Possible reason for no debris at pentagon., page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 5-3-2006 @ 05:48 AM by manta

I was looking at videos i have on my pc of the 9/11 attacks and noticed something that i think may explain why no debris was found on the pentagon lawn.
Click here to watch the video

It shows the plane coming right out the other side then vaporising.

I think that this is similar to what happned at the pentagon. The reason i think this is that as the video shows the plane going right through the building and coming out with the nose intact. I think that when the plane hit the pentagon it was moving so fast the tube didnt have time to bend and buckle and just went straight through the wall. When the wings hit their was nowhere for them to go so they just vaporised as they hit the wall.

I recognise their are still alot of things that just don't add up like where the engins and landing gear went but i do think that this is a possible explanation of what happned to all the aluminum and why their is nothing on the lawn.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 06:21 AM by Lumos

Well, if the plane had evaporated on impact, then what caused the well-defined, circular hole in the C-ring?

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 06:38 AM by Zaphod58

Not all of it was completely destroyed of course. The lightest pieces would have been, such as the wings and portions of the fuselage. Part like the landing gear would have been somewhat protected since they were in the fuselage, portions of the engines would have survived and gone through the building.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 06:40 AM by manta

im not saying the whole plane evaporated upon impact, im saying thewings did. I would have tought the fuselage could have got to c ring before it lost the energy to punch holes. Then as crazy as it may sound the firedestroyed the rest?

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 06:44 AM by manta

If you look at some of the photos then im sure you can see damage where the engines hit, they may just have been spashed into pieces small enough to go un noticed.

Don't get me wrong here i beleive something was up with these attacks, im just trying to put forward why i think a plane actualy did hit the pentagon

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 07:31 AM by St Udio

all in all, i think its an error to compare the resulting damage on the Pentagon with any other structure on the earth

there aren't any other multi-layered, reinforced concrete & steel buildings, which probably had some sorta classified/high-tech layers of shock absorbing substances sandwiched between the layers of walls of all the concentric rings.
Then the building was probably designed to transfer (or direct) impact energies downward into the ground, in some fashion....
what the hey....the Military & Pentagon designers aren't going to make public all the facts....that'd be giving any future enemies attempts to destroy the Pentagon too much information!

perhaps there's only a smaller than the aircraft hole through the concentric rings because the building was designed to concentrate impact energies with the use of 'smart' metals and other materials, ?maybe sheets of kevlar placed between the layers of the unique building components.

which might be described something like this:
exterior fascia- core concrete-'smart steel'-carbonstrand insulation<=>
{interior office space}
<=>carbonstrand insulation-more 'smart' steel-core concrete-exterior fascia...
and thats just one cross section of 1 ring! multiply that with the # of rings & the dead-space between 'rings'

imo, there's a tendency to mix ~apples & oranges~ in trying to explain the pentagon damage vs. any conventional buildings' damage....and the anomalities between the two

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 09:40 AM by Icarus Rising

The thing that gets me about the Pentagon 'crash' is how the jet managed to get into a flight path low enough and straight enough to impact the side of the building, and not the top. That alone is enough to make me skeptical about the whole thing. Think about it for a minute, the jet would have had to virtually be landing to strike where it purportedly did. Is there enough clearance around the Pentagon and surrounding environs for a jumbo jet to come in on a low level approach and do this? It is nothing like coming in at several hundred feet in level flight and striking the WTC. The damage to the building just isn't consistent with the dynamics of getting a jumbo jet to hit it, imo.

9-11 and the IMPOSSIBLE

The link above goes into much more detail about what I'm getting at.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by Icarus Rising]

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 10:00 AM by Curio

Originally posted by manta
I was looking at videos i have on my pc of the 9/11 attacks and noticed something that i think may explain why no debris was found on the pentagon lawn.
Click here to watch the video

It shows the plane coming right out the other side then vaporising.

I think that this is similar to what happened at the pentagon. The reason i think this is that as the video shows the plane going right through the building and coming out with the nose intact. I think that when the plane hit the pentagon it was moving so fast the tube didn't have time to bend and buckle and just went straight through the wall. When the wings hit their was nowhere for them to go so they just vaporised as they hit the wall.

I recognise their are still alot of things that just don't add up like where the engins and landing gear went but i do think that this is a possible explanation of what happened to all the aluminum and why their is nothing on the lawn.

Haven't you just repeated the "official" explanation?

I agree that the Pentagon is extremely tough and it can't really be compared to any other crash. I'm even willing to accept a lot of the plane did simply vaporize on impact. However, there should still be more wreckage and evidence of a 757 strike. It's very suspicious.

