It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New Pentagon Video footage

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by benoni

Seem to have problem understanding how the blast resistant windows

Here is explanation -

Merely replacing existing windows with blast-resistant ones anchored to the existing brick infill would not be a workable solution. The newer windows would direct blast pressures to the window support connections at the infill. The tensile and shear loads would overwhelm the existing infill walls and allow the panes and frames to separate from the walls as potential missiles harmful to personnel working in the building. A typical bay with window is illustrated below.

The resulting general design solution called for erecting structural reinforcements around the windows, anchoring at the top and bottom to structural concrete floor slabs and not the non-structural brick infill walls. This general solution also accepts blast forces from the walls themselves and transfers both window and wall loads into the horizontal slab diaphragms.

This solution has a tubular frame for each windowed wall panel, consisting of two vertical tubes (HSS 6 � 6 � 0.25 on floors two through four, and HSS 8 � 8 � 0.1875 on the first floor) horizontally braced with tubes (HSS 4 � 4 � 0.375) welded at each window's head and sill. (See the above picture for a rendering of the structural frame at a typical second floor window.) The frame becomes the structural support for the blast-resistant windows, with the vertical tubes giving new blast protection to the infill walls.

To make the solution work, HSMM designed a practical floor-ceiling connection scheme for the vertical tubes. The tubes must withstand large deflections to perform their intended function of absorbing blast loads. Large deflections, however, with their inherent shear, create significant tensile force on connecting hardware in a blast situation. This condition eliminated the more direct "top/bottom" approach of connecting the vertical tubes to the concrete slab above and below with expansion anchors.

With the stringent design criteria minimizing intrusion into tenant space, the solution had to work in the narrow space between the tubes' interior face and the interior face of the brick wall, a matter of only a few inches. The answer was to weld the tubes to long, narrow plates running along the floor and ceiling. These plates connect to their counterparts on floors above and below with through-bolts, using 3/4"-diameter A36 threaded rods. To maintain good connection to the slab for constructibility and to compensate for variations in tube length, the vertical tubes are also welded to opposed double gusset plates, which in turn are welded to the floor/ceiling plates. This solution connects the window frames from floor to floor. This design directs dynamic horizontal blast forces through the flexible tubes into the floor diaphragms. This approach was uniformly applied to the window panels on the second, third and fourth floors.

The first and fifth floors, due to the existing construction mentioned earlier, posed special problems. Because the first floor is slab on grade, connecting the tubes to the floor slab by through-bolting would not work. And since anchor bolts could not take the calculated tensile and shear forces, a different approach was required. A core-drilled hole in the slab on grade accommodates the tube bottom so the tube will bear horizontally against the floor through a bearing plate. After inserting the greased end of the tubes, the holes are grouted to create a bearing surface and protect the capped tubes' ends from soil moisture corrosion.

The first floor ceiling configuration created a separate connection challenge. The spandrel beam from the second floor protrudes approximately 4" (102 mm) from the interior wall for about 17" (432 mm) down from the ceiling, forcing the vertical tubes several inches away from the infill wall and window frames. The resulting gap below the spandrel had to be "closed" to maintain structural integrity by using a dry-pack, non-shrink grout and by welding a 3" wide (76 mm) spacer tube (HSS 6 � 3 � 0.3125) along the length of the HSS 8 � 8 tube face. The tubes' top connection used the same through-bolt scheme as the other floors, aligning with the bottom plates on the floor above.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:09 PM
so what does that all mean??

The plane should have bounced off the glass , because it was soooo strong??

Then wheres the plane??
You cant have it both ways.....either the glass wins, or the plane wins...but not both....

I would suggest to you that your argument makes no sense....

Pentacon glass can repel planes crashing into them, but wtc1 and 2 cannot??

Can you not see how dumb that sounds?

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:47 AM

Originally posted by thedman

Then there is the debris pile at the C ring wall to A-B drive

that pic still amazes me to this day... and whats even more amazing is that to this day NO ONE including YOU, has attempted to offer any rational explanation for how a 90 TON boeing could have possibly fit inside that hole or created such little damage.

That pic to me is a smoking gun in of itself... and speaks volumes.

how can you possibly look at that hole and not ask the question where's the WING, TAIL, and ENGINE DAMAGE...

NOTHING in that pic shows any damage consistent with ANY type of jet, commerical jet, let alone any PLANE that remotely resembles a BOEING 757.

there's nothing but a ROUND TIDY HOLE.

common sense alone PROVES inside job and thats NOT DAMAGE FROM A PLANE.

a MISSLE maybe

explosives etc, maybe


I DARE YOU to offer any rational explanation showing how that can possibly have been a PLANE ie AA77.

