Duggan From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 974 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.
N202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 853 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.
Duggan From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 831 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...
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 812 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.
UBBA Pilot From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 48 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 804 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?
Duggan From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 798 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.
Lucifer From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 106 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 786 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.
Superdawg From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 347 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 784 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.
Jt8d727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 758 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)
Turin_airport From Italy, joined Oct 2001, 278 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 741 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_ ?
Ripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1022 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 719 times:
Braniff727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 686 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 704 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.
Dc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1554 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 699 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.
Turin_airport From Italy, joined Oct 2001, 278 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 691 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?
Architect From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 21 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 651 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:
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.
N202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1549 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 634 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.
Duggan From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 571 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Jan 2002, 104 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1549 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 106 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2000, 347 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Italy, joined Oct 2001, 278 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1554 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
