In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11

reply to post by ANOK

First of all here is one engine that supposedly went through the WTC, two sets of steel box columns, and fell many feet to the ground...

It is perfectly possible, since freakish things happen all the time in violent accidents, that the engine section (that is far from a complete piece of the central engine core, BTW) didn't have to "punch through" any steel columns. This is a presumption, used to spur incredulity. The part of the engine in the photo could simply have cleared between columns....especially at the entry point. Once inside, the other wall would have been breached by the over-all mass of the various items, to include those "pushed ahead" by the force, so that when the destroyed engine reached that location, there was little resistance left. This can be computer-modelled, and probably will be attempted, one day.

Once it fell from the height on exit, to hit the ground? Well, it hit the ground. Doesn't mean it's going to shatter like a glass vase.

reply to post by ANOK

The whole story contradicts itself.

Only to the truly delusional......

One - the walls of the WTC were not solid steel, but a lattice work of columns held together by spandrel plates
welded to them and bolted in 30 ft sections

The planes snapped off the welds and bolts connecting the columns

Two - 50 years before at Empire State Building one of the motors from the B 25 punched all the way through the
building to land on roof of adjacent building

One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block where it landed on the roof of a nearby building, starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. It is still the only fire at such a height that was ever successfully controlled

So an engine from a jet aircraft cant fly through a building to land outside ?

Three - at Pentagon both of the engines were found in the rubble

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Also at the Pentagon the engines struck obstacles outside the building before impact

Right engine hit a large generator mounted on trailer prior to impact. Left engine hit a steam vault just outside
the wall

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Rafe_

 

You are not understanding the physics of a bird strike, versus the entire airplane impacting a stationary building.

The bird is the equivalent of a projectile....it is smaller than the jet, and has its mass concentrated.

In fact.......you can switch it around, and your example demonstrates how the jet can cause so much damage to the buildings!!!

In the case of the jet hitting the building, it (the jet) now becomes the projectile, and the building now becomes the substitute for the airplane that gets the damage.

You've just proven the physics, without even realizing it!!

And you are not understanding the difference between a bird a plane and the pentagon.

Wether a boeing colides with a small bird or the pentagon it will always be a very weak structure when it comes down to a collision.

The pentagons walls provide DENSITY.Unless you want to believe that the pentagons walls (exterior or interior) are your average homemade plastered concrete walls,that makes a big difference.The pentagon is at the very least a very strong building and built to resist very significant impacts.at the very least.

Why? obviously it is a very important building and a lot of intel is stored and discussed their,no need for details there.

So we have a bird fly into the tin can as shown in my previous post

next we have the tin can fly into the reinforced pentagon (a very bomb proof building).so 2 different situations of 'projectiles' colliding.But a boeing is never designed to handle such collisions (nor is a bird for that matter).But ,the pentagon is at the very very least prepared for (missile)impacts/bombs.

A very dense construct against a very flimsy plane in contrast.
(not a potato and a straw)

But not only does it manage to punch through one of those reinforced walls ,it goes through 6 of those walls and i am excluding the intersection walls it went through:

(So where did that section of the plane go after it punched out,it is seen by no one)

Not only that.Of course there is a lot of very strongly built interior structure this section of the plane had to cut through in order to arive at the punch out.


(3 broad layers of internal structure,refer to the first image)



i hope you have your pocket calculator ready for all that.

reply to post by Rafe_


Have you read the Pentagon Building Performance Report yet?? You should.

But not only does it manage to punch through one of those reinforced walls ,it goes through 6 of those walls and i am excluding the intersection walls it went through...

Once the outer wall was breached (and, why not go study the energy of motion and mass. The jet was weighing about 180,000 pounds at that point, give or take a few thousand. Velocity was upwards of 800 feet per second, at least. There are online force calculators you can use, just plug in those numbers)...once the outer wall was breached by all of that force, the interior walls were totally different. THEY were not built the same way.

In your quote, above, you infer that they were. They were not. Once it broke through, there is a triangular wedge-shaped damage pattern that's quite clear to see, as central mass had most momentum behind it, and out lying parts decelerated quicker.

Read the PBPR. Look at the charts, illustrations, etc. It's all there, clear to see.

And, you keep using that tired old "tin can" comparison. The structure of the Boeing 757 is anything but a "tin can". Far from it.

Oh and BTW.....regarding that bird strike photo you used earlier? Forgot to point out that the Radome on the front of jets is not metal. It is a honeycomb epoxy graphite composite. It has to be transparent to radio frequencies, since the Weather Radar antenna is mounted there, on the forward pressure bulkhead of the fuselage.

