Possible Proof that a Missile Hit the Pentagon on Sept 11???

Hey ATS

I just wanted to share something I learned this past week that I found rather significant. I have heard of the theory in the past that a missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane.

I live and work in Washington DC and frequently drive by the Pentagon. My boss and I were driving back from a meeting we had in Virginia this past week, and we passed the Pentagon on the way back to the office. He brought up the story of his personal experience of the attack on the Pentagon on 911.

He said he was driving his vehicle past the Pentagon when it was attacked. He was on the opposite side of the Pentagon that was hit. He said that the windows of his vehicles expanded in and then back out and made popping noises, but did not shatter.

I asked him what his thoughts were immediately after it happened. He said he was scared to death, and swore that a missile had hit the Pentagon. He said that the shockwave was so powerful and intense, that it caused the windows in his vehicle to expand and contract.

I just found it extremely interesting that his initial thoughts when the attack happened, was that a missile had exploded. Not a plane. He thought the Pentagon was being attacked by missiles, so he immediately made a u-turn and drove back to his office to get away from that area.


Whats your thoughts on this guys? Could the explosion of jet fuel from a plane on the far side of the Pentagon cause the expanding and contracting of his windows like that? Or would it take high power explosives to cause such a shockwave? He stated that his whole vehicle vibrated and shook.

Remember, he was on the far side of the Pentagon, at least 400 yards or so from the area of impact. And that shockwave had to travel thru or around the Pentagon to reach his vehicle.

Can you tell me exactly what road he was on, his exact location on the road, and which direction he was heading?

Even more threads about the same thing?
I will post this here too then:

Whats the difference? It wouldn't ever be properly investigated.
Unless its by a "handpicked" team without any credibility or authority.

The sheeple will remain grazing happily in their pastures of
consumerism and will ignore anything that threatens this.
Life goes on - in the land of the greed and home of the 'fraid!
Enjoy!

Sorry for the negativity...the peeps seem to care more about
things like what the octomom is doing!

The 16% that thinks the WTC 7 was intentionally demolished
will always be looked at as just plain kooky. Why is that?

Do not make multiple copies of the same thread in differnt forums. If you are unsure as to where a thread should be placed contact one of the many moderators.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
If you are unsure as to where a thread should be placed contact one of the many moderators.

Says the person who is not a moderator and just wasted a post in this thread that wasn't even on topic. That's what the big ALERT button is for in everyone's posts.

As to the OP, the video released from the DoD looks exactly like a missile smoke trail hitting the Pentagon, but SPreston has made a case that the video is fake and I'm sure he'll be along very shortly.

I don't have an opinion either way if the DoD videos were faked or not.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Oh come on bonez.

You know better than that.

I don't see how you can view the full first-hand witness accounts from Ed Paik, Robert Turcios, Darrell Stafford, Darius Prather, Donald Carter, William Middleton, Bill Lagasse, Chad Brooks, Maria De La Cerda, Terry Morin Sean Boger, George Aman, and many others we have provided interviews with and STILL suggest there could have been a missile.

Oh come one now,

I can't believe you are still talking about witnesses that you have not verified their visual accuity or persepctives. while carefully ignoring other witnesses because they saw something different.



[edit on 22-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

reply to post by Wertdagf


Wertdagf

This is my first time ever posting a thread, and I mistakingly posted in the religious conspiracy section by accident, and I am not sure how to remove it. I then posted in the 911 conspiracy section.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


He was headed north on 110, parallel with Boundary Channel Dr., right next to the water.

Explosions all produce a shock wave this is the compressed air at the outeredges of the expanding gases etc.

The waves are very similar.

Fuel Air Explosions create a considerable amount of force,

There are dramatic differences between explosions involving vapor clouds and high explosives at close distances. For the same amount of energy, the high explosive blast overpressure is much higher and the blast impulse is much lower than that from a vapor cloud explosion. The shock wave from a TNT explosion is of relatively short duration, while the blast wave produced by an explosion of hydrocarbon material displays a relatively long duration. The duration of the positive phase of a shock wave is an important parameter in the response of structures to a blast.

Source

While they are not as strong as C-4 or other explosives they create a longer durration wave that can cause even more damage.

reply to post by Achorwrath


Your source has no bearing on what happened at the Pentagon. Your source is talking about Fuel/Air Explosives. I.E. an explosive that "disperses an aerosol cloud of fuel which is ignited by an embedded detonator to produce an explosion".

For liquid to be aerosolized into a sub-microscopically fine mist, it would have to be under pressure or be compressed. Throwing a glass of water at a tree or brick building will NOT compress or pressurize the liquid and it will never turn it into an aerosolized form. Further, even if there was aerosolization, it would be a very small amount of the fuel.

