Most Compelling Evidence for Me

Evenyone argues that this or that couldn't have happened. Well, let's stick with what we know for a fact happened...

Two planes hit the World Trade Centers. When the planes hit, they peirced the buildings, collided with a combination of glass, concrete, steel, drywall and various other materials causing the planes to disintergrate. The debris and explosion from the plane exited the other side of the towers.



One plane hit the Pentagon. When the plane hit it peirced concrete, and collided with a combination of glass, steel, drywall and various other materials as well. But it did not disintergrate. It went on to pentrate the same materials, not two, but three more times. Then evaporated in the inferno that ensued. Why did this plane not disintergrate as the other two did? It would seem that hitting re-enforced concrete would stop the plane or cause the plane to dinintergrate as much if not more than the WTCs.



Could someone explain this to me?

No, it didn't disintegrate less or more than the other planes. They all disintegrated completely. As you said, the part of the pentagon that was struck was reinforced concrete but the plane was travelling very fast. Planes travelling at speed are going to behave like missiles since almost all their mass is concentrated in a long narrow cylinder. I don't see any anomaly in that the plane that struck the pentagon penetrated as far as it did. The planes that hit the wtc went clean through, as you pointed out, so it appears to be consistent.

Regardless of whether a material breaks apart when it hits something, the mass is still there, and so is the momentum. It will not stop until the momentum is completely spent... seems pretty simple to me. Anyone qualified to say otherwise?

Originally posted by nobodyv2
No, it didn't disintegrate less or more than the other planes. They all disintegrated completely. As you said, the part of the pentagon that was struck was reinforced concrete but the plane was travelling very fast. Planes travelling at speed are going to behave like missiles since almost all their mass is concentrated in a long narrow cylinder. I don't see any anomaly in that the plane that struck the pentagon penetrated as far as it did. The planes that hit the wtc went clean through, as you pointed out, so it appears to be consistent.

like a missle indeed.
the planes did not come out of the other side of the WTC. the debris and explosion did. there was not 3 re-enforced concrete walls in the world trade center. the final hole in the pentagon was the size of the cockpit, leading me to beleive that the entire fuselage stayed intact (through 3 re-enforced concrete walls) until it evaporated in it's own inferno. seems impossible to me.

Originally posted by Stiney
Regardless of whether a material breaks apart when it hits something, the mass is still there, and so is the momentum. It will not stop until the momentum is completely spent... seems pretty simple to me. Anyone qualified to say otherwise?

So you're saying that a snowball will go just as far if it hits a tree branch than it would have if it hadn't? the mass is still traveling through the air and it still has momentum.
It would seem to me that had the plane not broke apart it would have more mass directed at a single point. But, when it breaks apart the mass is distributed over a wider area. But, I'm not qualified in anyway to say for sure.



[edit on 1-5-2007 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by tyranny22
the planes did not come out of the other side of the WTC. the debris and explosion did.

Okay, if you want to be pedantic, I could have said that some of the debris from the planes came out the other side. The point I was making was that the debris had enough momentum to carry it through.

Originally posted by tyranny22
the final hole in the pentagon was the size of the cockpit, leading me to beleive that the entire fuselage stayed intact (through 3 re-enforced concrete walls) until it evaporated in it's own inferno. seems impossible to me.

The inner walls were not reinforced concrete. Only the outer wall was reinforced. The wings and tail didn't have enough mass and/or momentum to penetrate the outer wall hence the small hole.

Originally posted by tyranny22
So you're saying that a snowball will go just as far if it hits a tree branch than it would have if it hadn't?

He didn't say that at all.

Originally posted by tyranny22
It would seem to me that had the plane not broke apart it would have more mass directed at a single point. But, when it breaks apart the mass is distributed over a wider area. But, I'm not qualified in anyway to say for sure.

I don't disagree with your logic, I just think that it is irrelevant. Sure, it would have gone further if had stayed in one piece but that's not what happened. How would an aluminium plane NOT break apart when smashed into reinforced concrete at high speed?

Two major problems:

The Pentagon plane did not pierce the same type of external wall three times. Ring divisions only play into florrs 3-5 - the lower two, where the plane hit, is all connected into ne space. Outer wall - inner area (columns, weaker internal walls, etc) - punch-out at far end of the "C" ring. Two heavy walls, the second only passed by the landing gear we're told.

