PROOF the pentagon didn't get hit by a boeing 757

[DreamRebel]

[Edit] Post removed

[Nxt2Hvn]

Interesting ... but what actually happened to the Plane then... that particular plane was hi-jacked and is now gone... what happened to it

[Fluffybunny]

Interesting ... but what actually happened to the Plane then... that particular plane was hi-jacked and is now gone... what happened to it

The plane is right there in the picture below.

keep in mind that the plane did not come on a flat angle like it was landing; it came in at a steeper angle that allowed most of the energy to be dissapated down into the ground...

Snopes does a good job dealing with the website, read this.

[DreamRebel]

[Edit] Post removed

[anonymous57]

I've seen this before. I will do my best to answer the questions:

1) The pentagon was designed to be strong. I mean, the empire state building (I'm told) can stand a plabne crash without dying

2) See above

3) Maybe the plane was lifted away using a crane so that the fire and rescue attempts would be easier. As for the smaller debris the picture isn't big enough to see.

4) No answer I can think of

5) If the plane hit the ground before it hit the building it is possible that it slowed down enough for the wings not to do any damage

6) Guess this means the answer to question 3 cant be correct

7) The middle? Besides if you look at the boeing superimposed on top of the arial view then you can easily find a POI

The site has something there, but im not quite sure what. Why didn't Osama Bin Laden never mention the pentagon (I can't remember him saying anything)

[Fluffybunny]

That looks like a beer can.

That tells me where your mind is...

Seriousely though, have you ever seen what is left of a plane when it hits the ground at several hundred miles and hour?

Little tiny pieces. Not much else. That is a boatload of kinetic energy...had it skipped along the ground dissipating energy, more would be more left to see, but the fact that it went in like a sub-sonic lawn dart means that all of the energy was taken up in a small area leading to pretty much total destruction...only smaller pieces like the picture I added.

If you do a google for plane crash pictures, you can see what I am saying...

If you check the link I added, it really does make sense...

[Fluffybunny]

The site has something there, but im not quite sure what. Why didn't Osama Bin Laden never mention the pentagon (I can't remember him saying anything)

Did you talk to him about it?

[Blood Angel]

its not about kinetic energy, its about gasoline atomization. The wings are full of fuel, now for the fuel to be made explosive rather than flammable, it needs a hefty shock to atomize the gasoline particles. The shock has to be real extreme, like a large explosion above or underneath the wings. i have the specifics of gasoline atomization on my computer here, but i do know you need a large amount of explosive to induce a shockwave big enough to atomize. I'm not sure a crash would be sufficient to cause this. You must also take into effect the materials planes are made of.....

[+joc]

A hijacked airplane flew into the Pentagon.

Case closed!

[fastcapy]

1. The empire state building was indeed hit by a large aircraft (a B-25 Mitchell) quite a few years ago and while the building was damaged the steel and concrete was stronger than the aluminum of the aircraft. The WTC buildings were also designed to take a aircraft strike, just not one of that size. It was designed that way in case a small aircraft was flying and accidentally hit the buildings, ie; top of building obscured, whereas a large airliner would be vectored around and out of the way of any structures via ATC as they are all on IFR flight plans, not all small aircraft are and could possibly venture into the side of a tall building in reduced visability, etc.

2. Jet fuel does not have the same characteristics as gasoline. It is a blend of kerosene (most likely the jet was burning Jet-A blend) The picture of the initial fireball is consistant with a jet fuel fire. The jet fuel really doesnt explode rather it is a fireball as the fuel vaporizes it becomes more volitile and appears as an explosision due to rapid accelerant ignition. Also there are ARFF's from Reagan National Airport (made by the company I used to work for) on the scene of the fire spraying foam (in some photos you can see foam covering the grass and other objects) that tells me that it was an aircraft fire.

3. Almost all of any aircraft is made of aluminum, when it hits a solid structure such as a concrete and steel wall at the speed the aircraft was traveling, the aircraft will literally disentegrate. There is a spectacular example of this on video of when the US AirForce ran a F-4 Phantom into a wall. Any large pieces have the luck of being quickly melted due to the extreme temp of the resulting fireball.

The Pentagon was hit by a jet. No question about it.

[bathory]

yeah, this site has been debunked on numerous occasions

[Blood Angel]

2. Jet fuel does not have the same characteristics as gasoline. It is a blend of kerosene (most likely the jet was burning Jet-A blend) The picture of the initial fireball is consistant with a jet fuel fire. The jet fuel really doesnt explode rather it is a fireball as the fuel vaporizes it becomes more volitile and appears as an explosision due to rapid accelerant ignition. Also there are ARFF's from Reagan National Airport (made by the company I used to work for) on the scene of the fire spraying foam (in some photos you can see foam covering the grass and other objects) that tells me that it was an aircraft fire.

