9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 299
101
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by tom1957
 
Yes, there are photos taken up close that show the damage to the building, where the wings outer sections, hit. The vertical stabilizer is primarily of composite construction, not aluminum.




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom1957 In regards to the photo of the hole where the 757 entered the building: Would you not see at the very least damage to the brick facia around the hole where the wings and the tail section would have hit the building? Since the wings and tail section would have been sheered off at the edges of the pictured hole, would there not be a huge amount of aircraft material on the outside of the building, other than the relatively few pieces that are shown in other pictures?
This picture was taken soon after impact. You can see the extensive damage beyond the basic impact hole :- 911research.wtc7.net...



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tom1957
 
Look here 911research.wtc7.net... Click on pictures on right to enlarge



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I really don't understand what apparently came flying through this hole? Was it just a rush of debris in the shape of a cylinder or did the plane stay intact while traveling through these walls? I'm not bashing the OS or my fellow truthers, I've just really started to rethink the evidence. Any explanation would be appreciated, OS or not



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 
I thought they said it was part of an engine. The reason the hole was roundish is more a chance thing. If you look at the left side you can see the inner brick still intact. But the outer brick still fell off in a roundish pattern.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent reply to post by homervb
 
I thought they said it was part of an engine. The reason the hole was roundish is more a chance thing. If you look at the left side you can see the inner brick still intact. But the outer brick still fell off in a roundish pattern.
Oh alright, I was kind of confused because I came across this:

www.defense.gov... Presenter: Mr. Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager September 15, 2001 11:00 AM EDT DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation Evey: I'll give you all that information. We'll get to that in just a couple of minutes if you can just hold on. What I wanted to do was try to put this in perspective for you so you could understand. We've learned -- this is wedge one, okay, the newly-renovated area. The path of the airplane seems to have taken it along this route, so it entered the building slightly, on this photo, slightly to the left of what we call corridor four. There are 10 radial corridors in the building that extend from A ring out through E ring, and this is the fourth of those radial corridors. So it impacted the building in an area that had been renovated, but its path was at a -- it appears to be at a diagonal, so that it entered in wedge one but passed through into areas of wedge two, an unrenovated portion of the building. And, of course, you all know it's got rings A through E, five stories tall, et cetera. Q: That seems to indicate that it came to rest in ring C, the nose cone. Evey: Let me talk to that, because you've asked a number of questions already about the extent of penetration, et cetera. This is an overhead of the building. The point of penetration was right here, and we blocked that out to show that's the area of collapse. The plane actually penetrated through the E ring, C ring -- excuse me -- E ring, D ring, C ring. This area right here is what we call A-E Drive. And unlike other rings in the building, it's actually a driveway that circles the building inside, between the B and the C ring. The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft. Q: It broke through which one? Evey: The rings are E, D, C, B and A. Between B and C is a driveway that goes around the Pentagon. It's called A-E Drive. The airplane traveled in a path about like this, and the nose of the aircraft broke through this innermost wall of C ring into A-E Drive.
edit on 11-5-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 
As with most of the "so called" anomalies there is a very reasonable explanation. The original hole was likely made by the heavier fast moving debris as the disintegrating aircraft plowed through the building. It was not originally the nice round shape shown in the photograph, but more irregular. Then there are statements by rescue folks that the hole was enlarged in order to aid in subsequent rescue and firefighting efforts. I'm not going to search for the statements that the hole was enlarged, but it can be found by searching. It was not made by a wall breaching kit or some other nefarious means to propagate a conspiracy. However, I'm reasonably certain "truthers" and conspiracy theorists will continue to make a big deal out of it to continue to promote the most complicated ridiculous explanation for it in order to continue promoting a conspiracy... You're welcome.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat reply to post by homervb
 
As with most of the "so called" anomalies there is a very reasonable explanation. The original hole was likely made by the heavier fast moving debris as the disintegrating aircraft plowed through the building. It was not originally the nice round shape shown in the photograph, but more irregular. Then there are statements by rescue folks that the hole was enlarged in order to aid in subsequent rescue and firefighting efforts. I'm not going to search for the statements that the hole was enlarged, but it can be found by searching. It was not made by a wall breaching kit or some other nefarious means to propagate a conspiracy. However, I'm reasonably certain "truthers" and conspiracy theorists will continue to make a big deal out of it to continue to promote the most complicated ridiculous explanation for it in order to continue promoting a conspiracy... You're welcome.
Well thanks. I did try to find some research in the past couple of minutes and I found this:

