9/11: A Boeing 757 *DID NOT* Strike the Pentagon

Not on the 757 and other planes made during that time. The exterior framing was ALL aviation grade aluminum, with small amounts of titanium reinforcing in certain portions. Until composites came along, all metal airframes were made of aluminum on the outside.

Hey everyone I'm new here. I just gotta say I like the story about Flight 77. It comes flying really fast right (piloted by a guy who couldn't properly fly a cessna a few weeks earlier) hits the wall (the wings and the vertical stabilizer fold along the fuselage without damaging the wall) slides into that hole while disintegrating and still smashes through three more rings, and then almost all the passengers are identified, wow. And then the Pentagon releases five frames that do not show a 757, and the frames are dated September 12th. That rocks.

Originally posted by Eon101
Hey everyone I'm new here. I just gotta say I like the story about Flight 77. It comes flying really fast right (piloted by a guy who couldn't properly fly a cessna a few weeks earlier) hits the wall (the wings and the vertical stabilizer fold along the fuselage without damaging the wall) slides into that hole while disintegrating and still smashes through three more rings, and then almost all the passengers are identified, wow. And then the Pentagon releases five frames that do not show a 757, and the frames are dated September 12th. That rocks.

Since you are new here, maybe you should read some of these threads.

Then you won't bother repeating things that have been discussed over and over again.

And you wont make silly mistakes (For instance: "still smashes through three more rings" )

And you wont make silly mistakes (For instance: "still smashes through three more rings" )

Yes they cannot be stress enough. I disagree with Howard of course, I believe the attack was an inside job.
However there is no mystery as to why it punched through 3 rings, the plane would of been (assuming it was a Boeing) ripped into pieces and then would of all become one sort of giant mass and with the force behind it would of punched through 3 rings.

I am not sure about how strong the rings of the Pentagon were, I remember someone saying that only the outer ring was reinforced.

I am not sure about how strong the rings of the Pentagon were, I remember someone saying that only the outer ring was reinforced.

"Flight 77" smashed through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete. And "Flight 77" hit the only spot that was renovated to withstand such attacks.

Originally posted by Eon101
"Flight 77" smashed through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete. And "Flight 77" hit the only spot that was renovated to withstand such attacks.

Oh not again, do we have to keep going round in circles? Please at least get your facts straight before making such rash, inaccurate statements, some people might actually believe it.
9 feet

And it's *NOT* steel reinforced concrete. It's *KEVLAR* reinforced concrete. At least get the SIMPLE things right.

And it did not "punch through" 3 rings. at least in the sense that it went in and out of the exterior walls of the separate light courts. The light courts (rings) don't start until the 3rd floor.

The plane entered the building on the ground floor and did not exit until the A_E drive.



9 feet of reinforced concrete. . . .

He should not have said 9ft, he should have said 42 cubic meters of spiral reinforced concrete missing or had no function.

A B-757 did hit the Pentagon.

Ive circled in red the tail of the 757 in pic 1 , in pic 2 plane hits Pentagon.

Pity the footage isnt clearer but the evidence is there if you look


Pic 1


Pic 2

2 exterior brick and concrete walls, 10 rows of 40 cm. square steel-reinforced concrete load-bearing pillars, the poured concrete floor between the first and second story, and 84 m. of interior offices with perhaps 4 poured concrete walls. That's about 4 m. of reinforced concrete.

The Pentagon is constructed with 42,000 40 cm. (15") square steel reinforced concrete pillars.

www.911review.org...

hmmm i wonder why it says sept 12th on the pics I posted. I thought the attack was on Sept 11th 2001.

Originally posted by ANOK

2 exterior brick and concrete walls, 10 rows of 40 cm. square steel-reinforced concrete load-bearing pillars, the poured concrete floor between the first and second story, and 84 m. of interior offices with perhaps 4 poured concrete walls. That's about 4 m. of reinforced concrete.

The Pentagon is constructed with 42,000 40 cm. (15") square steel reinforced concrete pillars.

www.911review.org...

Talk about selective ignorance.


Why didn't you quote the entire paragraph? You left out this part:

As the trajectory marked by the dotted line, this hole from the blast is after having gone through 3 consecutive rings of the Pentagon: 2 exterior brick and concrete walls, 10 rows of 40 cm. square steel-reinforced concrete load-bearing pillars, the poured concrete floor between the first and second story, and 84 m. of interior offices with perhaps 4 poured concrete walls. That's about 4 m. of reinforced concrete.

