It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!

page: 34
20
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Darkblue I am glad you posted this, because this only illustrates what I was talking about perfectly.

The Plane did not make it through, period. You are correct in saying parts of the plane made it through, but not many. The WTC construction was not even in the same ballpark as the Pentagon. Pentagon having been built like a fortress. Very Very thick steel re-enforced concrete and multiple walls.

So lets assume for the stake of the video footage you posted we are in agreement that the plane hitting the WTC and small debris exiting the building on a 45 degree angle, not much but yes small parts of the plane exiting.

So how on earth did the plane that hit the Pentagon get through so many think layers of steel re-enforce concrete and yet the plane that hit the WTC barely made it through what appears to be 2 sides of just glass, windows and
2 wall partitions? Mind you I have been in commercial and industrial construction for over 20 years so I know a bit about the field.

Now we have to scenarios:

The final exit area of the Pentagon having what appears to be a round exit hole (pentagon), then one plane disintegrates (WTC), but yet the one that hits the multi-layered re-enforced pentagon gets through all those layers with the fuselage almost intact, leaving a round hole?





Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Realtruth

6) How did a 757 pierce 3 rings of the Pentagon Total of 9 Feet of steel reinforce concrete, but yet when the Plane that hit the WTC didn't even make it through the WTC structure?


I think you might be mistaken here.

In this video you can clearly see the airplanes entering through one side, and on the other side of the building you see a fireball of fuel, smoke, and heavy parts (engines and/or landing gear) exiting and falling to the ground.

Watch at time 1:22 to 1:37 and again at 1:52.

It's disingenuous to make a statement like "the Plane that hit the WTC didn't even make it through the WTC structure" when there is abundant and obvious videographic evidence to the contrary.




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


RT, two things...

First, my post was meant to show that your statement that "the Plane that hit the WTC didn't even make it through the WTC structure" was false. Your position is weakened when it relies on false statements.

I guess if you want to be hyper-specific, "the plane" didn't make it through the structure of the WTC, "parts" of the plane made it through.

Second thing, your statement....

"The final exit area of the Pentagon having what appears to be a round exit hole (pentagon), then one plane disintegrates (WTC), but yet the one that hits the multi-layered re-enforced pentagon gets through all those layers with the fuselage almost intact, leaving a round hole?"

Another example of building your argument around a false assumption.
No one has suggested that the airplane "got through all those layers with the fuselage almost intact"

Of course, that sounds ridiculous, and if some one told me that was what happend, and was what caused the hole in the AE ring, I'd say they were full of you know what. The fact is, no one has said this except you.

Parts of the airplane penetrated through the building, through the first floor, which had only one reinforced concrete wall (outer wall), and those heavy/massive parts broke through the unreinforced block and brick wall on the outer side of the AE ring.

There were very many reinforced columns on the first floor, that shreded the aircraft as it passed through, allowing smaller pieces of the aircraft to penetrate through to the AE ring.

After I return from lunch I'll post some specs on the building (wall cross sections, column details, post collapse photos)



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

RT, two things...

First, my post was meant to show that your statement that "the Plane that hit the WTC didn't even make it through the WTC structure" was false. Your position is weakened when it relies on false statements.

Another example of building your argument around a false assumption.
No one has suggested that the airplane "got through all those layers with the fuselage almost intact"



I find it funny you mention false statements or assumptions because you posted the picture with an explanation here about the hole and the large fuselage section. You were the one in a previous post that had pictures of the hole and "large fuselage section from cockpit area:"

I based my conclusions partly on your post, so what is your position?


Originally posted by darkbluesky

large fuselage section from cockpit area:


www.abovetopsecret.com...




Actually, it was a typo on my part, instead of almost intact my mind was ahead of my fingers, it should have read partially intact.

Any logical person would have understands that any object that hits a concrete wall at a high rate of speed will surely not be intact 100%.

False statements no, a typo yes.

Post your pics and drawings.