Please go right ahead... i need a good laugh.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:04 AM
definitely one of my favorite vids!!

the first 60 seconds of that video is more than enough VISUAL EVIDENCE supporting NO PLANE at the Pent.

can anyone seriously look at the damage (and lack of) at the pentagon and say its consistent with what would happen if a COMMERICAL JET actually followed the SOC and OCT FDR path?

the video above shows what SHOULD occur and RESULT from a JET following a similar crash path.

But what do we get at the PENTAGON???

downed light poles falling neatly in their place, a totally INTACT LAWN, and nothing but a 16 ft ROUND hole without any WING, TAIL or ENGINE DAMAGE not to mention any INCOMING FIREBALL as illustrated in the video above which should have occurred according to the OCT/ FDR path that has it approaching a few feet off the ground!!

and then lets not forget i believe the FDR also has the plane TILTED which means that one of the wings was LOWER which should have shredded or been imbedded into the grass for several feet.

the amazing pentalawn indeed!!!

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:23 AM
reply to post by matrixNIN11

Yes indeed. Real pilots with real experience seeing no sign of an aircraft crash at the Pentagon, contrasted with a bunch of computer jockey government loyalists with their eyes blindfolded, all faithfully defending the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY relying on blind faith in their government god and its MSM propaganda outlets.

Now what is presented here in its short form has got to be more than satisfactory to any reasonably clear headed thinker to deduce on their own that in fact there was "no Boeing 757, 767, 737, 707 or 747 near, on or about the general premises of the Pentagon on September 11th 2001.

Then we have the very real problem of no distinguishable aircraft wing or tail pieces on the lawn immediately after the alleged crash. No aircraft pieces out by the road from the alleged collision of the 535 mph wings with five 337 pound light poles. It is doubtful the wings could survive such an impact; so where are the wings or pieces of wings? Where is the damage to the lawn? How could a 90 ton aircraft officially fly level and inches above the lawn at 535 mph and not damage the lawn?

Besides since the aircraft has been proven beyond any doubt to be flying Over the Naval Annex; then how could the aircraft possibly get over to the light poles to the south to impact with them. It could not. Not possible. Something or somebody else laid those light poles gently on the ground near their bases.

Never Aired PENTAGON Footage 9/11

Where is the plane?

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by donttaserme

maybe this is more to your liking .. harrd to chew isnt it .. one day you might just open your eyes

oh yea one more thing .. if all this isnt "evidence" enough for the non believers then where is the proof that a plane hit it at all ? ive never seen a video or a picture or anything except what "they" say happened ..I never seen a plane hit it.. you never seen a plane hit it. so tell me why do you think it was a plane at all?

[edit on 03/06/09 by donttaserme]

Pentagon wreckage

pic one

pic 2

pic 3

pic 4

Remember the Pentagon WALLS are not like a normal building made to resist attacks bomb blasts etc.

Eye witness accounts of Strike

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 10:44 AM
Well that is pretty conclusive.

The question now is, who invented and promoted the lie of a plane and what did they benefit from this?

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by wmd_2008

Did you forget to include the serial numbers for those objects officially and definitively tying them to Flight 77 Tail # N644AA? What do you mean aircraft crash investigators neglected to provide any serial numbers for the alleged aircraft at the Pentagon? What? Aircraft crash investigators did not provide one single serial number for any of the remains of any of the alleged four aircraft used against America on 9-11-2001? How can that be? That was allegedly the most horrific attack ever against the American mainland and they did not bother to gather evidence to use against the perpetrators?

Have you noticed lately how many contradictions and improbabilities and impossibilities and outright lies are contained in the current edition of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY? Does that disgust you or is it just hunky dory? How do you explain the actual aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo gas station and far north of the downed light poles and alleged damage path through the Pentagon? How do you reconcile the impossibility of the north flight path accomplishing what was allegedly done on the south flight path?

[edit on 3/13/09 by SPreston]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:07 PM
Here is a very good technical analysis of how a plane could have cuased the damage seen.

Note that it covers the forensic data publicly available as well as crash physics etc.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:14 PM

posted by s4dreamlnd93

Have you seen what JP5 does to aluminum when it is on fire? The black smoke shows that there is a significant amount of fuel being burnt and is very much a sure sign of class bravo fire.

