Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

page: 4
101
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder How can you compare a building constructed of concrete floors and 3/16 inch double glazed glass windows (WTC) to a building constructed of reinforced concrete walls, upgraded with bomb-resistant kevlar, bolted steel beams and 2 inch thick bulletproof and bomb-resistent windows (Pentagon).
People are forgetting that we are talking about 2 different buildings with decidedly different construction methods and materials. The WTC was able to penatrate so far because its main strength was in its core and exterior supports. They were designed for verticle loads and horizontle loads from wind etc. They took into account that a 707 the biggest plane of the day might hit. The Pentagon, was desingned in a different manner as described above. Not to mention the fact that the plane hit the generator and the ground before impact eating up some of its energy. The WTC planes has nothing to absorb the energy before they hit. one other thing:

You have voted CatHerder for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month




posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Something people aren't able to understand, or choose to not understand, or misunderstand, or perhaps haven't had it explained to them correctly is this. The plane did not LIQUIFY. It did not turn into a liquid like water, or oil, or mercury, or melted metal. The planes solid parts, broken/smashed into smaller pieces (1 inch to >10 foot pieces, for example) acted LIKE a liquid. They did not turn into a liquid - they acted like a liquid. It's the same principal behind a 2,000 ton rock slide down a mountain valley. The rock is always a solid, but while moving down the side of a mountain it acts like a liquid. I'll find some videos and information links on this for people to look over. The 40,000 kg of fuel, however, certainly was a liquid and it started a horrific fire on 2 or more floors simultaneously as well as across a 300-400 section of the exterior. That is the biggest problem I see with my presentation - too many people do not read the information contained in the links before they post responses to the original article. People are responding to facts posted in the article without first viewing the supplied sources, which contain vital information and evidence contained in each link. [edit on 13-9-2004 by CatHerder]


LL1

posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
You have done a marvelous job here. In this video you found, you can clearly see the tail of the plane heave up on impact, looking closely you can even see the shape of the tail. Perhaps you have the ability to stop the video, and bring out/up the tail on impact for us?



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Somone needs to give you a medal...really...that must have took hours and hours of work. You have said EVERYTHING i have ever been trying to convery and more. Really nicely done. If people still believe that anything else but a plane crashed into the pentagon, well then not much you can do! They are the ones with their eyes closed and not the other way around. You have brought the best mythbusters on board, facts, science and engineering. Somthing most consp. theorists cant seem to fathom.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kellter Wow Cathearder, Outstanding research and your post is laid out perferct. You've convinced me a 757 hit the Pentagon, now you just have to convince me that someone who learned how to fly by Microsoft Flight Simulator managed to pull off such a precise hit. I believe the pilot did spend time in a professional flight simulator but theres two problems with that. 1. His instructor didn't have high marks for him. 2. He couldn't practice the approach to the Pentagon on the professional software as it would have really raised some flags. Again, outstanding job Cathearder, my other issues are for another thread, thanks for all your woek.
1. Didn't matter in the least. You take lessons on how to fly a plane so you can do the two hardest things: take off and land. He didn't need to be good at either (or even know how to do either) - all he had to be able to do is fly it while it was in the air (ask any airline pilot, these new planes practically fly themselves). 2. Didn't matter in the least - he simply punched in the proper GPS coordinates into the flight computer and it flew him there, once he had visual on the Pentagon he turned off the autopilot, performed a 330 turn to correct his angle (wasn't a very good pilot) decended to 2,000 feet, put the plane at full throttle and continued his straight flight into the side of the building. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]


das

posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
CatHerder, you may want to add these to your article: Successful DNA IDs of 184 of the 189 who died in the Pentagon: www.dcmilitary.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 04:26 AM
link   
An update showing the starboard (right) wing impact mark on the Pentagon. I am going to expand this "damage to the building in comparision to a Boeing 757 - to scale" so please bear with me while this particular post grows. This is a very clear photo of the impact scar across the Pentagon on the right side of the primary hole. Above photo - without above notations I keep finding something new and supportive every time I visit a website looking at 9-11 stuff (working on reviewing the WTC collapses). It is beyond me how all these other websites can offer the same "no 757" opinions but never manage to FIND this stuff... Perhaps they just choose not to. Location of bodies recovered in Pentagon (includes passengers / flightcrew / terrorists / Pentagon staff) You're also welcome to go review the ACSE/SEI (American Society of Civil Engineers / Structural Engineering Institute) Pentagon Building Performance Report which has been freely available online since January 2003. This document outlines the damage done to all areas of the Pentagon, includes the identiity of the locations of each body found, includes information on objects hit outside the building prior to the plane impacting the wall (as I said in my outline - the right engine and wing hit the generator, and now it's revealed that the left engine hit the steam vent. According to the NTSB: Data from the flight recorder showed that; the plane was travelling at 400 knots (780 ft/s) (512.9 mph) at a magnetic bearing of 70 degrees when it struck the Pentagon. It had approximately 36,200lb of fuel (5,300 gal) and weighed approximately 181,520lb According to Boeing Engineers: The weight in each wing was composed of the following:
  • Exposed Wing Structure: 13,500 lb
  • Engine and Struts: 11,900 lb
  • Landing Gear: 3,800 lb
  • Fuel: 14,600 lb
  • Total: 43,800 lb The balance of the weight was in the fuselage. In the normal course of use, the center fuel tank is the last filled, and the first used. Thus the weight of the fuselage was 181,520-(2x43,800)= 93,920 lb. Of this, 36,200-(2x14,600)= 7,000lb was fuel in the center tank. While I believe one of their opinions on the paper is incorrect (they have the wrong object noted in the surveillance photo as the plane), this is an extremely accurate document based entirely on fact and not conjecture, half baked ideas, or fear of the truth. The facts don't lie. Oh yes, and here's an updated (better quality) zoom in of the gate camera... [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder] [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]



  • posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 09:50 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by CatHerder
    Your telling me the wing hit across that window and the window didn't break?



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:01 AM
    link   
    You have to careful using the pentagon surviellance video for evidence of a 757. First, the pictures are not consistent with a 757. The plane could not fit in the dimensions you outlined, and the white vapor trail is inconsistent with jet engines. But secondly, the video itself is questionable. The date on the video is Sept. 12, and the time stamp covers 4 seconds. Also, the DoD does not know who released the video or even if it is authentic.

    Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras. "The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin. A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice." Washington Post
    For 757 proponents, it's good the video is not reliable because it does not support the 757 theory anyway.



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:04 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by piboy

    Originally posted by CatHerder
    Your telling me the wing hit across that window and the window didn't break?
    Yes, and if you've read anything in this thread - or especially the FIRST post and the facts about the Pentagon, you would know that window is a 2 inch thick, bulletproof, blast-resistent (means they're designed to not shatter if a bomb went off outside from a carbomb or similar attack) _ Almost every window they found in the Pentagon that was blown out was laying flat, on the floor, in one peice. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:17 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by piboy You have to careful using the pentagon surviellance video for evidence of a 757. First, the pictures are not consistent with a 757. The plane could not fit in the dimensions you outlined, and the white vapor trail is inconsistent with jet engines.
    Funny, considering that is a real 757-200, 100% accurate (it's just reduced in size from an original photo of one). I wonder how it fits? And all 757's smoke with engines that have ran through 10 steel lightpoles and sustained damage. Those engines smoke like that when they run into a flock of Canada geese while flying 400MPH, nevermind a steel lightpole at 515MPH.

    The date on the video is Sept. 12, and the time stamp covers 4 seconds. Also, the DoD does not know who released the video or even if it is authentic.
    The date on the video is where again??? If you view the ORIGINAL video from CNN and not the faked one from the french fraud site, it has no date stamp saying Sept 12th.

    Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras. "The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin. A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."
    That's pretty strange, considering the DoD and the FBI aided the investigation (Pentagon Performance Report) done by the ASCE and SEI includes released frames from the Pentagon Surveillance camera. Wonder how I managed to get my hands on the originals without the edits/changes and fraud from the french website version? I mean THE LINK TO THE REPORT is provided right above your post... and did you even look at the first post in this thread or just jump to the end? But, here it is yet again! fire.nist.gov...

    Washington Post For 757 proponents, it's good the video is not reliable because it does not support the 757 theory anyway.
    It's amazing how conspiracy sites make stuff up, then post it all over the web, treat is like gospel and then when the REAL videos are shown they're pooh pooh'd as if they're fakes.
    At least do us both a favor and READ the ENTIRE thread before your next comment. It will save you some embarassment, and me some typing. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:17 AM
    link   
    Great jog Cathereder! You get my way above vote. My uncle was in the Pentagon when the plane hit. (Yes, folks, it WAS a plane.) All of the things that the dissenters cried you have quelled. The debris is strewn about the area, the groung is marked from impact. it's all there.
    [edit on 14-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:18 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by CatHerder Yes, and if you've read anything in this thread - or especially the FIRST post and the facts about the Pentagon, you would know that window is a 2 inch thick, bulletproof, blast-resistent (means they're designed to not shatter if a bomb went off outside from a carbomb or similar attack) _ Almost every window they found in the Pentagon that was blown out was laying flat, on the floor, in one peice. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]
    Ok, so the metal wings burned up and the "2 inch thick" windows did not? They should make planes out of that stuff.