[edit on 21-1-2008 by Realtruth]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
After reading this thread,I must say,I found it very intersting on both sides.
Arguments are nice,and pictures are also appreciated.
That being said,I still dont believe that any plane hit the Pentagon.
Why?
Well despite all the arguing and pic sharing,theres something missing.
Like the Pentagon's proof.
I have to figure that the government is sick and tired of all the 9/11 questions and doubts.
And theres a simple solution to it all.
All they have to do is release a video showing a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Not the ones they have released,that show nothing but a large fireworks display and no plane.
Its the Pentagon for god sakes,the most watched building in America.
And it has countless cameras recording,and they cant seem to release any footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon?
They have all those tapes,and they refuse to show them,why?
If theres nothing on them showing an impact(which I doubt)then why not just release them and show us the nothing thats on them?What do they have to hide?
And I not going to accept the reason that its to painful for the families,so out of respect to them they wont show them.Because thats pure unadulterated BS!
That excuse obviously dosent carry over to the WTC,which we get to see the planes crashing into the towers again and again every Sept 11th.
The government could end this debate by releasing those tapes,but they wont.
Because on those tapes proves the lie.
Show me the tapes and I will believe,until then I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Afterall if theres nothing to hide,then why hide those tapes?
Pics prove nothing!

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Black_Fox]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Because on those tapes proves the lie.

Show me the tapes and I will believe,until then I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Afterall if theres nothing to hide,then why hide those tapes?
Pics prove nothing!

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Black_Fox]


It's true that the govt's stinginess in releasing audio/video tapes is perplexing, but then again maybe they just figure the truth movement folks will simply dismiss those tapes as being faked or fabricated, just as they have with every other piece of evidence or investigative findings released thus far?

What's also perplexing is that you say tapes will "make you believe" but pics prove nothing.

Please explain that line of reasoning to me. How does and audio or video record hold more wieght than a photographic record?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

It's true that the govt's stinginess in releasing audio/video tapes is perplexing, but then again maybe they just figure the truth movement folks will simply dismiss those tapes as being faked or fabricated, just as they have with every other piece of evidence or investigative findings released thus far?

What's also perplexing is that you say tapes will "make you believe" but pics prove nothing.

Please explain that line of reasoning to me. How does and audio or video record hold more wieght than a photographic record?


So they release tapes that show nothing but an explsion?Ya,that helps there cause.While hiding the tapes that could verify their story?
In fact if furthers the suspicion that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox

They have all those tapes,and they refuse to show them,why?
If theres nothing on them showing an impact(which I doubt)then why not just release them and show us the nothing thats on them?What do they have to hide?
And I not going to accept the reason that its to painful for the families,so out of respect to them they wont show them.Because thats pure unadulterated BS!
That excuse obviously dosent carry over to the WTC,which we get to see the planes crashing into the towers again and again every Sept 11th.
The government could end this debate by releasing those tapes,but they wont.
Because on those tapes proves the lie.
Show me the tapes and I will believe,until then I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Afterall if theres nothing to hide,then why hide those tapes?
Pics prove nothing!

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Black_Fox]



Bravo Black Fox! Stop making so much sense. You think with all the cameras and angles they have they would release all the footage, to prove that is was a plane without a doubt.

That would have been the simplest solution.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

What's also perplexing is that you say tapes will "make you believe" but pics prove nothing.

Please explain that line of reasoning to me. How does and audio or video record hold more wieght than a photographic record?


Pics are one angle, after the fact.

Why not release all the multiple video camera angles from the pentagon?

If you are on one side or the other why would you not want to see all this footage and why do you take a firm stance on photos?


Extra information such as this would be welcome on both sides, proving beyond a doubt what hit the pentagon.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
How did a 757 pierce 3 rings of the Pentagon Total of 9 Feet of steel reinforce concrete, but yet when the Plane that hit the WTC didn't even make it through the WTC structure?


Only two structural walls were breached by AA77. The outer wall of the E ring and the outer wall of AE Drive (famous punch out hole)

The Exterior E ring wall....


As described previously, the original exterior Ring E wall is
mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame.
The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the
frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the
frame. In some areas the backing is a cast-in-place concrete wall.
At the locations inspected for this study, the brick infill at the fifth
story was not in contact with the columns, but was separated by a
2 in. gap crossed by metal ties between the mortar joints and
dovetail slots in the column face. (According to consultation with
an engineer from the authoring firm, at other locations the brick
was mortared tight to the columns.) Concrete columns exist at
20 ft on center in the fifth story and at 10 ft on center in the
lower stories. The fifth story has no windows, and the brick is
interrupted by a concrete beam between the fifth floor and the
eave of the roof.





This comes from the Building Performance Report.


The outer wall of AE drive....



And between the outer E wall and the outer AE Drive wall, there was nothing but curtain walls and these columns.....



Here is a cross section of the entire block...



And the layout of the structural columns on the first floor where the aircraft went through the building....