Also if you re-watch the first 1 1/2 minutes of the footage you can see metallic debris all over the grass.

I did not see metallic debris all over the lawn. I saw paper and remains of shattered construction trailers and the normal junk left behind by litter-buggers. Did you see any jet fuel burning out on the lawn? No? Did you see any grass turning brown because Jet-A fuel was spilled on it? No? And how did those polyethelene cable spools escape being burned up or melted by all that alleged burning jet fuel?

No sign of jet fuel anywhere on the Pentagon lawn. How do you explain that? Those wings allegedly hit five 337 pound light poles at 535 mph allegedly before the engines were officially mere inches off the grass. Why was no jet fuel spilled all over the grass? Why was no jet fuel splashed backward off the wall onto the grass? Why didn't the massive wake turbulence of the 535 mph (784 fps) aircraft damage the lawn and overturn a few cars and kill the pedestrians allegedly underneath?

Because there was no aircraft flying in along the official south flight path at 535 mph as scripted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY Revision 59? and counting. No aircraft impacted the Pentagon. No aircraft knocked down the light poles. No aircraft moved the generator. No aircraft created the Exit Hole into A&E Drive. The actual aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo gas station and above the light poles and overhead highway sign, and went nowhere near the downed light poles and moved generator trailer and could not possibly have created the official damage path through the Pentagon.

The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is a farce.

[edit on 3/13/09 by SPreston]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:27 PM

Originally posted by benoni
Thats a great photo you got there s4....

What do you propose happened then when the plane hit those cable spools...they sure dont look too plane impacted to me.....the ones in front of your wing impact point...??

Same goes for the panes of airplane-proof glass which miraculously stood firm during The Attack know, the ones above the wings, those pesky wabbit wings which vapourised upon impact with the can see the windows are still intact due to the fire retardant foam sprayed all over them...and the spools look untouched to me...

And dont forget....that jet fuel was soooo hot it melted all that steel at WTC1 and 2....

So does that mean that if WTC1 and 2 were made of Pentacon Grade Glass beams rather than steel, they would still be standing?

I can understand your confusion boys.....

I think theres a couple of people watching this thread who are masquerading as comedians .......if it wasnt so tragic, there comments would be laughable...

thanks again for a great photo you mentioned, you dont see that pic around much....

same goes for thedmans "the whole plane is inside the building via a hole less than 20ft wide" theory....

[edit on 12-3-2009 by benoni]

The construction of the TOWERS and The Penagon are completely different so its idiotic to say because what happened at one location should have happened at another.
The Pentagon was DESIGNED to resist possible attacks and iirc had had major work done before the attacks ,blast proof windows could have survived provided that they did not take a direct impact from part of the plane.
Re the TOWERS the steel did not need to melt to fail!

Another link to read from!!!!

[edit on 13-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:06 PM
my point exactly wmd......if a plane hit, given its scale, those windows would have been damaged....
Because they are not, it seems fair to conclude a plane never hit....

I like this pic...immediately after the missile hit, before the roof collapsed, because it shows ZERO evidence of ANY plane having hit....
Oh, and the holes about 15 ft maximum in diameter...

Closely followed by this one...ignore the circles....this is the last inner ring's a plane did it though is beyond any persons rationale understand....only an idiot would believe a plane did this, let alone argue the point...!!

Note the complete absence of anything even remotely resembling a planeon 13-3-2009 by benoni]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by benoni]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:35 PM

Originally posted by donttaserme

the hole was 16 feet in diameter.
the 757 is 156 feet long
44 feet high
124 foot wing span
100 tons
you do the math

Your "math" is flawed.

Wingspan is 124ft.
Fuselage width: 3.54 m (11 ft 7 in).
Most dense part of aircraft: The main fuselage and wing root.
Hole in Pentagon?
Between 16-18ft.
yep, the main fuselage fits right in the hole with space for the wingroot and a small portion of the wings with fuel.

I dont know how you'd expect one giant 124ft hole just like that.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by SPreston

Again with this?
your quote:

Of course people with brains now know for a fact that the real decoy aircraft flew Over the Naval Annex and North of the Cirgo gas station and above the light poles and overhead highway sign, and went nowhere near the staged downed light poles and taxicab and burning generator trailer. Nor did any air frame impact the Pentagon.

