9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

check the botton of this page... anderson.ath.cx:8000...

excuse me but what planet are you on... actually what dimension are you in... there is no way that a plane that size caused that damage, a plane at that speed would not just crash through a wall but go through the bloody building...

It did amost go through the whole building. In fact it went through 3 whole rings of the pentagon. Thats a whole lot of damage, wouldn't you say?

The height of the Pentagon is only 77ft. or so. There's no way there was 100ft hole, until it collapsed.

I never said 100 feet high. I said 100 feet wide.

I get the feeling you guys are looking at a photo of a round hole about 12 feet in diameter. That is a photo of the hole in the c ring. It is not a photo of the initial impact site.

I am looking at the pictures and I can't make out a 100 ft hole. I see damage. But I don't see a hole. I see the second story floor still there (which would probably be somewhere around 10 feet high. I can't see anything on the first floor. It's all black. Are you saying the plane made a 100ft wide hole and didn't take out the second story floor? And the plane didn't knock over those spools? Did the plane hit the first floor perfectly?

I was merely giving you something to gauge your claim by. The initial entry point, before the fire got bad, was never that large. You need to find the first pics, right after the plane struck. The hole didn't even look big enough to drive a fire engine into. It's also very clear, by the pics that show the car next to the hole, that nothing struck the left side of the hole.

Originally posted by Skibum I get the feeling you guys are looking at a photo of a round hole about 12 feet in diameter. That is a photo of the hole in the c ring. It is not a photo of the initial impact site.

No, I know that's in the inner part. This is probably the clearest pic of the actual entry hole. 0911.site.voila.fr... Look at the pics on this site to get an idea of the actual size... 0911.site.voila.fr... [edit on 14-9-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by piboy You said they were strong and most of the windows had popped out and were lying flat on the lawn.

WHERE did I say the above. Show me where, and you get a free 2005 Pontiac Grand Prix (sorry I can't afford a Lexus or a Mercedes for this prize). I said (and I can see what I said only four posts above yours.....

Catherder: Almost every window they found in the Pentagon that was blown out was laying flat, on the floor, in one peice.

Sure, I need to learn how to spell piece, but that's besides the point... How can you read something only 4 posts before yours, and completely change the wording into something that wasn't said in any way shape or form? And people wonder how all these conspiracy sites keep tucking along blindly leading the blind...

No, I know that's in the inner part.

You would be surprised at the number of people who think its the outer ring though.

Yeah, I looked at those pictures on the frechie's site and I don't see a 100 ft wide hole. I even see columns in front of the spools. They are damaged, but not "gone". What constitutes a "hole"?

Originally posted by piboy 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.

This is honestly my last reply to you. You obviously haven't read the first bloody post and yet you keep responding with this ignorant banter. GO READ THE WIDTH OF THE WINGS. (first post in this thread) GO VIEW THE IMAGE IN THE POST SHOWING THE *TO SCALE* 757 AGAINST THE WALL AND HOLE OF THE PENTAGON. (page 4 in this thread) Then... go post in a different thread. I don't have time for this 7th grade lesson on how to responsibly read the lesson chapters before replying.

0911.site.voila.fr...

look at the bottom of the page here on your link its pretty much the same hole pre collapse. The other photos dont show much of the hole becasue the spray from the firefighters covers up most of it.

Yowch, CatHerder, take it easy! Forget who said you said... let's back up... the picture you posted... Why, if the wing went across that window, is there still a window there? Why isn't it broken? Or knocked out? Or melted? The wing obviously is gone, so I am trying to understand how the wing can hit that, not damaged that window, and the wing disappear? Please help.

Originally posted by piboy Yeah, I looked at those pictures on the frechie's site and I don't see a 100 ft wide hole. I even see columns in front of the spools. They are damaged, but not "gone". What constitutes a "hole"?

If you did some researh you would find that before the crash there were 2 foot thick walls in between those columns. The plane took out those walls knocked out several columns and damaged numerous others. While it is not a continuous hole it is a 100 foot hole interupted by a few remaining columns.

Originally posted by Skibum You would be surprised at the number of people who think its the outer ring though.

A good clue is that on most of the pics, the words "Punch Out" are painted on the wall next to it. Yeah, I know, I bunch of sites seem to call that the "entry hole". Many have been misled by that. The main burden is to demonstrate conclusively that the debris found outside the Pentagon is consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. I don't think it is. Wings shear off when planes enter holes, or go between things that the wings can't clear, especially when they have heavy engines hanging from them. And yeah, those spools are very strange, how they don't even appear to have been disturbed. [edit on 14-9-2004 by Damned]

Ok, Skibum, so we are not talking about a 100ft "hole". We are talking about extensive damage 100 ft wide? And c'mon, lay off the assumptions about my research. I am not getting upity, so let's be cool. I want to know exactly what you think happened. Everyone gets so mad and calls other stupid when they start to drill down to specifics, but it's important.

Originally posted by piboy Yowch, CatHerder, take it easy! Forget who said you said... let's back up... the picture you posted... Why, if the wing went across that window, is there still a window there? Why isn't it broken? Or knocked out? Or melted? The wing obviously is gone, so I am trying to understand how the wing can hit that, not damaged that window, and the wing disappear? Please help.