So there was not "3 rings of the Pentagon Total of 9 Feet of steel reinforced concrete" as you stated in your opening post in this thread, but in actuality an outer wall with reinforced concrete columns placed at 10 ft on center filled in between with non load bearing masonry i.e. 5" limestone facade and 8" of un-reinforced brick, and there was another un- reinforced masonry wall in AE Drive.

There were a great many reinforced steel columns which shredded the airframe into smaller parts of sufficent mass and residual velocity, that one or more of those parts was able to breach the un-reinfoced wall of AE drive.

As a construction professional, I believe you'd agree that an even an automobile traveling at 40-50 mph can easily breach an un-reinforced masonry wall of say 8" block and standard brick layed in a runing bond?

So.....IMO, all of your arguments regarding the impossibility of AA 77 casusing the observed damage to the Pentagon due to the structural specifications of the building are null since you falsely characterized the structural specifications. There was not 9 feet of reinforced concrete walls. There were many steel reinforced concrete columns and two un-reinforced masonry walls with a total thickness of approximately 24".



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Its the Pentagon for god sakes,the most watched building in America.
And it has countless cameras recording,and they cant seem to release any footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon?


This is another example of framing a question by citing unsubstantiated generalizations and presenting them as fact.

The Pentagon is the most watched building in America? Really? How do you know this? Why would the pentagon be the most watched building in America?

I agree there were/and are many surveillence cameras at the Pentagon But I ithink they are pointed mostly at the ground, you know.... they survey the parking lots, access roads, entry points, the grounds in general. They do not aim surveillence cameras at the sky.

Is it your belief that the Gov't had surveillence cameras pointed at the Pentagon from off-site locations?

They did happen to have one set of frames that showed the impact. They released it to the public and everyone immediatley screamed "fake" or that it showed nothing (nevermind the huge fireball....that was nothing significant) or that it showed a missile, not an airplane.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I sure hope that realtruth et al are paying attention this time...

Pentagon witnesses



Donald R. Bouchoux "I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards in front of me and impacted the side of the building. There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by debris raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave hit. I had what must have been an emergency oxygen bottle from the airplane go flying down across the front of my Explorer and then a second piece of jagged metal come down on the right side of the car."[


'The Terrorists Cannot Kill Our Spirit'", The Washington Post, September 20, 2001



Daryl Donley, saw the crash as he was driving on Washington Boulevard. Among debris that was scattered as the plane crashed, he found a "scorched green oxygen tank marked 'Cabin air. Airline use'" on the road


"Witnesses: Airplane hit the Pentagon hard", Gannett News Service, September 11, 2001

Penny Elgas...for brevity you can find her story here

americanhistory.si.edu...




Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. "There was a big boom," he said. "Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled 'Did you see that?' Nobody could believe it


U.S. under attack, USA TODAY, September 12, 2001




Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. "The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill," said McGraw, a Catholic priest at St. Anthony Parish in Falls Church. "I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. "I saw it crash into the building," he said


web.archive.org...://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_39/local_news/10772-1.html




Christopher Munsey, who was en route to work on I-395, "Already dumbfounded by the first, sketchy radio reports of the catastrophic attack on the World Trade Center towers in New York, I couldn’t believe what I was now seeing to my right: A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away. It was a nightmare coming to life. The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking “whoomp,” as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon. A huge flash of orange flame and black smoke poured into the sky. Smoke seemed to change from black to white, forming a billowing column in the sky."


The plane … exploded in a ground-shaking whoomp, Navy Times, September 11, 2001




Mary Ann Owens, of Gannett News Service, was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon, when she saw the airplane pass 50 to 75 feet overhead and crash into the Pentagon


Wheeler, Gary, "Witnesses: Airplane hit the Pentagon hard", Gannett News Service, September 11, 2001




Steve Riskus witnessed the plane crash into the Pentagon, as he was driving along Washington Boulevard and stopped to take photographs moments after the impact





Joel Sucherman, USAToday.com Editor, "saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction," Sucherman said. "It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle--almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course


web.archive.org...




Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. "There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud," he said


www.uuworld.org...