"Pressure" bulkhead means it is part of the main pressure vessel of the fuselage, strong to contain the cabin pressure so we can keep a normal ~approx 7,500 feet cabin altitude when at 41,000 feet actual altitude.

Originally posted by Rafe_

But not only does it manage to punch through one of those reinforced walls ,it goes through 6 of those walls and i am excluding the intersection walls it went through:

Not only that.Of course there is a lot of very strongly built interior structure this section of the plane had to cut through in order to arive at the punch out.

i hope you have your pocket calculator ready for all that.

WRONG! Why are you posting false information? You need a BIG calculator to count the walls on the floor that AA 77 went through to reach the punch-out. I hope you can count to 1 on a BIG calculator.

Floor Space Between Facade and C-Ring is Mostly Unobstructed
On the first and second floors, the Pentagon has continuous interior space extending from the facade to the inner-facing wall of the C-Ring, joining the C-, D-, and E-Rings. This is because the light wells between the C- and D-Rings and between the D- and E-Rings only descend to the bottom of the third floor. The only structural elements interrupting this space are columns apparently spaced on 10-foot centers along the direction perpendicular to the facade, with each first-floor column having a square cross-section measuring 21 inches on a side.

911research.wtc7.net...

(I even included a "truther" site for reference because I suspect that's all you ever read)

Originally posted by freedom12
Gilah Goldsmith --
We saw a huge black cloud of smoke, she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke.


Don Perkal --
Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.



They smelled it, not me.

Yes, they thought they smelled it. Maybe what they thought they smelled wasn't what they thought it was. Cordite has no use or application in modern explosives... that's the point of what I explained above.

If I had to hazard a guess, they smelled the jet fuel from the plane or the diesel fuel from the generator.

The plane they all saw hit the building, or fly in a position impossible to pull up from. If you ignore that, you're cherry picking.

I'd like to see any weapon in use in 2001 which uses cordite, and which could have been practically applied in an attack on the Pentagon. Ask yourself why you got the idea that smelling cordite was significant? Were you led to believe cordite is missile fuel?

I got a Pentagon witness for you - one with a video camera.

Let's all take a good hard critical look!



Now this clip is long and boring but I did watch it all and I invite you all to do the same. But the biggest thing about this clip starts at 9 minutes and runs to about 12, with a few seconds right at the end. Do at least check that one section out.

What can I say? Well, I'm still going with the "staged" Pentagon scene, through and through.

In fact, this particular clip only adds fuel to my whole "staging" area view.

Really when you watch the whole clip you know it sort of looks like an Exercise. You know, like one of those FEMA Drills we hear about. I mean look at all the people milling about, on the road, on the grass, set back from the action, 'official' looking people in groups of 3-5 scattered randomly but like no closer to each other than 120 yards.

Not the civilians, which you don't see much or only far away on the road but the military types, standing together on the grass, with clipboards and all pointing etc. Interesting. There's no haste or panic, they're too casual. Pure photo op. How many people died in the Pentagon offices? Lots. And many many injured I would expect. But these people hardly look concerned.

It looks like it's just lunchtime on the grass for most of them. Seriously.

Hope you all watched the portion from 9-12 minutes, and if you did maybe someone could explain to me a few things? Check out the 9 minute mark, see over on the left side of the 'crash', there's a broken window all aflame, looks pretty nasty. The camera person even zooms in on it. Zooms in over 3 working firetrucks pointing their hoses, 2 into the fireless gap of the collapsed side, 1 trying to put out my old friend the smoking choo choo train-like generator. Choo choo! Chugga chugga chugga... all aboard the deception express!

Now check it out at the 12 minute mark - why it's still burning!

Oh my.

You know later pictures show extensive fire damage to the whole left side of the building down past the hangar, why maybe if someone spraying water 200 feet from one of those firetrucks spraying at nothing would've just shot a line over there to "knock that down". Why not knock it down? Obvious close fire in an open window? Hmm.

You ever see in Hollywood movie effects they run fire lines in doors and windows to mimic an inferno? What? Were they making Backdraft 2 there that day?! Sure looks like it.

Oh yeah, can't wait to see which debunker comes in here to handle this and tell me I know nothing of "fire science". lol

Yes yes there is a perfectly logical reason why active firefighters responding to a burning structure would ignore an open obvious flaming window fire to concentrate on a gap that had no visible fire and a smoking generator fire that WASN'T EVEN PART OF THE BUILDING!

I know, let's say my gas BBQ explodes in my garage and it collapses but not before setting my bedroom on fire oh, and the tree out front. And the fire department arrives and starts to hose down the fireless garage and the tree and ignores the window... ya, that's likely to happen.

Well, I mean of course it's not likely to happen WITH REAL FIREFIGHTERS.