Ok, since you're NITPICKING over a couple reference lines showing you the impact grooves that go over 8 inches into solid reinforced concrete and up to 1.5 feet deep into solid concrete I've shortened the lines so you can grasp what it is I am pointing out. Mother of love... And here is the the left 60% of the above photo, zoomed in. Do you ever look at the whole description and example or do you just go after the one tiny flaw in every example? I didn't outline the wing impact perfectly initially - I assumed my audience was intelligent enough to see what the hell it was I was pointing out.

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by piboy Yowch, CatHerder, take it easy! Forget who said you said... let's back up... the picture you posted... Why, if the wing went across that window, is there still a window there? Why isn't it broken? Or knocked out? Or melted? The wing obviously is gone, so I am trying to understand how the wing can hit that, not damaged that window, and the wing disappear? Please help.

Ok, since you're NITPICKING over a couple reference lines showing you the impact grooves that go over 8 inches into solid reinforced concrete and up to 1.5 feet deep into solid concrete I've shortened the lines so you can grasp what it is I am pointing out.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! We have just changed the evidence to match the theory. Wrong wrong wrong This is not an analysis. This is not objectiive. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, you modify the theory not the evidence!

Originally posted by zerocool excuse me but what planet are you on... actually what dimension are you in... there is no way that a plane that size caused that damage, a plane at that speed would not just crash through a wall but go through the bloody building...

No, it wouldn't. It hit (as stated in the first post in this thread, and from public records as to the recent upgrades to the Pentagon, including the section that was hit on 9-11) ... a reinforced concrete wall, which was recently upgraded with reinforced steel strappings, bolted floor to ceiling, floor to ceiling kevlar shielding designed to stop bomb fragments and fragments of the wall from a bomb explosion, 2 inch thick bulletproof and bomb resistant windows with armored framing, and before it hit this it hit a very heavy desil generator in front of the wall, and a steel steam vent pipe (each engine hit an object before the plane hit the wall - the starboard engine hit a very substantial object). Read these sources before asking any more questions about the structure of the Pentagon or recent upgraded (just prior to 9-11-2001). They are provided to you in the original post - you shouldn't have to ask questions about them here. Thare are very informative fact-filled links to multiple websites including Architecture Week, Renovation.Pentagon.Mil, enr.construction.com and others. All of this is outlined in the first post - including MOST IMPORTANTLY, at least 20 links to sources outside of the original post (otherwise the post would have been 200 pages long), please go back and re-read the first post paying special attention to the Pentagon section and read the Pentagon upgrade notes contained in the links I have provided. Then, for additional reading please read the Pentagon Building Performance Report on page four of this thread (I intended to include it in the original post but couldn't locate it prior to publishing - it will be included in a future edit to the primay body of post 1). The only part of the paper that appears slightly incorrect is the assessment in their brief mention of the surveillance photo (frame 1) where they have the 757 noted in the wrong position of the film. Note: maroon text in a messge body on ths forum are LINKS to other webpages, content, etc.

HOW THE F**K CAN A PLANE GET THAT BLOODY CLOSE TO THE MOST SECURED AND GUARDED BUILDING IN THE WORLD!

THIS is a great question. THIS is a superb question. THIS is the sort of question you should be asking the government, and anyone who will listen. How did the 757 get that close to the Pentagon? Who was in charge of defending the USA on 911. Who is to blame for not sending an F16 or two up to see where the heck those planes went when they turned their transponders off. Wasting time and energy asking where the 757 is (when I've shown it to everyone, and shown why it was so damaged, and shown how it caused the damage it did, and shown why it didn't do more damage, and shown that it was a 757, and shown that it wasn't a bomb, or a Global Hawk, or a Missile) is just silly. The last question you posed is the best question in this entire thread. I am 100% serious.

I would still like someone to point out to me where the plane debris fit on a 757. I made reference to the pictures on page 5 from this analysis. I can believe that they are from a 757. But where do they go? Mentioning that they are parts is not enough. Please show me where they go. (and no more changing photos when the going gets rough).

Originally posted by piboy

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by piboy Yowch, CatHerder, take it easy! Forget who said you said... let's back up... the picture you posted... Why, if the wing went across that window, is there still a window there? Why isn't it broken? Or knocked out? Or melted? The wing obviously is gone, so I am trying to understand how the wing can hit that, not damaged that window, and the wing disappear? Please help.

Ok, since you're NITPICKING over a couple reference lines showing you the impact grooves that go over 8 inches into solid reinforced concrete and up to 1.5 feet deep into solid concrete I've shortened the lines so you can grasp what it is I am pointing out.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! We have just changed the evidence to match the theory. Wrong wrong wrong This is not an analysis. This is not objectiive. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory, you modify the theory not the evidence!

Man, I've tried to be very patient with you. I've tried to cajole you through the very hard steps in understanding all the big words, and all the big hard questions that come with all the big scary pictures of the big scary building. But you will get no more responses from me. No evidence was changed - only the presentation was DUMMIED DOWN for your benefit and you still miss the point.