duggan
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 5:58 pm

Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Thu Mar 07, 2002 11:33 pm

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.
 
N202PA
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2000 9:44 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Thu Mar 07, 2002 11:48 pm

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.
 
duggan
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 5:58 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Thu Mar 07, 2002 11:55 pm

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
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:18 am


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
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 1:24 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:22 am

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
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 5:58 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:25 am

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
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2001 7:22 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:39 am

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
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2000 1:45 am

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 12:40 am

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.
 
Guest

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:03 am

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
 
Lucifer
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2001 7:22 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:06 am

My comments were directed at the writer of the site, not anyone posting here, if you refer to me.
 
Turin_airport
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 5:29 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:09 am

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
 
ripcordd
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:44 am

ok and whats your point?
 
Braniff727
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 2:25 am

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 1:58 am

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
 
dc863
Posts: 1466
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 2:00 am

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
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 5:29 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 2:04 am

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
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 2:30 am

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
 
Architect
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:47 am

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:23 am

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.

 
N202PA
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2000 9:44 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 3:51 am

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
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 5:58 pm

RE: Pentagon Attack, New Reading

Fri Mar 08, 2002 7:24 pm

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.

Who is online