*edit to add* We're already talking about this exact subject here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]

why do you insist on saying that it has to be sub-microscopic?

That is simply not true,

It has complete bearing as he states that his friend felt the shock wave push in his windows.

Condiering you cannot see sub-microscopic particles explain how mist is visible?

Video

FAE Weapons

Another

One More


Imact is the mechanism for dispertion of the fuel, it is a cloud or droplets which then explode creating overpresure.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
why do you insist on saying that it has to be sub-microscopic?

Because that's what the definition of an aerosol mist is. "Sub-microscopic or fine particles of liquid".

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Condiering you cannot see sub-microscopic particles explain how mist is visible?

Sub-microscopic particles are visible that's why they're called SUB-microscopic and densly packed together, they're visible. Take a spray bottle of window cleaner or an aerosol can and spray the fine mist on a window and see how very tiny the droplets are.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Imact is the mechanism for dispertion of the fuel, it is a cloud or droplets which then explode creating overpresure.

Dispersion of fuel yes. Slamming a fuel tank up against a building WILL NOT compress or pressurize fuel to turn it into a fine mist. And you can't link any sources either. Posting links about fuel/air explosives isn't even in the same ballpark as the physics we're talking about here.

Video

Ignition and fire in a crash test.

More of the same but an index of the videos from different angles.

Note that although the fuel tank was not smashed the fuel ignited almost at once.
and the expansion was pretty massive.

Now apply that to what would happen when the tanks were smashed and an ignition source was present.

Now as far as impact energy... well the planes that hit the towers had upward of 2- 4 megajoules of energy at impact. The pentagon hit would have had similar impact energy. I think that would be more than enough to smash the fuel to vapor
[edit on 22-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

I wonder if the OP's friend saw the flyover.

As far as the concussion wave goes and the missile stuff. I thought that was the official story anyway. Rummy said a missile hit the Pentagon and as far as I know, the interview where he said it is still on the DOD website.

Jet fuel bursting into flame and expanding wouldn't produce anything like the blast force that the OP's friend felt. I hope Craig is able to talk to him.

Side note to Craig. No leading questions counsellor. No badgering the witness. Sandpaper your fingers and tease the door to the vault open.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I wonder if the OP's friend saw the flyover.

As far as the concussion wave goes and the missile stuff. I thought that was the official story anyway. Rummy said a missile hit the Pentagon and as far as I know, the interview where he said it is still on the DOD website.

Jet fuel bursting into flame and expanding wouldn't produce anything like the blast force that the OP's friend felt. I hope Craig is able to talk to him.

Side note to Craig. No leading questions counsellor. No badgering the witness. Sandpaper your fingers and tease the door to the vault open.

Take a look at the video I posted in the Fuel Air Explanation, look at what the small one gallon tank did to that crash dummy.

FAE munitions create massive overpressure and that pressure lasts longer than conventional munitions.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Now as far as impact energy... well the planes that hit the towers had upward of 2- 4 megajoules of energy at impact. The pentagon hit would have had similar impact energy. I think that would be more than enough to smash the fuel to vapor

I saw the video of the fuel air bomb that you posted. I don't think that was what happened at the Pentagon and I don't think that has happened at any plane crash in history. I've never heard such a phenomenon referred to in the discription of any plane crash.

The video that you posted of the plane crash with the fuel tank ruptures makes my point. There is no blast wave associated with jet fuel tanks bursting open and igniting.

reply to post by ipsedixit


They were not smashed and then ignited. Big difference in conditions.

The Aircraft crash test was to show how easlity fuel ignites/

link

800Lbs of fuel went up and it became a "Fireball"

Another -

Link

This one, according to the story, had almost empty tanks but notice the fireball. which quickly died out.

Now for control at low altitude. and becuase it is jsut a cool video

Link

Again in all of these the fire is imeadiate and large. Apply that to fuel tanks impacting at 300+ MHP and you get the point.

reply to post by Achorwrath

I looked at your links (enjoyed the one of the airbus) and I understand the point you are trying to make, but I stand by what I've already posted.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the fuel/air angle.

An interesting observation comes out of your approach to the impact though. If what you say happened, did actually occur, we would see a pattern of damage at the Pentagon much different from the one we we are left with after the impact.

There would have been no hammer punch through the rings of the building in a nice tidy circular hole. All the energy would have been dispersed in an omnidirectional manner, dispersing plane parts and building debris in all directions.



[edit on 23-3-2009 by ipsedixit]

And if the ground effects of flying that low are so bad why did none of the planes on the ground next to the runway flip about???