What else can I say? Oh yeah, check out the very last bit of the clip, the few remaining seconds... fire still burning... along with the generator which is also still smoking. What? And after all that water sprayed on it? 'Fraid so... Enjoy.


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


So all the first responders, especially the firefighters you claim are deliberately aiming their hoses ineffectually, are " in on it ".

Give me strength !

reply to post by Alfie1
From what i was taught on my fire control course, Water or foam is used mainly to cool the areas down preventing them from combusting and igniting more fires. just my two bobs worth. and them Pentegon walls are pretty slim Imo,

reply to post by NWOwned


Your post is the best example yet of a common Truther trope. You don't know anything about how fires are fought, how something of this nature is carried out, or what an exercise would look like. But you privilege your view of how it "should" look and assume a massive, illogical conspiracy on the back of it.

What are they teaching in schools in the US? That everyone's opinion is valid just because they happen to hold it? That you don't need expertise in anything to pass judgement on it? Truly extraordinary.

It's hard to extinguish fuel fires with water.

Just as with wtc they hoped there would be survivors from the plane.

Besides unless you are a fire fighter who are you to critique how they did their jobs.

Originally posted by NWOwned
I got a Pentagon witness for you - one with a video camera.

Let's all take a good hard critical look!

Now this clip is long and boring but I did watch it all and I invite you all to do the same. But the biggest thing about this clip starts at 9 minutes and runs to about 12, with a few seconds right at the end. Do at least check that one section out.

Bunch of useless stuff snipped out

This is another classic example of why the Truth Movement is dead, was never really alive, has absolutely nothing to offer anything except how to load up a volkswagen with a bunch of clowns with big red noses and size 23 feet.

He says "it looks like an exercise". Ya know? There's a reason why we have "exercises". There's a term we use in the bid'ness..."you train like you fight and you fight like you train". We hold exercises so we *can* accomplish an assigned goal or requirement in the most efficient way possible. We hold exercises so the personnel involved are experienced and can know what to expect in times of crisis and emergency. We hold exercises so when a firefighter or an EMT or rescue personnel or whomever arrive at the scene of a catastrophe, it is not the first time they have seen an inferno or a plane crash or injured victims.

Really. This has to be one of the silliest posts I have ever see come out of that cesspool of clowns called Truther World - and all have been silly..

Originally posted by NWOwned
I got a Pentagon witness for you - one with a video camera.

Let's all take a good hard critical look!

Now this clip is long and boring but I did watch it all and I invite you all to do the same. But the biggest thing about this clip starts at 9 minutes and runs to about 12, with a few seconds right at the end. Do at least check that one section out.

What can I say? Well, I'm still going with the "staged" Pentagon scene, through and through.

In fact, this particular clip only adds fuel to my whole "staging" area view.

Really when you watch the whole clip you know it sort of looks like an Exercise. You know, like one of those FEMA Drills we hear about. I mean look at all the people milling about, on the road, on the grass, set back from the action, 'official' looking people in groups of 3-5 scattered randomly but like no closer to each other than 120 yards.

Not the civilians, which you don't see much or only far away on the road but the military types, standing together on the grass, with clipboards and all pointing etc. Interesting. There's no haste or panic, they're too casual. Pure photo op. How many people died in the Pentagon offices? Lots. And many many injured I would expect. But these people hardly look concerned.

It looks like it's just lunchtime on the grass for most of them. Seriously.

Hope you all watched the portion from 9-12 minutes, and if you did maybe someone could explain to me a few things? Check out the 9 minute mark, see over on the left side of the 'crash', there's a broken window all aflame, looks pretty nasty. The camera person even zooms in on it. Zooms in over 3 working firetrucks pointing their hoses, 2 into the fireless gap of the collapsed side, 1 trying to put out my old friend the smoking choo choo train-like generator. Choo choo! Chugga chugga chugga... all aboard the deception express!

Now check it out at the 12 minute mark - why it's still burning!

Oh my.

You know later pictures show extensive fire damage to the whole left side of the building down past the hangar, why maybe if someone spraying water 200 feet from one of those firetrucks spraying at nothing would've just shot a line over there to "knock that down". Why not knock it down? Obvious close fire in an open window? Hmm.

You ever see in Hollywood movie effects they run fire lines in doors and windows to mimic an inferno? What? Were they making Backdraft 2 there that day?! Sure looks like it.

Oh yeah, can't wait to see which debunker comes in here to handle this and tell me I know nothing of "fire science". lol

Yes yes there is a perfectly logical reason why active firefighters responding to a burning structure would ignore an open obvious flaming window fire to concentrate on a gap that had no visible fire and a smoking generator fire that WASN'T EVEN PART OF THE BUILDING!

