C, designated the J57-P-10. The B-66, which was the Air Force version used the Allison J71. The JT8D is used on some of the E-8C Joint STARS aircraft, that were modified from retired commercial aircraft. It was never used on any variant of the A-3.

a reply to: D8Tee

They don't have a permanent presence there. They occasionally rotate Avenger systems around the DC area, including the Pentagon, but usually for exercises or training.