911 Pentagon Plane

[Pauls' Revere]

This video may explain the lack of wreakage at the Pentagon. Very eye opening and scary to imagine for those aboard.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57680

[idiom]

Nice. Physics is the best :)

[Time for Change]

I will preface this with the fact that I don't care about the 911 truth movement in any way, I am simply stating my limited observation.

That test is a great example of the destruction of a jet, and a reassuring example of the structural capacity of a reactor containment wall, but has noting to do with the crash at the pentagon.

The comparison between the two is seemingly flawed.
The block that served as a target for the jet was 3.7m or 12.13907 feet thick (according to that website)
The walls of the pentagon were what, concrete block? poured concrete?
SO let’s say 12" (1 foot thick). Consider that somebody actually accounted for an impact during the design phase...make the wall 2 feet thick...

Do the two impact surfaces match? Density of material, thickness of material, reinforcement bars, openings, etc.
Not even close.

Consider also the mass of a large passenger jet, the fuel load (weight) and the reduced resistance of the impact surface (compared to the one in the video)

I don’t know if there is a "Fair" comparison to be derived from that cool as hell video.

How does one conclude that the two tests are relevant to each other?

[jjank11]

My first thought is that is incredible. I have not seen anything like that before.

But then i question if this is really what happened then why are all the videos of evidence of the pentagon attack not released and were all taken by government agencies.
Should that simple show exactly that.

Secondly, why did the government hide so much evidence. The government was completely closed on everything. You would expect that the government would be extremely transparent to the actual happenings.

I sway more towards the 911 truthers than anyone else, although i'm not a hardcore truther. Until the government stands up and is transparent about the evidence they found it will be very hard to sway me back.

This is just another example of how our government completely has a disregard for its people.

We have the right to petition the government and know!!

[New York For Paul]

I will preface this with the fact that I don't care about the 911 truth movement in any way, I am simply stating my limited observation.

That test is a great example of the destruction of a jet, and a reassuring example of the structural capacity of a reactor containment wall, but has noting to do with the crash at the pentagon.

The comparison between the two is seemingly flawed.
The block that served as a target for the jet was 3.7m or 12.13907 feet thick (according to that website)
The walls of the pentagon were what, concrete block? poured concrete?
SO let’s say 12" (1 foot thick). Consider that somebody actually accounted for an impact during the design phase...make the wall 2 feet thick...

Do the two impact surfaces match? Density of material, thickness of material, reinforcement bars, openings, etc.
Not even close.

Consider also the mass of a large passenger jet, the fuel load (weight) and the reduced resistance of the impact surface (compared to the one in the video)

I don’t know if there is a "Fair" comparison to be derived from that cool as hell video.

How does one conclude that the two tests are relevant to each other?

That part of the pentagon that was hit was mostly empty because they had just rebuild all the walls and windows with car bomb proof materials. That was the reinforced side of the pentagon. It still got caved in and was on fire for over a week with all the burning fuel from the plane.

The flames on top the pentagon were visible for miles for about five days.

[Geronimo]

That part of the pentagon that was hit was mostly empty because they had just rebuild all the walls and windows with car bomb proof materials. That was the reinforced side of the pentagon. It still got caved in and was on fire for over a week with all the burning fuel from the plane.

The flames on top the pentagon were visible for miles for about five days.

Most of the jet fuel burnt off on impact. Something else kept those fires going.

[Time for Change]

who knows...maybe the pentagon was a full scale test of the methods and materials of construction.
Let the interior burn for a while and see if the flame resistant materials perform as advertised.
That notion is NOT so far fetched, considering the claim that the affected section was newly constructed.
hmmm....

I did forget about the lack of video from that incident, but is there proof that any video actually exists(ed) in the first place?