The aircraft penetrated the first wall, parts of the plane damaged and wiped out some of the columns. and it exited out to the A-E drive.

Where does "the poured concrete floor between the first and second story" come from anyway?

and where did the "perhaps 4 poured concrete walls" come from?

As for the columns while many were damaged by the impact, there was plenty of room in between them.


Click to see the diagram

As you can see there was room for the debris to pass through to the punchout hole.

Before construction began, the entire wedge was brought down to its "barebones", the concrete columns that support the building and concrete floor and ceiling slabs. Every wall, conduit and utility line was removed. In total, 83 million pounds of debris was removed from Wedge 1

renovation.pentagon.mil...



[edit on 20-3-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by TG
A B-757 did hit the Pentagon.

Ive circled in red the tail of the 757 in pic 1 , in pic 2 plane hits Pentagon.

Pity the footage isnt clearer but the evidence is there if you look


Pic 1

Pic 2

where is the rest of the plane? looks like the rest of it, or most of it didn't make it into the shot. If I took a photo of a car going by and only caught the rear bumper then where is the rest of the car?

This only makes the 757 argument most suspicious.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And it's *NOT* steel reinforced concrete. It's *KEVLAR* reinforced concrete. At least get the SIMPLE things right.

If it is kevlar reinforced than it would have required more force to puncture it then correct? I also have to ask how the sheets were applied? This would also determine how puncture was made due to the unique qualities of that material and the method that it was used and applied.

Originally posted by Eon101
Hey everyone I'm new here. I just gotta say I like the story about Flight 77. It comes flying really fast right (piloted by a guy who couldn't properly fly a cessna a few weeks earlier) hits the wall (the wings and the vertical stabilizer fold along the fuselage without damaging the wall) slides into that hole while disintegrating and still smashes through three more rings, and then almost all the passengers are identified, wow. And then the Pentagon releases five frames that do not show a 757, and the frames are dated September 12th. That rocks.

Yeah and where are the bodies again? How did they identify them? I would have thought that they were only so much ash and splinters because of what happened to the plane - disintegrated!

Why do we have permanent full-time people here fighting as hard as possible to convince people on a conspiracy website that the governments official story is the absolute truth down to the smallest detail?

That rocks too man!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And it did not "punch through" 3 rings. at least in the sense that it went in and out of the exterior walls of the separate light courts. The light courts (rings) don't start until the 3rd floor.

The plane entered the building on the ground floor and did not exit until the A_E drive.



9 feet of reinforced concrete. . . .

So you are saying howard that the damage on the pentagon resembles the entry and exit of a long cartridge through a solid like a missile or a drone but the 757 resembling a hollow point bullet could not have gone so cleanly through such mass?

Do I understand you correctly Howard?

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

So you are saying howard that the damage on the pentagon resembles the entry and exit of a long cartridge through a solid like a missile or a drone but the 757 resembling a hollow point bullet could not have gone so cleanly through such mass?

Do I understand you correctly Howard?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

What I am saying is that the plane did not pass through "9 feet of reinforced concrete" because "9 feet of reinforced concrete" did not exist in the area between the outer wall and the A-E drive where the airplane passed through.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

So you are saying howard that the damage on the pentagon resembles the entry and exit of a long cartridge through a solid like a missile or a drone but the 757 resembling a hollow point bullet could not have gone so cleanly through such mass?

Do I understand you correctly Howard?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

What I am saying is that the plane did not pass through "9 feet of reinforced concrete" because "9 feet of reinforced concrete" did not exist in the area between the outer wall and the A-E drive where the airplane passed through.

Of course you have no idea what I am talking about Howard, just like you don't know what a white flag operation is either I bet?

What does it matter if I said the walls were made of titanium as long as the projectile that pierces them is only strong enough to go through butter?

My point is this: you have cornered yourself because the 757 would not have punched through reinforced concrete like it did and now we have to explain how it went through Kevlar reinforced concrete?

So you're telling me that almost 200,000 pounds ISN'T going to go through concrete with a little kevlar in it? Well hell why don't we use that for EVERY concrete building ever built then.