You claimed again the NoC approach disproves the crash theory, and you claim the "decoy" aircraft flew NoC and flew around the Pentagon and totally missed. Now, I would like to see your eyewitnesses that corroborate this fantasy. Because even though some of the eyewitnesses that you use to "prove" a NoC approach, (or is it the ONA now? Or both?) they ALL agree on the plane impacting the Pentagon. Every single one. Not one, allow me to repeat that for the people in the back of the room, NOT ONE mentions any aircraft, missing the Pentagon or having it fly up and over the Pentagon pior or during the resulting fireball or after. Not one person, even in the most perfect viewing areas of the tragedy on either side of the Pentagon or surrounding area EVER mentioned anything of a plane (be it an AA or "decoy") completely missing the Pentagon, flying over it and flying away while the fireball rises up. And so I guess now we have to go and wait for you to provide the eyewitnesses that saw the plane miss completely and fly over. Because without that crucial info, all you are doing is spinning a lovely little fantasy with little basis on fact. Only wishful thinking.
Oh also, please find us the eyewitnesses that saw with their own eyes the "men in black" and FBI, and "fake firefighters" (I would love to see you say that to the first responding firefighters and paramedics that were there on that day) coming in and planting debris in front of hundreds of cameras and potential witnesses and news crews. This little fantasy is getting funnier and funnier. Its making the official story look more realistic.

[edit on 3/13/2009 by GenRadek]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:01 PM
your "logic" is flawed....

you really believe the above photos show a plane crash site?
No debris in those pix eh??

This is the definitive crash photo...NO WRECKAGE....NB...NO WRECKAGE!!
Then of course there are these awkward Q's....

Where did the wings go??
Where did the tail go?
Where did over 200 seats go?
Why was the lawn undamaged ?
The luggage??

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by benoni

A serious question for you:
Are you new to the Pentagon crash?

Have you ever seen the wreckage INSIDE the Pentagon? Ahhh cause if you have, you wouldn't be asking such questions. Use some common sense here please, what do you think happens to everything when a plane plows INTO a building? Do you think everything will just bounce off and stay outside? If a car drives into a house, where will you be looking for the passangers and the car? Outside the house or inside? Look inside:
A few good photos of airplane parts inside consistant with a 757.
Here is another good page which shows what else happens to planes in crashes.
Most crashes we are used to are lower speed impacts like in a crash landing where we have more of the plane surviving. But a high speed impact into a building and a fire? What do you expect will happen? Be sure to read up on the C-130 that crashed into a building in Tehran a few years back. Or see the photos of the DC-8 that crashed into a carpark. Small pieces!

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by benoni

Closely followed by this one...ignore the circles....this is the last inner ring's a plane did it though is beyond any persons rationale understand....only an idiot would believe a plane did this, let alone argue the point...!!

Note the complete absence of anything even remotely resembling a planeon 13-3-2009 by benoni]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by benoni]

I suppose you missed the LARGE chunck of wreakage right in the middle of the picture.

Also the whole in your first picture is covered by smoke, it is on the left side of the image and if you look you can see it.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:13 PM
No...I am not new.
Are you perhaps a little naive?

your pathetic 4 or 5 photos show nothing nothing conclusive showing me a plane hit...if i am correct, it is also fair to assume agents would be ready to leave a few bits and pieces of "debris" a scrap or to of metal prove nothing..NOTHING...

If you believe the official line, you show me you are incapable of putting 2 and 2 together...
or you have a second agenda...
My photo above OF THE CRASH SITE show NO evidence of a plane....NONE!!

Does this not seem a little odd to you....??It should you know.....

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:26 PM
You claim no pieces of wreckage yet when people point them out you claim they are placed there, It seems to me that no amount of evidence will be enough.

Forensics is a science just like engineering.

you can look at the structure and understanding the structure, the construction (materials etc) and then the projectile (in this case a 757-200 plane) and you will have a certain set of indicators.

You have those here.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:59 PM
I disagree...and please, i am not trying to be difficult..

However, showing a few photos of some debris, placed who knows where is hardly forensic proof....not at all, so no forensic comparisons please..

Also, why only a few shards of metal really...wheres the rest??The seats, hundreds of them?

Do you really think it makes cant because it doesnt!!

Where is any evidence of the plane on the photo i posted above??

Using your forensic sleuthing my "lack of plane" proves there was none, just as you are saying heres a man holding a piece of plane = forensic proof....

You seem to be quite happy with
a) no visible plane
b)no visible plane impact marks on building
c)no damage to any lawn, even though its right in front of the impact site
d)upwards of 43 cubic metres of cargo
e)over 200 seats missing

i could go get my drift....

I am not so accepting of something especially seeing that even a chimp could see this just doesnt add up...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in