No planes vaporized to nothing, but all disintegrated to some degree. Inside the Pentagon were found at least three probable engine parts (rotor, rotor and shaft, combustion chamber housing), the nosecone landing gear strut, a wheel, and various pieces of fuselage, none undeniably from an AA 757, but no more likely to be from anything else in particular. This crap about it disappearing has no foundation, whatever side of the debate says it.

I agree with you tyranny22,
that two LARGER 767's were barely able to fly throw a steel tower yet a SMALLER 757 could puncture 6 reinforced concrete walls (that's over 6 feet of concrete) is a bit suspicious.

However, I don't think this is an obvious thing to see for most people .... hardly a strong selling point really!

Tyranny: My bad I misread you.

Why did this plane not disintergrate as the other two did?

The plane did NOT disintegrate, thank you for getting that part right.
Or were you were doing the false concession thing.

Then evaporated in the inferno that ensued.

Ooops. Again, who has said this?

When the plane hit it peirced concrete, and collided with a combination of glass, steel, drywall and various other materials as well. But it did not disintergrate. It went on to pentrate the same materials, not two, but three more times.

As Pepe points out, three rings would mean six walls (in and out for eacg ring) if your question were based on real architecture and not a (puposefully) misinterpreted cartoon image fed to you by someone.

I hope you are going back and checking your evidence now. If I'm wrong cool, but please if you are for real at least double-check these two assertions and possibly your whole thesis. Would you like any more information to help you sort thru the many claims about the attack there? I am not an OCT debunker BTW.
Peace.

I'd love more information.

1) what made the final hole on the interior ring of the pentagon? was it a fuselage?

2) why didn't at least 1 of the other two planes not penatrate the far side of the towers?

From the ouside to the interior of the 3rd ring of the Pentagon is 206 feet. The world trade center's total width was 208 feet. Two feet difference. And there were not 6 layers of concrete (re-enforced or not) between one side of the tower and the other.

3) I understand that there were a few peices left from the airplane, but the rest burnt up completely? Has this ever happened before other than the pentagon and the WTCs?
How did they identify the bodies?

WTC I kmow not so much about, but some part of 175 indeed flew straight through as you said, and I've seen photos of a batterd engine on the street there, so I guess engine.

The hole at the Pentagon had a wheel just outsde it and the gear strut just inside, tho the hole appears round

And there were not 6 layers of concrete (re-enforced or not) between one side of the tower and the other.

Nor in the Pentagon if you read what I said. Here is a diagram illustrating this to help you know you're using flawed reasoning.


The rings superimposed over a floor plan of the penetrated first floor.

Photos of the scene will bear me out.
If you don't care, then just disregard or question my motives or whatever.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

nice.

you got a diagram of the WTC?

Ah, but the trouble with the damage trail inside the Pentagon is that it only lines up with an approach path to the south of the Citgo gas station. Two Pentagon police officers have gone on record
video.google.com...
in asserting that they saw a large, commercial jet flying low towards the Pentagon and passing the gas station on the north side. This means that its approach path was far less oblique, so that, assuming it crashed into the Pentagon, the plane would have created an internal debris/damage trail that has a significantly different orientation to the Pentagon than that of the one found inside it, which aligns with the official approach path set by the line of broken light poles. The only way of explaining this contradiction is either:
1. another plane (not Flight 77) crashed into the Pentagon. A smaller plane could then account for the 16-18ft entry hole and the absence of the wings and tail outside the Pentagon, which could not have been sucked into such a small hole, nor fragmented into confetti (metal wings briefly exposed to a kerosene fireball do not behave like that - they snap off and break into pieces that should have been lying around on the Pentagon lawn),
or
2. there was no Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. The internal damage was caused by explosives, strategically placed so as to conform to the bogus approach path, with the light poles being knocked over purposefully by a perp driving a truck, components of a Boeing 757 jet plane being planted in unused rooms near the planned impact point and the exit hole in the C ring being created by special explosive charges the military uses for making holes in walls (which would explain why it was circular, not oval as it should have been if a jet plane nose with a circular cross-section had impacted a vertical, flat wall at an angle).