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage. Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics
I'm not trying to fuel a conspiracy theory or misconstrue facts, I'm just trying to make sense of it for my own personal knowledge before forming an incorrect interpretation of all the evidence. So far I've got Pentagon officials saying the cone breached the wall, I have this one dude on here telling me it was an engine, I have you telling me it was just heavy debris and the hole was cut open wider. and now I have popular mechanics telling me it was landing gear. I didn't think I was that wrong in asking questions about it...jeeze.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by Reheat reply to post by homervb
 
As with most of the "so called" anomalies there is a very reasonable explanation. The original hole was likely made by the heavier fast moving debris as the disintegrating aircraft plowed through the building. It was not originally the nice round shape shown in the photograph, but more irregular. Then there are statements by rescue folks that the hole was enlarged in order to aid in subsequent rescue and firefighting efforts. I'm not going to search for the statements that the hole was enlarged, but it can be found by searching. It was not made by a wall breaching kit or some other nefarious means to propagate a conspiracy. However, I'm reasonably certain "truthers" and conspiracy theorists will continue to make a big deal out of it to continue to promote the most complicated ridiculous explanation for it in order to continue promoting a conspiracy... You're welcome.
Well thanks. I did try to find some research in the past couple of minutes and I found this:

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage. Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics
I'm not trying to fuel a conspiracy theory or misconstrue facts, I'm just trying to make sense of it for my own personal knowledge before forming an incorrect interpretation of all the evidence. So far I've got Pentagon officials saying the cone breached the wall, I have this one dude on here telling me it was an engine, I have you telling me it was just heavy debris and the hole was cut open wider. and now I have popular mechanics telling me it was landing gear. I didn't think I was that wrong in asking questions about it...jeeze.
Well, everyone is guessing because no one was there to witness the carnage. I can assure you it wasn't the nose cone which is made of fiberglass and it wasn't a Pentagon Official who said that, it was a bloody contractor for the renovations. It is quite possible that the radar antenna and heavy electronics composing the radar were part of the mass which punched through that hole. It is also quite possible part of a landing gear was involved, as well. In fact, I believe parts of a landing gear were photographed in the debris shown in that area. Why does it matter anyway what it was specifically. The aircraft was disintegrating as it plowed through the columns on that floor and was just a fast moving mass of a combination of heavier parts. In other words it was a chaotic combination of heavier material, so why not leave it at that. You're never going to know anyway and it is not important enough to worry about in the first place. If you're really interested you can find the statements where rescue workers stated they enlarged a hole to aid in rescue and firefighting efforts. The hole they enlarged is not identified by specific location, but I suspect that was the one they enlarged as it is unlikely it was originally as round as it is in the aftermath photos. Again, why is this important? It's not important at all to determine what specific part or parts were involved. It was simply a chaotic mass of heavy aircraft parts possibly mixed with building debris moving at very high speed which punched through the wall...
edit on 11-5-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 
Don't you think this all could have been put to bed with a simple and clear video to show us all? Since the pentagon is the place for all things security, I am guessing there is a good video in someone's desk somewhere. Why in the heck would the pentagon not want to show that video over and over and over in the aftermath, to just drive home the belief that our nation should go to war on these monsters. When things don't make sense, you have to question all of it. And when all of it does not match up nicely, you should truest your instincts.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 
Hi Homer, I have always encouraged "truthers" to read, Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11. It is a very good read and when you are done, you will know exactly what happened at the Pentagon....without question.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by homervb