Mike Walter, USA Today reporter, while driving on Washington Boulevard, also witnessed the crash. He recounted to CNN, "...looked out my window. I saw this plane, the jet, American Airlines jet coming. And I thought, this doesn't add up. It's really low. And I saw it. It just went — I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings, it went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion."[


CNN Breaking News 16:58, Transcript # 091174CN.V00, September 11, 2001




David Battle, who worked at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking


A day of horror in the capital", Scripps Howard News Service, September 11, 2001




Maurice L. Bease, a Marine Sergeant, had worked around Marine aviation long enough to know what a fly-by was, and it sounded like one as he stood outside his office near the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Turning around expecting to see a fighter jet fly over, he saw only a split-second glimpse of a white commercial airliner streaking low toward the building, and him! He did not even have time to duck before it plowed into the side of the Pentagon around the corner and about 200 yards from where he stood. Immediately, a ball of flame shot up the side of the building, followed by smoke, lots of it


web.archive.org...://www.mca-marines.org/Leatherneck/nov01pentagonarch.htm




Mickey Bell, on-site foreman, had "just left the Singleton Electric trailer when he heard a loud noise. The next thing he recalled was picking himself off the floor, where he had been thrown by the blast. Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened. During Bell´s close call, other Singleton workers, including sub-foreman Greg Cobaugh, were doing other work on the first and third floors."[26] "We went out to look at his truck and the truckbed was filled with all kinds of debris that must have come from the blast. He's one really lucky guy," marvels Singleton



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Continuing with Pentagon witnesses....




Sean Boger, worked at the Pentagon helipad air traffic control tower, which was between the building and the heliport. He was looking out the window and saw "the nose and the wing of the aircraft just like coming right at us, and he didn't veer... I am watching the plane go all the way into the building, " he stared as the Boeing 757 smacked into the building" less than 100 feet away


Goldberg, Alfred (2007). Pentagon 9/11. GPO, p. 27.




Mike Dobbs, Marine Commander, who worked at the Pentagon, was on an upper level of the outer ring, looking out the window. He saw an American Airlines aircraft as it passed over the Navy Annex and hit the Pentagon


Airplane crashes into Pentagon", The Vancouver Province




John J. Kirlin Inc. employee - For one employee with Wedge One's mechanical subcontractor John J. Kirlin Inc., Rockville MD, "lucky" is an understatement. "We had one guy who was standing, looking out the window and saw the plane when it was coming in. He was in front of one of the blast-resistant windows," says Kirlin President Wayne T. Day, who believes the window structure saved the man's life


web.archive.org...://www.designbuildmag.com/oct2001/pentagon1001.asp




Deb Anlauf was in her 14th floor hotel room, "Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall. When it hit, the whole hotel shook


People affected by the attacks tell their stories The Associated Press September 12, 2001

Witnesses speaking of wreckage....




Carlton Burkhammer, a member of the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team... Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached.





John Damoose, a Travis City, Mich. native who was in a meeting said "everybody got nervous. .‚.‚. We didn't know whether to stay inside or go outside. The thing with terrorist attacks is that you don't know what is the next thing that will happen." Damoose said the worst part was leaving the Pentagon and walking along Fort Meyer Drive, a bike trail, "you could see pieces of the plane


www.washingtonpost.com...




Michael Defina, Captain of the National Airport's aircraft rescue firefighters (ARFF), "That afternoon, Captain Defina and airport Battalion Chief Walter Hood, as well as other jurisdictions' battalion chiefs, led crews inside with attack lines to fight fires on every floor of the "D" and "E" rings. The aircraft had penetrated all the way to the "C" ring. 'The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear.'"[


web.archive.org...://www.nfpa.org/NFPAJournal/OnlineExclusive/Exclusive_11_01_01/exclusive_11.01.01.asp




Jamie McIntyre, CNN reporter, "A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."[


transcripts.cnn.com...




Captain Joseph Candelario and his medics joined a Search and Rescue team. Upon entering the impact site, the team conducted a search of the area, surrounding corridor 5 and 6. They were able to free a few people still trapped by debris. Unfortunately, as they continued the search, they found many body parts and around six burned corpses. Unable to proceed, the fire was too hot, they set up a rally point near the front of the aircraft and waited for the D.C.F.D. to put the fire out. What they did not know was that fire would burn for over a day. After waiting a few hours, they pulled back to the center courtyard and began to set up the morgue, remaining on site until 1930 hours


web.archive.org...://www.usuhs.mil/gsn/gsnhighlights.html


Flight 77 wreckage...

For those constantly complaining about the engines....although you will have to speak Italian...


11-settembre.blogspot.com...

A few pictures here

www.debunk911myths.org...




Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams "discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him. “It was the worst thing you can imagine,” said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. “I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside


www.usatoday.com...