And, as mentioned above, the actual flight leading up to the impact is even more suspicious. Again, it's not impossible that an "amateur" pilot managed to fly a large plane well beyond its capabilities and keep it perfectly flat a few feet above the ground to hit a building with cruise missile-like accuracy..........it's just very, very unlikely

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 10:43 AM by The Links

If the wings came off and vapourized, and the fuel was storred in the wings how did the fuel get into the building to burn it in the way it did ,and burn the roof off in areas not yet talked about.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 12:12 PM by manta

Well it did just smash a nice big hole in the face of the building in sure fuel could get in that way.

Those wings obviously didn't go through the wall because their is no holes wide enough for it to have.The wings either vaporised or sumhow managed to squeeze through those circular holes.

On the subject of the plane having to be coming in as if to land to hit the pentagon as it did, it is and it isn't. Some people say it is possible with extream luck but others say it is impossible even for the most highly trained pilto to fly a plane that big that low withoiut so much as cutting a blade of grass.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 12:41 PM by Jack Tripper

Why was another thread started on this when the "if it does not fit you must acquit" thread is about the exact same thing???

Remember?

We know from the physical evidence that the plane HAD to have cleared the trailer and the spools which would make the impact hole/damage significantly higher especially when considering the massive 45 foot tall vertical stabilizer. But at the same time the "video" released shows it traveling completely DEAD ON STRAIGHT AND VERY LOW TO THE GROUND!

How can anyone reconcile the above FACT with this video???

So naturally that means the video HAS to be faked which implicates the government in an inside job right off the bat.

That being said........you people need to quit brushing off the sheer size of a 757 and the sheer strength of parts like the engines, wing spars, & massive veritical stabilizer that would have made impact MUCH MUCH higher than the visible hole or damage to the building due to the fact that the plane cleared the trailer and spools.

Heeeeeere we go again!

Fire engine next to impact hole...

Same style fire engine next to 757...

Composite of 757 next to fire engine and pentagon....

757 next to truck....

Composites of 757 next to truck lined up with vehicles in front of pentagon...

Humans next to windows of pentagon. Rememer....the impact hole was only 2 windows wide......

Composites of 757 next to humans (the engines of the plane were far beyond the width of the impact hole and since the engine supposedly hit the trailer the damge from the engines would HAVE to be higher up then ground level!).....

It just doesn't fit.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 03:01 PM by manta

Yes jack, things don't fit. I realise they don't fit!

But think about how many conflicting conspiracy theorys their are about 9/11 then i think you can make the evedance fit whatever you want. Strange things happen. Fact. Maybe nothing weird at all went on on 9/11 but the government of the usa sure has made a good job of fueling the conspiracy theorists.

I started this thread just to try throw my 2 cents but looking back i should probably ahve just added this to another thread. However its done now so meh

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 03:14 PM by Jack Tripper

Sure.... "strange" things happen but not multitudes of virtually impossible coincidences that literally defy the laws of physics!

It makes no sense whatsoever to shrug off all of the ridiculous anomolies and holes in the official story by saying "strange things happen".

Escpecially when there is such an incredible track record for the governement to lie to us and even consider staging terror against american citizens to frame an enemy as a pretext for war. (northwoods)

A 757 could not have hit the pentagon as they said.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 03:40 PM by bsbray11

WATS from me, man. That is amazing.

I've never been totally convinced either way regarding the Pentagon, but I'll be damned if those images don't conclusively show that that hole was NOT caused by the alleged aircraft!

I never realized a 757 was that big compared to the Pentagon. Good work, man.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 04:52 PM by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
But at the same time the "video" released shows it traveling completely DEAD ON STRAIGHT AND VERY LOW TO THE GROUND!

Yes it does, thank you for that

This picture is good, I've added the outline in the fence that could be where an engine ploughed through maybe?

Composite of 757 next to fire engine and pentagon....

Whoops!! You forgot about the bit you acknowledged at the beginning where the plane was flying very close to the ground! You've got it with the undercarriage down and even then still hovering off the ground!!
Here, I did a new one for you using a composite of your images:

It seems to fit much better..

Humans next to windows of pentagon. Rememer....the impact hole was only 2 windows wide......

There hefty lokoing lads arn't they! How tall to you reckon they are? 6 foot?
Let's be generous and make them a measley 5' 6"

So what do two windows span? About 15' 6".

So how wide is the fuselage of a 757-200 again?

