Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pentagon Attack, New Reading  
User currently offlineDuggan From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1271 times:

I just received a link showing some interesting stuff about the Pentagon 757 crash.
I do not especially support this thesis so please do not flame me.
However I would be very interested to have your opinion from an "aviation" point of view.
Thanks by advance.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asile.org%2Fcitoyens%2Fnumero13%2Fpentagone%2Ferreurs.htm&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

PS. The original link is in French; the above link is using the Google traduction service.

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1150 times:

Pure garbage. It's nonsense like this that makes understanding in this world so hard to come by.

I have no problems with the official story from an aviation point of view--the reason why the width of the Pentagon demolished by the aircraft is so relatively narrow is because of the aircraft hitting the ground moments before impact with the structure, cartwheeling it vertically. This assessment came out mere minutes after the first break of news and was corroborated by witnesses.

Of course, conspiracy theorist nutjobs always believe in garbage like this, so it doesn't surprise me that there are/will be some people who believe in this.

Thanks for posting it, though.


User currently offlineDuggan From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1128 times:

Thanks for this answer. However if the A/C hit the ground moments before impact. Where are the remains ?
Once again I am NOT supporting this thesis, I am just trying to make my mind. I mean, I have followed very closely the Concorde accident and when you see the area all around, it is really a lot different. Everything is burned, there are remains on a very large radius...


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1109 times:


I remember reading somewhere that the hull of the plane went through the second ring of the building as well, however without collapsing it. So most of the plane's remains would have been further inside.



User currently offlineUBBA Pilot From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

Let's put it this way... a giant beer can is flying along at speeds that are probably well above normal. It then smacks the ground just before hitting one of the most fortified buildings in the world. Next, due to the jet fuel, impact, etc. a raging fire starts in an occupied building. Fire trucks come over and are more concerned with the living people in the building rather than those they cannot save so they disregard what they may be driving on. Next, the parts of the building where the impact occured begin to collapse.
Does anyone else see why there may have been problems locating large pieces of wreckage and/or determining what rubble came from what?


User currently offlineDuggan From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1095 times:

From my point of view the problem is that I don't see the impact in front of the building. If an A/C hit the ground at this speed you'll see wreckage all over the place.

User currently offlineLucifer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1083 times:

What a load of rubbish. The building is reinforced, and the fire has destroyed and melted the fuselage (such as in other aircraft fires over history). This person must be extremely ignorant, and has far too much time on their hands.

User currently offlineSuperdawg From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 347 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1081 times:

Have they found the voice and Flight data recorders from this flight?

Also Yesterday they had a picture of the Pentagon in the National Post here in Canada and they have torn down that entire section of the Pentagon and are rebuilding it. It was quite an interesting sight.


User currently offlineJt8d727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1055 times:

The Pentagon is built to withstand alot! There was a show that, I believe, aired in the U.S. on the Dicsovery Channel, The Learning Channel (or similar) about Pentagon and the Security measures within it's structure that make it virtually inpenetrable. The one thing that stands out in my mind is at the main entrance, one of the last (out of many) barriers to protect it from an attack is a steel wall which literally raises from the drive almost instantly creating a strong protective barrier from fast vehicles or bomb blasts. Now I'm not saying that disentegrated the aircraft but the point I'm making is that the Pentagon is a super-structure when in comes to security and the incident on Sept. 11th proves that whatever they do, it works pretty damn well!

It's too bad that you felt you had to put up a defense from the beginning against being "flamed" because some
people don't know how to a) disregard something they don't agree with and move on; b) reply in a courteous way to the HUMAN BEING behind the screen name or c) lack the capacity to think "hmm, what if?.... naaaa". This seems to happen in quite a few of the more controversial topics. Now here's my unsolicited but free opinion about this.... You need not fear those who still believe that the world is flat when in fact, it is round... ( .. I am sure in that era, the thought of the world actually being round was a consipiracy)

again,
thanks for you post
-Greg


User currently offlineLucifer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1047 times:

My comments were directed at the writer of the site, not anyone posting here, if you refer to me.