Now....who was complaining that I did not provide links......



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
If i ever see one photo of a charred body still strapped into their seat at the pentagon i will never utter another word about there being no 757 at the pentagon.

And although there is no proof, i believe it is not beyond possibility for plane parts to have been inside the building prior to the impact.

And as for the parts that were "found" by compiling all the available pictures one could assume that they only make up about 15% of the total mass of the plane (at best)



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Retikx
 


There are a few pictures of charred bodies, none strapped into seats that I have seen yet. As for the rest of your post, you use the word assume.....Why should you assume that you are privy to every photo taken ?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
So, now that we've cleared up how much reinforced concrete parts of AA77 had to breach to pass through Rings E, D, and C and punch out the inner wall of the C ring (which is also the outer wall of AE Drive) lets take a look at what it takes to breach an un-reinforced concrete block wall similar to the outer wall of AE Drive at the pentagon.



[edit on 1/23/2008 by darkbluesky]

This picture of the punchout is good because it illustrates two things very well.



First, it shows that the wall construction at the breach was simple double thickness brick, common red brick on the inside, and yellow or ceramic brick on teh outside. This kind of a wall has no reinforcing. It has simple metal ties embedded into the mortar joints that bond the outer wall to the inner wall.

The columnar structures on both sides of the opening are called pilasters. They are thicker and stronger structural members that give the wall strength and stability. In this case they are probabaly "I" beams encased in concrete or highly reinforced concrete. The important point is that the brick section between the columns is non-structural and not re-inforced, it's sole purpose is to enclose the building, not to support anything.

The second thing that's noteworthy in this photograph is that you can see clear through to the windows looking out onto the lawn. This illustrates the open floor plan of the first floor......no reinforced walls, period.


[edit on 1/23/2008 by darkbluesky]

added this picture to show the pilasters...



[edit on 1/23/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth

So how on earth did the plane that hit the Pentagon get through so many think layers of steel re-enforce concrete and yet the plane that hit the WTC barely made it through what appears to be 2 sides of just glass, windows and
2 wall partitions? Mind you I have been in commercial and industrial construction for over 20 years so I know a bit about the field.



The plane that hit the WTC had a lot more to contend with than glass and two wall partitions. The WTC had a steel load bearing exoskeleton. Steel, not glass. It also had steel vertical core columns. Plus the concrete flooring. The plane was much too large to avoid striking both the floor above and below the impact point. The plane, being designed to cut through air not steel and concrete, would largely disintegrate on impact becoming a cloud of parts and fuel still traveling at high velocity through the building like a shot gun blast. It looked to me from all the videos like an awful lot of the parts and fuel exit the far side of the WTC as one would expect.


I don't get how you contend that the WTC was not penetrated while the Pentagon was.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth

If you are on one side or the other why would you not want to see all this footage and why do you take a firm stance on photos?



For the simple fact that neither photos or videos are needed to know AA77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

For the simple fact that neither photos or videos are needed to know AA77 hit the Pentagon.




I appreciate the hard work people put into this thread and the videos, photos, and theories posted, but this is the kind of input that this thread does not need.

Darkblue and swamp, great input you have me thinking for sure. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear


No. There is no evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. None.


That is without a doubt the most ridiculous lie that a person could post in this thread, and big surprise where it came from.

Right in the face of direct proof, pictures, evidence, eyewitnesses etc, we get this.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rocksarerocks

Originally posted by johnlear


No. There is no evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. None.


That is without a doubt the most ridiculous lie that a person could post in this thread, and big surprise where it came from.

Right in the face of direct proof, pictures, evidence, eyewitnesses etc, we get this.


Actually he's right. I see no evidence that a 757 hit the pentagoon either.

Direct proof? Sry there is none, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Eyewitnesses? Well it depends which eyewitnesses you want to believe, because almost none of them agree and some downright contradict the myth of a 757 hitting the pentagoon. Pentagoon cops even contradicted the official flight path without realising they did, proving the light poles were planted, just like all the other aircraft 'debris' that can't be linked to any 757.
Pictures? Where are the picture of a 757 hitting the pentagoon? In fact why were cameras that would have caught the impact confiscated by the FBI and not released? If they show a 757 hitting the pentagoon why did they only release a vid that shows nothing at all but a puff of white smoke?

Sry, too many holes bigger than the one a 757 was supposed to have made...




top topics



 
20
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join