[newbitech]

that doesn't really explain how the object that struck the pentagon penetrated 3 rings of the pentagon now does it?

if anything, this video shows that what happened at the pentagon was not an airplane striking the building. I am not sure what to believe because the evidence is just not there.

that little 5 frame clip that got released only fuels my skepticism. Why not release the DOT cameras that would show the plane crossing the interstate? Or the gas station videos that would give us a better view of the object as it crossed the lawn.

And what is up with the Hotel camera that the hotel employees watched in horror before the feds confiscated it?

Here's a pretty good flash on the subject.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

and here is also a very nicely laid out analysis that is not conspiracy biased, just facts.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html)

[New York For Paul]

The passenger jet plane has much more mass and weight that the small fighter jet.
Just one engine is close to the size of the engine on the passenger jet.

Plus there were hundreds if not thousands of people who saw the jet fly over 395 highway during rush hour fly into the Pentagon.

The fire on the Pentagon roof was from all the fuel that sprayed over a large area.

While a lot of fuel did burn on impact, that was a lot of fuel still burning for a week with visible flames from at least two miles away.

I know the Sheraton National Hotel very well. http://www.sheratonnational.com/photogallery.htm


Most hotel policies restrict the use or showing of video tapes because of privacy concerns. It is a crappy policy, but that is industry practice. The hotels are so absurd that when they video tape criminals, they do not release the tapes even for the victims to look at because of privacy concerns. I guess they are concerned about the privacy rights of criminal.

I presume the FBI did confiscate the tapes and have them in some government vault.

There were many people who felt the impact about a half mile to a mile away. There are still many witnesses in the DC area who saw it. Many are traumatised. Several people on the highway did a U turn practically when they saw the Pentagon hit and knew to head out of town. Many were Pentagon employees and defense contractors heading to Crystal City which is about five hundred yards from the Pentagon.

Check out these traffic cams in the morning at 9:30 A.M. and you will see the traffic jams.

http://www.trafficland.com/city/WAS/index.html

[Geronimo]

The fire on the Pentagon roof was from all the fuel that sprayed over a large area.


That's funny, because Popular Mechanics contests that all of that jet fuel is what blasted the hole through the inner most wall. The roof section on top of the impact zone 'collapsed' shortly after impact, and it is highly unlikely that any of the fuel sprayed outside of the impact zone (since most of it would have ignited upon impact) It is a stretch of the imagination to believe that there were pools of jet fuel burning off in other areas of the pentagon. Especially on the roof.

[New York For Paul]

Here are links to photos. The parts of the roof that are charred is probably what I saw burning from two miles away from a seventh floor window in Rosslyn.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/pentagon-aerial.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/911pentagon.html&h=135&w=135&sz=196&tbnid=6AQoRUuSWBoJ:&tbnh=135&tbnw=135&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1

This photo shows how the fire spread to the roof level. It looks like the explosion tossed a lot of fuel upward and then landed on the roof.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Pentagon-Crash18may06d.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Pentagon-Crash18may06.htm&h=89&w=134&sz=31&tbnid=YABQkhKlk88J:&tbnh=89&tbnw=134&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=2

Here are some more photos.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

It looks like burn the top of the building on all five rings.
More Info.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/757debris.html

[Pauls' Revere]

I will preface this with the fact that I don't care about the 911 truth movement in any way, I am simply stating my limited observation.

That test is a great example of the destruction of a jet, and a reassuring example of the structural capacity of a reactor containment wall, but has noting to do with the crash at the pentagon.

The comparison between the two is seemingly flawed.
The block that served as a target for the jet was 3.7m or 12.13907 feet thick (according to that website)
The walls of the pentagon were what, concrete block? poured concrete?
SO let’s say 12" (1 foot thick). Consider that somebody actually accounted for an impact during the design phase...make the wall 2 feet thick...

Do the two impact surfaces match? Density of material, thickness of material, reinforcement bars, openings, etc.
Not even close.

Consider also the mass of a large passenger jet, the fuel load (weight) and the reduced resistance of the impact surface (compared to the one in the video)

I don’t know if there is a "Fair" comparison to be derived from that cool as hell video.