Basic Dimensions
Wing span 124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)
Overall Length 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m)
Tail Height 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m)
Interior Cabin Width 11 ft 7 in (3.5 m)
Body Exterior Width 12 ft 4 in (3.7 m)
www.boeing.com...

That'll be 12' 4" then...

Composites of 757 next to humans (the engines of the plane were far beyond the width of the impact hole and since the engine supposedly hit the trailer the damge from the engines would HAVE to be higher up then ground level!).....

Not sure what you're on about, you place the aircraft hitting the building where it didn't.. Not sure what you're trying to point out there LOL!

It just doesn't fit.

Well actually, you just proved beautifully that it does. You get my WATS vote too!

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 05:03 PM by bsbray11

Look at this image.

Look at the alleged wing damage, which is that black line between floors.

The wings were on the lower part of the fuselage, right? Bottom 2/3 of the fuselage is where the wings were. So then why are they 100% above the hole?

It seems there was apparently *no* wing damage after all, or else 2/3 of the fuselage didn't puncture the building, or really do much of anything at all, and then disappeared (2/3 of the fuselage vaporized as well? only the bottom 2/3 puncture?).

That all aside from that amazing hole in the first place.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 05:09 PM by AgentSmith

Just theorising but as the aircraft impacted it may lifted? If it almost bounced in then the fuselage still outside of the impact zone complete with wings may have risen as it was impacting. The bottom half of the hull is also a hell of a lot stronger than the flimsy skin on the top half, the aircraft was probably higher than you're imagining.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 06:56 PM by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Yes it does, thank you for that.

This picture is good, I've added the outline in the fence that could be where an engine ploughed through maybe?

Are you that blind? You can see the top corner of the trailer heavily smashed where it was hit by whatever hit the pentagon. DO YOU GET IT NOW? This shows that if it was a 757 that it would have HAD to have been much higher than depicted in that fake video that they released and then didn't even own up to releasing. At least 10 feet higher. So that right there makes the notion that the impact hole was as close to the ground as it was impossible. The fake video is simply supposed to match it up with the hole.

Whoops!! You forgot about the bit you acknowledged at the beginning where the plane was flying very close to the ground! You've got it with the undercarriage down and even then still hovering off the ground!!
Here, I did a new one for you using a composite of your images:

It seems to fit much better..

No mr. slow. I did not admit it I said their fake video depicted this whereas the surrounding damage especially the trailer and the spools is hard physical evidence that this simply could not have been the case.

There hefty lokoing lads arn't they! How tall to you reckon they are? 6 foot?
Let's be generous and make them a measley 5' 6"

So what do two windows span? About 15' 6".

So how wide is the fuselage of a 757-200 again?

That'll be 12' 4" then...

My god you are late to the party. No kidding you catherder wannabe. We already know the fuseloge would fit. BUT THE WINGS, ENGINES, WING SPARS, AND VERTICAL STABILIZER CLEARLY DO NOT! Especially when you consider we now know the craft had to be at least 10 feet off the ground to clear the trailer, spools, and tree stump.

Not sure what you're on about, you place the aircraft hitting the building where it didn't.. Not sure what you're trying to point out there LOL!

That is the point that your brain is working overtime to understand. IT COULD NOT HAVE HIT WHERE THEY SAID IT DID IF IT WAS A 757. Because it wasn't a 757. It was a much smaller craft.

Well actually, you just proved beautifully that it does. You get my WATS vote too!

Hey......I'll take the vote even though it's a result of you not being able to understand the post. But no bluffing....you better really give it to me.

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 08:50 PM by kmrod

question #1, what about the people who saw it?

#2, if it wasn't the 757, where is the one that we are 100% sure took off full of people?

#3, you say it was a smaller aircraft... how do you explain the width of the external damage?

[edit on 5-3-2006 by kmrod]

reply posted on 5-3-2006 @ 09:19 PM by LoneGunMan

I just cant except the fact that the wing spars and tail section are not on the lawn. Why would anyone think that a 757 flown by someone that cant land a cessna could get that far into ground effect at that kind of speed anyway? How can you believe wings can vaporize or "get sucked into the hole". Where in the heck is the tail section?

Even at 500 mph the tail section has what 155 feet after the nose impacts to slow down. Are you gonna say that physics do not apply on 9/11? That is 155 feet of fuselage crumpling slowing that tail section down.

You really think it would vaporize when it hit? Is this Buck Rogers or something? The tail would slow down enough to be mostly intact, at least leaving some big parts on the lawn.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^