[Edit] Post removed

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

[Edit] Post removed

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)

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.....

A hijacked airplane flew into the Pentagon.

Case closed!

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.

yeah, this site has been debunked on numerous occasions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Edit] Post removed

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

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.

Watch this and you will understand what i mean.

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

~Thanato

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

They were holographic planes!

well if the usa govment menat to hav done it them self then how would they know to set it up 4 the same date as the wtc attacks?

Airplane hit pentagon.

any way you slice it-- it could have only been a 757-767 aircraft that hit just short of the pentagon . this is so obvious i am surprised that anybody would even try to make some conspiracies out of it . eye witnesses , radar tapes , video tapes, damaged building and 757/767 aircraft remains on the site, and the passengers and crew remains .

--what is next-- a 767/757 didn't hit the WTC ? please people !!

Then I guess it was a pidgon that landed on the edge of the pentagon that made it collapse on that side... Ignore the plane debrie.. that's apparently nothing.

Here (you need flash player)

been there done that
this crap has been debunked way to many times
i guess 9/11 conspiracies are destined to stick around much like those moon hoax lies

yea, but i thought it was interesting and wanted to show it

That video is so full of bs.

"OMG LOOK! UNDAMAGED CABLE SPOOLS!!!"

Wtf does that prove? How does the firemen bringing undamaged spools to the pentagon make it evidence that the Pentagon wasnt hit by a 757?

*LMAO* Stellar you are great

I knew the video was BS but i never thought about it like that, thought it was just funny angles and careful splicing, but good point

"Look the firetruck is ok too!! Its a conspiracy!"

By this stream of logic, we could also conclude that there was no plane crash in Pennsylvania on 9/11, since there was no aircraft found. Anything could have made that crater out there they were showing on the news.

Surely there were eye witnesses who actually saw the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon ? If they did, then the case is CLOSED......again

No, the conspiracy theorists come up with the "The missile was painted like a AA 757 plane and the witnesses only THOUGHT they saw a 757."

wasnt this debunked a long time ago ?

so was the moon hoax xenojin, conspiracy theorists don't care for things calle d 'facts' and 'evidence'

Sadly though in this case, their conspiracy kinda insults the memories of the people that died in the attacks that people claim never happened.

So it wasn't an AA plane. What happened to all those people, they just kinda nicely agreed to a gov plan to bomb its own building.

It's an insilt to their memories and to their families

Edit; removed link (9/11 pentagon)

You don't need two exactly the same threads on this site. ONE is more than enough.


[edit] I guess i should say you don't need THREE exactly the same threads.

Lucid,

The clip you linked to has already been posted to this thread, I'm going to merge your post to the original. Additionaly, I'm editing out your link because the website that shows the clip also offers a wide range of poronographic links on the main page.

Magikman

I'm sorry if I am infringing on any rules here...But I am posting this link again although I've posted it elsewhere.

http://rense.com/general57/aale.htm

This is former Chief of Staff Stanley Hilton talking about the Bush administration and their involvement in 911.



Some of you tend to think of this as a 'joke'...And without really knowing that much about it you simply brush the questions all to one side and label them as 'crap'...Don't you think that is rather foolish? Before you use emotive language to condemn out of hand...Don't you owe it to all those that died...Getting to the truth. Because, when it comes down to it: You (like the rest of us) don't really know what the truth is.

If you can be bothered...read the interview.

Vimjams

Many people say Witnesses saw a 757 hit the pentagon. Isnt it possible that they saw something alse and since it was a tramatic experience that once all the news coverage on it started saying a 757 hit the pentagon, all of them thought that what ever it was, was a 757. And many eye witnesses might not of even seen it, because its a scientific fact that peoples imaginations can make them think that there imagination is the truth.

There are many resons why people would say a 757 hit the pentagon.


And as to what happand to the people. Maybe the plane never existed, or maybe the plane blended in with regular air traffic and landed down in the desert some were and ither (if the government was behind it) exucuted everyone, or locked them up in a classified base some were.

~Thanato

Unlikely, imo. You're saying that we shouldnt believe what the witnesses said (some say they saw it hit the pentagon, some say they saw it fly by towards the pentagon) should be disgarded and we should believe that they're all wrong?



So how can you take anyone who says something to the contrary of the group seriously? "Look up there! Its a bird!" "Look up there! Its a bird!" "Look up there! Its a bird!" "Look up there! It's a banana!"

Well, that settles it. It was a banana I guess.



Yes, and one of the reasons might be, because they did.



Again, that makes no sense. AA was tracking the plane, and it didnt go somewhere else. Also, why would the government, knowing it had to hijak and destroy the 757, NOT use it to hit the pentagon?

The whole conspiracy theory is just a bunch of ideas without a well founded basis. Its severely lacking in logic too!

Stellar...What you are actually doing is simply the same as anybody else...You believe in a theory and you are retelling aspects of that theory. The fact that your theory is the 'official' story gives you comfort and some sort of perceived head start in the 'Reality game'. Nevertheless, what you are saying to us, the stuff you are willing to accept as (what happened) is no more the truth (it's only your belief) and is just as ridiculous as anything else I have read about 911.

Vimjams

If you want to look at it that way, fine. I guess science and physics and everything is just my opinion. The wings breaking off when hitting the pentagon? no way. thats only a belief. In real life, we have no way of knowing what would happen to the wings!

Whilst I believe that an American Airlines Boeing 757 really did hit the Pentagon on that tragic day, I find it rather amusing that the evidence from eye witnesses to this event is taken so seriously, and yet eye witnesses of other air crashes are often accused of misidentification, or even outright lying. The TWA Flight 800 tragedy would be a case in point. Just how is it that several people who claim that they witnessed a missile type object streaking towards the plane can be so blatantly dismissed as idiots ?