User currently offlineTurin_airport From Italy, joined Oct 2001, 278 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1038 times:

Saying things like what a load of rubbish means nothing. We weren't there so we can only try to answer to some questions. The first that comes through my mind is: in those photos I didn't see the plane (we're talking about a 757, not a Cesna): where is it?
Two possible answers:
1_the photos are a fake
2_ there was no plane at all
3_ ?

give your answer.

T_a


User currently offlineRipcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1016 times:

ok and whats your point?

User currently offlineBraniff727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 686 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1001 times:

I think if that logic is going to be used, why didn't pieces of the 767's fuselages come through the WTC?

Because the planes were traveling at high speeds and are made of metal and on impact, crushed and exploded. The WTC was a strong, strong building, but that particular side of the pentagon was the one that was recently refurbished and re-inforced.

I distinctly remember reports that day mentioning that and that had they hit a different side, there would have been a lot more damage and human loss.

I agree that the writer of the site is clueless.



Climbing
User currently offlineDc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 996 times:

The Pentagons tough resilient construction is testimony as to why it absorbed the impact of a 757 so well. Believe me they don't build structures like they used to anymore. i do believe that the 757 wreckage was buried beneath the rubble of the first ring.

User currently offlineTurin_airport From Italy, joined Oct 2001, 278 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 988 times:

Well, it's difficult to say. I never had a doubt about the official story untill I saw those pictures and, even without read the sentencies I noticed there was no trace of an airplane. I also thought that if someone would tell me the pictures show the effects of a bomb (and not a plane impact) I would find it a plausible answer.
This explanation would follow another, more worrying question: why the Pentagon prefers to say it was a plane and not a bomb? answering would lead us into the sci-fi world; instead I want to argue only about the things we can see.
So I come back to my original question: where is the plane gone?

T_a


User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 975 times:

I think seeing any CCTV security video from the impact would serve to enlighten and quell most of these questions.

See thread: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/754869/6/

The government should release any video.

ER


User currently offlineArchitect From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 948 times:

The Pentagon is one of the most solidly built buildings around. The walls are a solid 2 feet thick of stone, brick and concrete. Recently (before 9/11) these walls were further reinforced with steel columns. For more information about the construction and impact try this site:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/pentagon_7.html

I would be more surprised to find any pieces of the plane intact!

By the way, spreading sand and gravel on the ground is common at construction sites in order to distribute the weight of heavy equipment and improve drainage.



User currently offlineN202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 931 times:

From my point of view the problem is that I don't see the impact in front of the building. If an A/C hit the ground at this speed you'll see wreckage all over the place.

You're assuming that the aircraft hit the ground and exploded into the building, such as in a high-speed, near-vertical dive. That's not what happened. The aircraft was in a shallow dive, clipped a wing on the ground and cartwheeled into the Pentagon. Thus, the Pentagon wall was the site of initial impact for most of the fuselage (and the fuel contained in it), and where the wreckage was contained.

I mean, this checks out. If you throw any object into the ground on a slant at high velocity, it will be carried forward based on that momentum.


User currently offlineDuggan From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 868 times:

I just saw the 5 pictures (film) of the pentagone. The red flames are typical kerosen burning.
There is also something that seems to be the vertical tip.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New AA77 Pentagon Video Released posted Wed Dec 6 2006 16:47:53 by UK_Dispatcher
First Video Of Pentagon 9/11 Attack Released posted Tue May 16 2006 22:07:42 by HighFlyer9790
I Flew With Nikis Brand New (one Week Old) A319 posted Mon Apr 2 2007 12:17:48 by Glidepath73
FL And New SAN Service posted Mon Apr 2 2007 11:32:31 by SANFan
Any New Wave Of Announcements At PDX In 2007? posted Mon Apr 2 2007 06:23:09 by LHPDX
Delta.com New Flight Status Tool posted Mon Apr 2 2007 05:17:15 by Cubsrule
Delta's New Slimline Economy Seats posted Sun Apr 1 2007 23:12:47 by 1337Delta764
Airbus CEO Sees 20 New Orders For A380 This Year 2 posted Sun Apr 1 2007 21:36:29 by ANCFlyer
New International Flights From Ankara posted Sun Apr 1 2007 17:05:22 by Ankaraflyjet
Varig Log New Livery On The MD-11 posted Sun Apr 1 2007 03:18:42 by SAOAP