It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 Pentagon - Jet can atomize on impact

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:40 AM
First let me say, I fully support a new investigation on 9/11.

I have seen some pretty ridiculous theories out there that have done more to discredit the subject of 9/11 truth than to help it.

The following video is of a test in which a fighter jet is deliberately crashed into the wall of a nuclear station to test the walls strength. The result is the jet is atomized on impact. I would imagine the Pentagon has a similar construction being a tactical target.

I post this because, although it is not definitive proof of anything, it is something to ponder when considering the seemingly obvious curiosities surrounding the Pentagon explosion; specifically why there was little to no plane wreckage.

I recommend any truther adopt this kind of devils advocate thinking with regards to 9/11. Debunk your beliefs and only the truth will remain.


posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by The Savage Khan

Something that not only have I considered but have brought up in posts before.
I typically don't interact on 9/11 threads however because they get utterly ridiculous from both sides.

The issue I see with this is that It is being tested on a hardened structure. I know that the WTC buildings inner cores were reinforced but until I know exactly how much so it is safe to say that a plane especially one that outsizes a fighter in every way could damage the core enough.

Where the Pentagon is concerned again, without fully knowing its structural elements a informed opinion can't really be given. However I am of the mind that a plane traveling at such speeds being made of the same material as the fighter would likely disintegrate on impact as this video shows. Though certainly not without causing some significant damage.

Then there is the consideration of size. Would a smaller plane do more damage than a larger one because it has less surface area and therefore can perhaps penetrate further into concrete before atomization?
I have heard many arguments. I believe 9/11 was an inside job, though to what degree I can not say.

edit on 16-9-2010 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:01 AM
Very interesting. I would agree that more information regarding the test wall as opposed to the normal composite wall of the Pentagon should be considered, it seems clear that a high performance fighter jet can completely disintegrate when hitting several feet of steel and lead reinforced solid 'hardened' concrete.

I have to wonder if the F-4 was a 'standard' aircraft too. But still...

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:05 AM

Originally posted by The Savage Khan
I would imagine the Pentagon has a similar construction being a tactical target.

The video you showed does not show the wall after the hit. The pentagon had massive holes as a result of the impact. I would then imagine that if the plane was able to go right through the wall it would leave behind some debris IMO. In the video it looks like the plane does not get through the wall therefore leading me to believe that the pentagon was not built the same way (therefore would not be able to atomize a plane)

Also the plane that hit the pentagon was allegedly a Boeing 757. Much larger then your test plane.

that was supposed to be the Boeing 757

And here is the aftermath

Boeing 757 atomized? I don't believe so

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by The Savage Khan

Little aircraft debris ?

Notice lawn covered in debris - this was lightweight pieces hurled there on impact.

The heavier parts punched through into the building and were recovered there

Parts of the landing gear (some of the heaviest/strongest pieces on aircraft) went all the way through knock a
hole in the C Ring wall

Hole in C Ring wall with aircraft debris

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:25 AM
I'm sensing more good cop/bad cop manipulation in these threads of late.

The picture with all the debris is classic atomization.


posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:25 AM
I can definitely see a 757 easily punching through the walls of the pentagon where the plane acts like a nail.
In this case it would have initial disintegration on impact with the additional 100+ feet pushing through the wall behind it.

Thats fine. But (and I'm no 9/11 truth expert or even that concerned,) The jet in the video I watched left marks on that reinforced wall where its wings slammed into it.
From certain pictures I have seen of the Pentagon it appears that the wings of the 757 left windows unbroken where the wings should have impacted. So assuming that is the case such an anomaly may be addressed.

edit on 16-9-2010 by snowen20 because: because my mind is working at 0.2% capacity.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:26 AM
reply to post by Maxmars

Pentagon exterior wall was made of cut limestone - same material has Empire State Building . Behind which
was brick wall.

If ever seem Empire State after B25 bomber hit in 1945 - notice the hole knocked in side of building by
aircraft fraction the size and speed

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by thedman

Moreover I think limestone is one of the softer rocks is it not?
I left my Geology degree in my other ATS jacket.

But seriously stacked blocks and brick are no match for many tonsmoving at high speed.

edit on 16-9-2010 by snowen20 because: just dropped to 0.1% mental capability.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by snowen20

Windows in Pentagon had just been replaced by blast-proof windows designed to resist car/truck bomb blasts

Article describing bomb proof windows and their installation

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by thedman

I can agree with you 100% on that issue. However bomb proof glass sits with in a housing in the window frame where it can absorb the blast, Specifically what Im talking about is that lime stone and actual buildings structure aside from the main entry point.

I certainly believe a plane hit the pentagon, just trying to sort out the BS between so many conflicting ideas on it.

So at the speed the plane was traveling if it were capable of easily knocking huge blocks of stone and tons of bricks aside, I seriously doubt that a bomb proof window would still be housed with in its frame without at least having surrounding damage occur to the outer facade of the building. (Don't include the whole.) LOL

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:42 PM
What speed was the phantom jet traveling at? They are capable of going nearly 3x the speed of a 757. As for the "debris" at the Pentagon it was NOT there immediately after the impact (or some news reporters were lying). Those pictures and debris only appeared later in the day. Those immediately on scene reported no visible signs of an aircraft crash, just a hole in the wall and fires.
At any rate a 757 could not punch holes through 3 rings of the Pentagon, or let's call it very unlikely at best.
I suppose their Patriot missiles also failed to function that day. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the only air defenses available in Washington on 9/11 were fighter aircraft.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Patriot Missiles? Where? The only missile systems placed near the Pentagon was after 9/11 with the Humvee Avenger system. Shooting down an airliner over a heavily populated area is just another disaster in the making. Recall what happened in NYC with the airliner that plopped down into a neighborhood. It would have been just as tragic as having a 757 falling out of the sky into the crowded Arlington neighborhoods, or the traffic choked highways and byways.

Also I dont recall but werent there other aircraft in the air at that same still? What if the missile system hit the wrong airliner? Now THAT would have been a massive PR failure.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:11 PM
What I don't get, is how can the pentagon plane atomise on impact, but also blast a circular hole all the way through to C wing?
That bit has always confused me.
Someone help me!

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by OllyP

There were no structural walls between the exterior wall and the C ring only drywall.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:20 PM
I uploaded this video a while ago to our media section.

(click to open player in new window)

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by The Savage Khan

Here we go didn't atomize.......but it was pretty well pulverized by the crash, reinforced walls and pillars of the Pentagon. The Pentagon isn't your ordinary building.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

At any rate a 757 could not punch holes through 3 rings of the Pentagon, or let's call it very unlikely at best.

Stuff thatpenetrated all the way through building was some of the heaviest/strongest sections of aircraft - the
landing gear struts/trucks which are designed to support 350,000 lbs of aircraft hitting runways at 150 + mph
and doing it for 25 years

As someone else just posted the 2 LOWER FLOORS of the Pentagon - right where jet ploughed through
did not have an partitions between exterior E Ring wall and exit hole punched through C Ring

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.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by thedman

Good information.It was my understanding that this was supposed to be the part of the Pentagon that had recently been reinforced (for what reasons?)

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:17 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Pentagon was 60 years old in 2001 and needed renovation, especially in infastructure such as plumbing , HVAC
telcom and cabling for data communications

The danger from car/truck bombs was considered and plans made to reinforce exterior walls (E Ring) by placing
Kevlar liner inside the brick backing wall. Blast proof windows and frames were installed to prevent windows
from being blown out or shattered in bomb attack from outside of building.

Nobody figured on jet aircraft being rammed into Pentagon

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in