Originally posted by Reheat reply to post by homervb
 
As with most of the "so called" anomalies there is a very reasonable explanation. The original hole was likely made by the heavier fast moving debris as the disintegrating aircraft plowed through the building. It was not originally the nice round shape shown in the photograph, but more irregular. Then there are statements by rescue folks that the hole was enlarged in order to aid in subsequent rescue and firefighting efforts. I'm not going to search for the statements that the hole was enlarged, but it can be found by searching. It was not made by a wall breaching kit or some other nefarious means to propagate a conspiracy. However, I'm reasonably certain "truthers" and conspiracy theorists will continue to make a big deal out of it to continue to promote the most complicated ridiculous explanation for it in order to continue promoting a conspiracy... You're welcome.
Well thanks. I did try to find some research in the past couple of minutes and I found this:

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage. Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon - Popular Mechanics
I'm not trying to fuel a conspiracy theory or misconstrue facts, I'm just trying to make sense of it for my own personal knowledge before forming an incorrect interpretation of all the evidence. So far I've got Pentagon officials saying the cone breached the wall, I have this one dude on here telling me it was an engine, I have you telling me it was just heavy debris and the hole was cut open wider. and now I have popular mechanics telling me it was landing gear. I didn't think I was that wrong in asking questions about it...jeeze.
Again, why is this important? It's not important at all to determine what specific part or parts were involved. It was simply a chaotic mass of heavy aircraft parts possibly mixed with building debris moving at very high speed which punched through the wall...
edit on 11-5-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
Again, for my own personal knowledge. I'm sensing some anger in your responses. Am I in the "A Boeing 757 Hit the WTC" thread or the "9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon" thread? I don't think my questions were irrelevant at all, and do have importance. Jeeze



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma reply to post by homervb
 
Hi Homer, I have always encouraged "truthers" to read, Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11. It is a very good read and when you are done, you will know exactly what happened at the Pentagon....without question.
I will most definitely pick that up. I had no idea it even existed. It's very much appreciated, thank you.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 
Part of forward landing gear truck



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Here is picture of debris in the interior roadway (A-E drive) near the exit hole in C Ring The debris (including section of landing gear) has been shoved out of the way against a wall to clear the roadway for rescue operations Boeing B 757 landing gear assembly



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
the best proof wpuld be the video, in full, of what happened. which we will never get. so if what you say is true... what are they hiding?



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by violence=answer
 

what are they hiding?
Nothing...ALL that supports a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon is there, to see...nothing "hidden".
edit on Fri 11 May 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird reply to post by violence=answer
 

what are they hiding?
Nothing...ALL that supports a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon is there, to see...nothing "hidden".
edit on Fri 11 May 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)
This is so frustrating to me now. I can not think of one good reason they did not release the video soon after 9/11. However, if it is released now I feel as if every truther and debunker are going to rip it to shreds. This is just another story we will never know the exact truth to



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Let me want make it clear I do not throw my lot in with anyone. I am stunned at the lack of logic being applied and I see only lies and ignorance everywhere. Cannot everyone see the huge amount of lies being told here by people who only see what they want to see? If we stick to hard facts, maybe we could get somewhere. Are laws of physics and chemistry being broken/ignored here? I have so many questions... evidence suggests a plane hit, but not a 757- how could those massive wings moving at over 400mph, that seemingly popped out light poles, yet not cause huge damage to the facia of the building- surely such heavy dense objects such as the engines must have punched a large hole in the structure considering that the light fuselage managed to do so. Apparently the FBI confiscated every piece of video footage within minutes of the crash? That leads to a lot of questions. Why is all the video evidence being witheld? Prehaps those videos show that the plane is not what they said it was which naturally will have massive consequences. Im not sure but sometimes I think what didnt happen speaks as loud as what did. Please enlighten me.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by freepress
 

that the light fuselage [/ex First error The fuselage is not "light" - it contains the keel beam which run lenght of cabin It is the heaviest piece on an aircraft, fuselage also houses the landing gear assemblies. These are massive heavy pieces necessary to support a 250,000 lb aircraft hitting the runway at 150 mph. Second error FBI got all the video camera footage from business around the Pentagon on chance might have shown AA77 on it approach to Pentagon. Guess what...? Didn't find anything on the video for simple reason video cameras are position to watch the ground - doors, enterences, parking lots, etc NOT THE SKY in hopes of catching a wandering Boeing 757 FBI returned all the video back to their owners I have enlightened you,but somehow believe while find stupid reason to ignore it.......





top topics
 
101
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join