I know, let's say my gas BBQ explodes in my garage and it collapses but not before setting my bedroom on fire oh, and the tree out front. And the fire department arrives and starts to hose down the fireless garage and the tree and ignores the window... ya, that's likely to happen.

Well, I mean of course it's not likely to happen WITH REAL FIREFIGHTERS.

What else can I say? Oh yeah, check out the very last bit of the clip, the few remaining seconds... fire still burning... along with the generator which is also still smoking. What? And after all that water sprayed on it? 'Fraid so... Enjoy.


Cheers

Excellent NWOwned
And what are those two up to on the grass at 12.30?
Looks like they are trying to locate the best area of the green
to sink a golfing hole! In the midst of all that horror!

This is bogus through and through. This footage indicates a drill and
a big question arises. Would All these people willingly and casually
participating in this 'drill', also so willingly and casually participate in
a mass murder? I don't think so and question whether there were any
real deaths at the Pentagon that day. I believe the whole 9/11 narrative
to be one big contrived fairytale, with exercise and drill footage
passed off as the real deal. (Same thing with 7/7).

We also need to ask ourselves is it possible that the likes of the above
video could have been computer generated and completely faked.
We know that the military has top technology available and
we can recall that movies like 'Jurassic Park', 'Independance Day'
and 'Spiderman' (which incorporated complelely computer generated
New York scenic backgrounds) were so very convincing with their
'cutting edge' special effects back in the 1990's.

Overwhelming evidence has been presented to expose the vital
role that video fakery played in the whole 9/11 saga.
www.cluesforum.info
www.septemberclues.info

I think the world was duped.

reply to post by pshea38


So the list of coconspirators grows. Of course you can prove this??
Why has no one talked after all these years??

reply to post by pshea38

I believe the whole 9/11 narrative to be one big contrived fairytale, with exercise and drill footage
passed off as the real deal. (Same thing with 7/7).

So let me get this straight - you are saying that if I had driven by the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 at about 11:00AM I would have seen nothing, no one, nobody? Don't you think that would have been a little tough to pull off as a magic trick?

Originally posted by ProudBird

AND, think about it if YOU were going to add cameras to YOUR building....would you put a camera up on the roof's edge, and then aim it outward and away from your building?? What purpose would that serve?

Some common sense......

.

I work in a large building that is full of cameras inside and out.

Some are indeed on the roof's edge, aiming outwards toward the parking lot and such.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by pshea38

 

So the list of coconspirators grows. Of course you can prove this??
Why has no one talked after all these years??

Money and Fear! Great Motivators.

We immediately know it is a fake scenario. There are no massive
debris plane parts evident. i.e. tail, wings, seats etc.

'You are part of this now. Here is your money, and you know that
if you say anything publically, we will kill you and your family!'

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by pshea38

 

I believe the whole 9/11 narrative to be one big contrived fairytale, with exercise and drill footage
passed off as the real deal. (Same thing with 7/7).

So let me get this straight - you are saying that if I had driven by the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 at about 11:00AM I would have seen nothing, no one, nobody? Don't you think that would have been a little tough to pull off as a magic trick?

Hey JumpinThruHoops. Did you miss the drills and exercises part? The actual
damage you would have seen was probably causes by pre-planted explosives
(in the only area of the Pentagon that was under-going renovations).
You would have seen a lot of acting (if you were even allowed close enough to see!)
The plane FLYOVER was part of the illusion, as you know well!

How many drills and exercises were ongoing that morning again?

Originally posted by ProudBird

AND, think about it if YOU were going to add cameras to YOUR building....would you put a camera up on the roof's edge, and then aim it outward and away from your building?? What purpose would that serve?

Some common sense......

That's common sense lol?

You've never lived in a city have you? What purpose would a camera outside looking at the building be? So the people inside can see they are still there?

Oh look, a security camera pointing out...

reply to post by NWOwned


Wow - an "I'm an idiot who knowws nothing about the subject, so let me post something really stupid"

The yellow fire trucks in the shot are ARFF (Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting) from Reagan National Airport -
they were attempting to "knockdown" the jet fuel fires at the front of the building. In addition was 5000 gal
diesel tank on fire - it was fueling the generator trailer struck by the right wing of AA77 just before striking
the Pentagon

This had to be done very carefully to avoid spreading or pushing the fires back into the building - which is
why you dont see them trying to pour water on the fire to the left. Had they done so would have pushed
fire back inside (can see it venting to the outside) on top of the crews advancing inside to fight the fire

I've been inside a building when a crew opened up a line and pushed the fire down on top of us - not fun
when everything in front and above you turns orange and becomes very HOT! We beat it out very fast
cursing them on the radio.....


This is why we leave firefighting to professionals - not clowns in mommy's basement........