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:27 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by CatHerder

    Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras. "The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin. A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."
    That's pretty strange, considering the DoD and the FBI aided the investigation (Pentagon Performance Report) done by the ASCE and SEI includes released frames from the Pentagon Surveillance camera. Wonder how I managed to get my hands on the originals without the edits/changes and fraud from the french website version? I mean THE LINK TO THE REPORT is provided right above your post... and did you even look at the first post in this thread or just jump to the end? But, here it is yest again! fire.nist.gov... [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]
    Whoa. Take a deep breath. If the video was not released by the Dod, does it gain any more credibility when another department in the government uses it? Is the video from the surveillance camera reliable or not? The Dod said they neither they nor the Justice Department nor the FBI released it. Don't you think then that anything else that tries to use that video as evidence should be questioned? Again, I think the video actually hinders the 757 argument, not helps it.



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:40 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by piboy

    Originally posted by CatHerder Yes, and if you've read anything in this thread - or especially the FIRST post and the facts about the Pentagon, you would know that window is a 2 inch thick, bulletproof, blast-resistent (means they're designed to not shatter if a bomb went off outside from a carbomb or similar attack) _ Almost every window they found in the Pentagon that was blown out was laying flat, on the floor, in one peice. [edit on 14-9-2004 by CatHerder]
    Ok, so the metal wings burned up and the "2 inch thick" windows did not? They should make planes out of that stuff.
    Wait. According to these reports, the windows melted: "American Airlines Flight 77 and its 20,000 gallons of fuel spread destruction, fire and death, killing 189 people in the plane and on the ground. The fire was so hot, Evey said, that it turned window glass to liquid and sent it spilling down walls into puddles on the ground." CBS News "On Sept. 11, Flight 77 sliced through the outermost three of the Pentagon's five concentric rings. Fires from the plane's 20,000 gallons of fuel melted windows into pools of liquid glass. The impact of the crash fractured concrete pillars well beyond the incisions in the three outer rings." Knight Ridder



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:54 AM
    link   

    Almost every window they found in the Pentagon that was blown out was laying flat, on the floor, in one peice.
    I'm sure some melted, but what's your point again? Ignore 3 different reports from independent investigations, ignore camera photos (that sure as hell show windows still there with the fire out), or take a quote that says "window glass" but not "every window" and not "the windows"... THIS is the exact quote: "The fire was so hot, Evey said, that it turned window glass to liquid and sent it spilling down walls into puddles on the ground. The impact cracked massive concrete columns far beyond the impact site, destabilizing a broader section of the building than contractors had originally thought." I like how you take a quote like that and turn it into "the windows melted" ...classic.



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 11:02 AM
    link   
    My point was that the photo with the graphic overlay showed the wing to hit across some windows which were still unbroken in the photo. I asked how the wing could hit those windows and not break. You said they were strong and most of the windows had popped out and were lying flat on the lawn. I quoted two mainstream news articles that said that the fire was so hot that glass from the window turned to liquid (ie MELTED) and ran down the wall. I didn't misinterpret the news article. So back to the original question about the wings and windows: How could the exposion which was hot enough to destroy the wings not damage those windows in the photo you posted, when there are news accounts that there were melted windows? Answer: The fire was hot enough to melt those types of windows, but that degree of heat from the fire did not reach the windows in the photo you posted. So then if the wings could not knock those windows out and if the fire could not melt the windows, where are the wings? The wings must not have hit those windows. Why wouldn't the wings have hit those windows? Because the aircraft's wings were not that wide. Meaning, the evidence YOU proposed are not consistent with the theory you proposed.



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:04 PM
    link   
    Ok. I am looking at the photo with the alleged APU (which no one but a handful of people will have any idea about what it is). I am very interested in whether the photo evidence is consistent with an APU. This site has some good information for a 737 APU (not a 757 mind you). Where does this go? It could fit somewhere, but I fail to see any proof of anything. It could also fit other pieces. Can you show me what part of an APU that piece in the pentagon photo belongs to. I hear your argument, but can you be more specific?



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:22 PM
    link   
    Can you be more specific about the above pictures' "engine parts?" Where does it go in the picture below? What piece is it, and how large is it? (I am trying to determine scale). What are the large holes part of? I can't tell what that is part of. link Are the remains of the other parts visible, like the casing? [edit on 14-9-2004 by piboy]



    posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 12:33 PM
    link   
    I may be slow, but help me out.

    The next photo is from the cover from one of the conspiracy sites that demands "where is the plane?" -- they must not have looked very hard, there are 2 obvious chunks of it in the photo. Another rim from the airplane on the right, and a large chunk of bulkhead on the left.
    I see debris, but can you be more specific on the rim and the bulkhead? Can you show where they go on a 757 (maybe a 757 graphic and overlay with the pieces below on it)? I just see junk that could be anything.






    top topics



     
    101
    << 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

    log in

    join