How does one conclude that the two tests are relevant to each other?

CORRECT: There is no absolute comparison per se regarding material strength, type of aircraft, wind velocity etc...would be cool if someone tried to recreate the Pentagon crash in a test similar to the jet fighter through. Put a 747 on a track with walls like the Pentagon and see what happens. My bet is alot of the plane goes through what the jet fighter went through. Just how much a percentage is anyones guess because we would only be estimating exact speed the plane was at upon impact. I would assume it was probably moving near maximum speed (whatever that is) when it hit. My only point to this is the amazing destruction an aircraft sustains be it a fighter jet or 747. I'm not a "truther" people will draw thier own conclusions. One poster here affirmed my thoughts, I wish we heard more from eye witnesses as the plane crossed hwy 395. Did the government round all them up too?

[Time for Change]

the question is, and not to fuel inside job or not...
wouldn't the larger plane (bigger mass / momentum) penetrate deeper into the building of lower resistance?
I never paid attention to the angle of approach, but they claim that the plane had a low approach, right?
If that is the case, wouldnt the plane penetrate farther into the inner portions of the building?
it looks like the outer portion was the only ine with sever impact damage.
The inner rings look scarred but not impacted.
interesting.
what was that place build from?
Strong ass materials to say the least.
anyway, my point from my original response was, the comparison of the two crash studies are completely unrelated and in no way similar in mass or resistance.

[New York For Paul]

The Pentagon is one the largest buildings around. 20,000 people work there. Each ring has three or four hallways. I think the plane hit at least three or four rings.

http://www.answers.com/topic/american-airlines-flight-77?cat=biz-fin

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:NVCn-Z6rFF0J:www.prx.org/piece/1141+pentagon+survivor+stories&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=27&gl=us

[Alex Libman]

The serious 9/11 researchers, who unfortunately are a puny minority, have abandoned the "no plane at the pentagon" or "bombs in the buildings" nonsense years ago. All serious circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, does point at an inside job.

[IPSecure]

http://physics911.ca/org/modules/myalbum/photos/24.jpg

[New York For Paul]

Here is an informative article.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm

[Pauls' Revere]

the question is, and not to fuel inside job or not...
wouldn't the larger plane (bigger mass / momentum) penetrate deeper into the building of lower resistance?
I never paid attention to the angle of approach, but they claim that the plane had a low approach, right?
If that is the case, wouldnt the plane penetrate farther into the inner portions of the building?
it looks like the outer portion was the only ine with sever impact damage.
The inner rings look scarred but not impacted.
interesting.
what was that place build from?
Strong ass materials to say the least.
anyway, my point from my original response was, the comparison of the two crash studies are completely unrelated and in no way similar in mass or resistance.

Absolutely, laws of physics bro. two objects travelling at the same speed but with different mass hitting the same wall (or object) will have different affects on what they hit. zx-

[acptulsa]

Firstly, a 757 is no 747--more of a 707. Secondly, the Pentagon is poured concrete. This is a long way from the thin strips of metal that made up the World Trade Center outer skin. An aircraft wing that tries to penetrate concrete will not survive intact, or in anything resembling it's original shape. Likewise, the outer skin of an aircraft is not exactly built like a brick outhouse, either--to give it such structural strength would be to guarantee it never gets off the ground. After demolishing the outer ring, it is entirely reasonable to assume that absolutely no part of a 757 except the sturdiest parts--landing gear, wing roots--would remain intact.

If you want to know what's up with 9/11, you need to stop worrying around the edges and questioning those parts which are obviously as reported and ask questions like, for example, did they pay someone to plant explosives in WTC7 (which they admitted was "pulled") while it was burning or were those explosives already in place before the attacks--and if they were pre-planted, is this standard operating procedure, since when is this the case, and do the people working in high rises know they're working next to dynamite?

The truth will turn out to be bizarre enough without you trying to gild the lilly--and you'll get farther with the general public if you stick to the obvious inconsistencies.