I was merely using gasoline, in the generic form, as all petroleum based products react the same. I was just adding the suggestion of atomization. Its commonly called "Atomised particle Explosion". Heres how it works:

If a highly flammable substance is atomized, or, divided into very small

particles, and large amounts of it is burned in a confined area, an explosion

similar to that occurring in the cylinder of an automobile is produced. The

tiny droplets of gasoline burn in the air, and the hot gasses expand rapidly,

pushing the cylinder up. Similarly, if a gallon of gasoline was atomized and

ignited in a building, it is very possible that the expanding gassed would push

the walls of the building down. This phenomenon is called an atomized particle

explosion. If a person can effectively atomize a large amount of a highly

flammable substance and ignite it, he could bring down a large building, bridge,

or other structure. Atomizing a large amount of gasoline, for example, can be

extremely difficult, unless one has the aid of a high explosive. If a gallon

jug of gasoline was placed directly over a high explosive charge, and the charge

was detonated, the gasoline would instantly be atomized and ignited. If this

occurred in a building, for example, an atomized particle explosion would surely

occur. Only a small amount of high explosive would be necessary to accomplish

this feat, about 1/2 a pound of T.N.T. (tri-Nitro-Toluene) or 1/4 a pound of R.D.X. (cyclonite/compisition 1/C1) It is necessary that a high explosive be used to atomize a flammable material, since a low-order explosion does not occur quickly enough to atomize or ignite the flammable material.

Ask any demolitions expert he will tell you the same thing...

[fastcapy]

Blood Angel, Where did you find info on "Atomised particle Explosion". I have never heard of it in all the hours of HAZMAT and firefighting training I have been through. I also have not seen it on any searches or anything, I am curious to research it. While raw petroleum will have the same characteristics processed fuels will not. Jet fuel and gasoline are two totally different animals, almost like comparing a class a fire to a class b and so on. Maybe we are talking about the same thing, just calling it different names. The explosive like properties of aviation fuels, specifically Jet-A (the most common jet fuel blend) are due to the vapors of the fuel mixing with the air causing a volitile mixture. Just an example of the difference in types of fuel is the requirement that a tankertruck that has had Av-Gas in its tank needs to be drained and have a small amount of Jet-A put into it to stabilize the vapors before being transported.

No matter how you look at it though, once any aviation fuel ignites it is not a good ordeal.

[Blood Angel]

Atomoized Particle Explosions happen, when the burning fuel gases have no where to expand. If you read the above explanation of A.P.E., you will remember at the start it compares it to engine cylinders. I think you can understand it once reading it a few times.

[fastcapy]

B.A. I understand the concept you are saying. I just have never heard of anything called that. Jet fuel is not even considered a flammable liquid, rather it is a combustable liquid, due to its high flash point. The fuel particles themselves do not burn, it is the vapor from the fuel product when mixed into the air that allows the fluid to burn. The amount of vapor to air mixture needed to allow the liquid to combust is called the LEL and the UEL. These represent precentages jet-a lel is about .7 and uel is 5.0. I think what you are talking about is an aerosol state of fuel,which is similar to what happens in a plane crash. The fuel is turned into a fine mist and provides better vapor release. Same thing in a engine the fuel is really just a fine mist that provides a lot of vapor to burn, but then again gasoline also has a lower flash point making it easier to ignite.

[Blood Angel]

Yes, it is the vaporisation of fuel, and the expansion of super hot gases with nowhere to go (causing extreme pressure). Its more probable that you haven't heard it called that, because with all due respect your trained as a fireman, not in demolitions, or chemical engineering. Yet both air fuel and normal gasoline can both undergo this process.

[fastcapy]

B.A, I understand your points and I agree I think we are talking about the same thing. The only problem I see is when you said it takes place in a confined area. Fireballs like the ones occuring after an aircraft crash are basically a chain reaction. As the initial vapor burns it heats the other fuel causing more vapors and in turn heats more fuel........ All of this occurs in a split second, almost similar to rolling a snowball. Usually ignition is caused by leaking fuel vapors being hit with a spark or some other type of electrical source failing due to the crash.

I am friends with both chem engineers and military demolitions technicians, I do not know a lot about most chemicals but I worked at an airport for years and know a lot about aviation fuels.

[Athlon64]

Christ, are we still babbling on about 9/11 on here ? Can someone give me a good reason why I should not believe that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon on that day ?

No ?

CASE CLOSED.

Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?

NOTE: Boeing 757-200's do NOT land at 250 mph.

NOTE: Can anyone explain how a Boeing 767-200 (a larger plane) travelling at a speed of 520 mph entered the side of the second WTC tower (a building with considerably less structural integrity than the Pentagon), and yet was stopped over a distance barely greater than its own length ?

[stillcrazy]

[DreamRebel]

[Edit] Post removed

[Fluffybunny]

Great. My retinas are permenantly seared to the degree of being useless...thanks.

[stillcrazy]

[fastcapy]

stillcrazy, you are correct, the gravel/sand road they laid is simply a common temp construction road like they do all the time. By the way I never got a truck stuck off the road but did manage to get a 42ft aerial stuck in the snow/ice once, great fun trying to get it out.

The other thing I like is when I looked at the first site linked to on this thread is the top view of the pentagon with the 757 in red and the caption saying "what happened to the wings". I can easily see the impact point of the wings, top of the first floor on each side of the photo you can see where the wings impacted causing damage to the stucture.

[Thanato]

Watch this and you will understand what i mean.

http://www.overclockedgaming.com/pentagoncrash.swf

~Thanato

[Angelofmercy]

This is the same stuff you posted before. This is not by any means, proof. The only thing it is proof of is that things look different depending on the angle

I could link you to hundreds of sites with eyewitness accounts that say they saw what was left of the plane and they saw the plane hit the building

so if the plane didn't hit that building..what happened to it? did the aliens kindnap all those people? Where they sucked into a time vortex??? Does that mean planes didn't hit the WTC too? Our government just LIKES to spend billions of dollars rebuilding recently renovated portions of federal buildings...so they hire miliary personel to commit suicide by flying into a building? Yeah right

Hello and welcome to reality. I hope you enjoy your stay here