In the absence of evidence proving either possibility, my preference is dictated by Occam's Razor, i.e., the simpler scenario is #1, with the exit hole created by explosives to make it look like it was created by a large jet. The problem with this is that the police officers did not notice another plane flying towards the Pentagon. However, as their attention was focussed upon what they had just seen, it is entirely plausible that they would not have noticed a smaller plane hidden for much of its approach by the gas station flying low towards the Pentagon along the official flight path. The problem then is how the larger plane could have escaped the notice of other people as it flew over the Pentagon. But this begs the question that it was unnoticed. Perhaps people other than the police officers DID spot it, but were too scared to come forward when they realised that what they had seen contradicted the official story of 9/11. There were MANY such witnesses, as we are beginning now to discover with the firemen and other first responders who have had to keep quiet. Although the simplest scenario #1 poses several issues, they are not insuperable ones and so I will ascribe to it until superior argument or evidence is presented that disproves it

Originally posted by tyranny22
nice.

you got a diagram of the WTC?

No that's another story dude.

micpsi: nice plug. Yes, there's that whole PentaCon story now, however little sense it makes, and that's discussed elsewhere. I was just here to help Tyrany 22 learn as quickly as possible his "most compelling evidence" should be re-examined IF he means to be taken seriously.

No thanks necessary. Just doin my job

Originally posted by tyranny22
nice.

you got a diagram of the WTC?

No that's another story dude.

micpsi: nice plug. Yes, there's that whole PentaCon story now, however little sense it makes, and that's discussed elsewhere. I was just here to help Tyrany 22 learn as quickly as possible his "most compelling evidence" should be re-examined IF he means to be taken seriously.

No thanks necessary. Just doin my job

Caustic Logic> What is your job here on this web site. In one post you say that you knew 9/11 was an inside job the same day it happened, but most of your posts are telling people they don't know what they are talking about when they post anything about 9/11 being an inside job?

Originally posted by nobodyv2
The inner walls were not reinforced concrete. Only the outer wall was reinforced. The wings and tail didn't have enough mass and/or momentum to penetrate the outer wall hence the small hole.

If the wings and tail did not penetrate the outer walls how comewe do not see and debris from them in the photos of the front of the Pentagon before or after the collapse ?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
No planes vaporized to nothing, but all disintegrated to some degree. Inside the Pentagon were found at least three probable engine parts (rotor, rotor and shaft, combustion chamber housing), the nosecone landing gear strut, a wheel, and various pieces of fuselage, none undeniably from an AA 757, but no more likely to be from anything else in particular. This crap about it disappearing has no foundation, whatever side of the debate says it.

What about the photo of what is left of an engine found outside the Pentagon ? How did the nosecone survive when it is made from graphite composite ? It would have been destroyed on impact.

Originally posted by tyranny22

Originally posted by Stiney
Regardless of whether a material breaks apart when it hits something, the mass is still there, and so is the momentum. It will not stop until the momentum is completely spent... seems pretty simple to me. Anyone qualified to say otherwise?

So you're saying that a snowball will go just as far if it hits a tree branch than it would have if it hadn't? the mass is still traveling through the air and it still has momentum.

I was saying that if something breaks in a collision, momentum doesn't suddenly disappear completely. Why should it? I thought this was common knowledge... you can punch a hole through anything if you hit it hard enough, and the faster you're going the harder you hit. I don't see what is so unexpected about something moving that fast breaking through the walls - and there is no magical force that would keep it intact. Of course the plane shattered. What would you expect aluminum to do?

When a snowball hits the branch, it shatters... but the snow keeps moving past the branch. Momentum is only reduced, not eliminated. There's also a force exerted on the branch from the snowball, which, if strong enough, would break the branch.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
No planes vaporized to nothing, but all disintegrated to some degree. Inside the Pentagon were found at least three probable engine parts (rotor, rotor and shaft, combustion chamber housing), the nosecone landing gear strut, a wheel, and various pieces of fuselage, none undeniably from an AA 757, but no more likely to be from anything else in particular. This crap about it disappearing has no foundation, whatever side of the debate says it.

What about the photo of what is left of an engine found outside the Pentagon ? How did the nosecone survive when it is made from graphite composite ? It would have been destroyed on impact.

Read the post you quoted again more carefully. He never said the nosecone survived.

So the plane is basically gone., we can all basically agree that if a plane did hit the pentagon, that it totally evaporated for hit smashing the wall. I know it has been talked about on other threads, but how would they recover DNA from passengers and the highjackers, if there is basically nothing left of the plane and all the steel? I guess it is just another hole in the offical story.