The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: firerescue

You are grasping at straws.

And I was mistaken, the Pentagon plane actually traveled through 9 concrete walls. All to leave a perfect circular hole at the very end.

The Empire State Building plane hit had zero relevance to this case. What evidence are you even pointing to?

The second link with the plane into the boat has zero relevance as boat steel is less than an inch thick.

In fact, plane noses are hard at impact only because of cabin pressurization. But once that is breached, it loses all of his solidarity.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension....????

As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame.

Clearly states that walls ARE BRICK !!!!

As for renovation - the reinforcement was to the windows and the frames to make them bomb proof against
attacks by vehicle borne bombs

The steel reinforcements to the walls consisted of tubular frames surrounding the window openings and attaching to the reinforced concrete floor slabs. Each windowed wall panel (between vertical concrete columns) was retrofitted with a piece consisting of two horizontal tubes welded to two vertical tubes running from the floor to the ceiling. 3  

The original windows were replaced with blast-resistant windows nearly two inches thick.

A Kevlar liner was placed inside the wall as spall protection against fragmentation

a reply to: firerescue

Answer the question. Are you making the claim that the airliner passed through 9 concrete walls to exit in a perfect circle that is smaller than the nose of the plane?

Beyond this Q & A I have no interest in speaking with you. You clearly have aggressive cognitive dissonance in this subject. Or you're a...

AAC

Defense systems beaten spawns the need for improved cruise missile defense...

www.defenseone.com...

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation
This plane didn't do much damage to concrete.

Do you see how thick that concrete is? No building would use that much except, as the video states, for protecting nuclear power stations.

a reply to: Pyle

Yes, understood. The concrete slab in that video was also designed to be energy absorbing by moving slightly upon impact, it's performance has little relevance to the pentagon attack. I was mistaken as to the materials of construction of the pentagon itself.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Damn, it doesn't feel like 16 years since the Kursk sank. I guess 9/11 kind of overshadowed that event. Interesting thread, thank you for posting.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Relevance of Empire State building to Pentagon is to show that even a light WWII bomber traveling at fraction
of velocity of Boeing B 757 will tear a large hole in side of a building

Outer wall of ESB is cut limestone 10 inches thick, ironically material from same quarry used in Pentagon

At ESB one of planes motors was able to penetrate outer wall, travel through building, punch its way through
opposite wall, winding up on roof of another building block and half away

One engine shot through the South side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block, dropping 900 feet (270 m) and landing on the roof of a nearby building and starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse art studio. 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 to be brought under control.[8]

Still don't think the landing gear can survive the impact and crash through the building before punching though C Ring
wall ??

a reply to: Pyle

Of course. But that doesn't negate that fact that the Pentagon walls were reinforced with Concrete and steel reinforcements.

A plane did not punch through those 9 brick, concrete and steel reinforced walls. Just to leave that perfect circle that was smaller than the nose of the plane.

Look, I already don't believe a plane hit. That wasn't what this thread was intended to discuss. I was hoping other likeminded believers would consider the Cheney Halliburton Kursk sub angle.

AAC

a reply to: firerescue

Listen, nothing is going to convince me that a plane hit the Pentagon. For a myriad of reasons I didn't mention because that wasn't the point of the thread.

And unless you have better credentials than this Army Intelligence General, I don't care what you have to say on topic.



AAC

a reply to: 5StarOracle

That's crazy. If what I say is true and two p-700 were taken by Halliburton - that means they have one more left.

AAC

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Are you making the claim that the airliner passed through 9 concrete walls to exit in a perfect circle that is smaller than the nose of the plane

What 9 walls are talking about...??

THEY ARE NO INTERAL WALLS (at least masonry ones) BETWEEN OUTER E RING AND THE C RING ON THE 2 LOWEST
FLOORS

Do you understand once penetrating E Ring wall will encounter no significant walls until Brick C Ring !!!

Only plaster/sheetrock which can punch hole in with your hands !!

The five wings, named Rings A, B, C, D, and E, with E being the outermost, are less distinct than appears from the building's roof. Only the lightwells between Rings B and C go to the ground. The lightwells between Rings A and B, C and D, and D and E descend only to the base of the third floor.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Major General Stubblebine, whom you see in your video, is a crackpot who thought he could walk through walls, he has no credibility imho.

a reply to: IamALWAYSright

Did you read the thread? It's a ICBM that flies at low altitude so as not to be seen by radar. NORAD registered an energy displacement from an ICBM (or equivalent) the morning of 9/11.

The ICBM could've taken off from anywhere within 5,000 miles. They are guided with computers.

AAC

a reply to: D8Tee

What he says is relevant to atomic structure and quantum mechanics. He said in theory it's possible to merge the two.

This man was once in charge of US intel for the world, you don't think he's privy to esoteric info that you're not?

Way to write him off for reasons that you yourself do not understand.

AAC

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: IamALWAYSright
a reply to: pirhanna

A missile? Hmmm. Okay, Launched from where? Please say the airport.

Ask Bill Clinton. Even Bill has publicly stated that the Pentagon was BOMBED. Research and learn for yourselves that believing the mainstream BS is only going to lead you to a mental manure lagoon.

LOL. Any proof of a bomb? Where is this quote of Billy? Enlighten me, chief.

The real question isn't whether it was a missile.

The real question is why the "cover up" ?

See. The cover up suggests an inside job. Which in turn suggests it wan't Saudi Arabia terrorists. Which explains why Trump can't put Saudi Arabia on his "ban" list of nations. Because, somewhere, at the highest levels of governments, both US and Saudis know the truth. And it's only so far they can push the fiction, before it begins to do damage to the financial interests of both nations.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Well, there is always the matter of Rumsfeld announcing the 2.7 trillion dollars of unaccounted for money.

a reply to: firerescue

Look again. The trajectory was at an angle that went through connecting corridors.

Count.

No aluminum plane is doing that.

And if the plane pushed into the Pentagon with all that force, then why is a piece 100 meters away in the grass? Doesn't that point to the fact that aluminum doesn't breach all those brick, steel, and concrete?



Have you ever seen a picture of luggage? Ever?

AAC