oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2426 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Parts of the fuselage, which is evident from the primer You're saying that thing circled is the main cause of that hole?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted February 1, 2012 #2427 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Is it not possible that it completely disintegrated WHILE going through the wall and everything behind it? If not, why not?Cz No not poss. Once the hole is made there's not much resistance. So your claim here is that it is entirely impossible... that there is no chance whatsoever that the aircraft can be breaking up while it is punching through a wall and impacting on objects behind that wall...? You're saying then, that, in your universe, there are only two possible outcomes: 1. The plane disintegrates on the exterior of the building without actually breaching through the wall 2. The plane remains virtually intact while it punches through the wall and anything behind the wall poses little to no resistance to the aircraft. Is that correct? You may want to take a few moments to actually think about your reply before replying. Disintegrate on interior walls? If it made an exit hole, it came out the other side surely, at least part of it. See blast of debris on fighter crash test? Where's that debris blast on pentagon CCTV? What exactly do you think that huge explosion that can be plainly seen on the Pentagon CCTV was? Do you honestly think that explosions only move in the direction the exploding object was traveling...? Are you really that clueless as to how things work in the real world? Cz Edited February 1, 2012 by Czero 101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2428 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I didn't ask you how to prove it, I asked you to explain why you would expect it "would expect it to be somewhat intact". Cz because if it was able to make the hole, there would be very little stopping it going through the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted February 1, 2012 #2429 Share Posted February 1, 2012 If the fuselage made that hole, why didn't the MLG and engines make similar holes? The damage path narrowed further into the building (giving a triangular damage pattern). It is possible that upon entering building the engines followed path of least resistance behind the leading fuselage damage, with all ending up centered at the exit hole. The PBS team who published the C ring ext hole photograph did not attend site until September 14th by which time much of the aircraft debris would have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2430 Share Posted February 1, 2012 What exactly do you think that huge explosion that can be plainly seen on the Pentagon CCTV was? Do you honestly think that explosions only move in the direction the exploding object was traveling...? Are you really that clueless as to how things work in the real world? Cz The blast I was referring to wasn't going in the same direction as plane, but out from impact area. The CCTV shows Some kind of fire / explosion, not like crash test. Why rude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 1, 2012 #2431 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You're saying that thing circled is the main cause of that hole?! It was part of American 77, and much of the wreckage was still inside the Pentagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 1, 2012 #2432 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Sky If the fuselage made that hole, why didn't the MLG and engines make similar holes? What do you suppose caused that soot at the top of the hole? It's easy to get pictures out of you, but difficult to get a straight answer out of you. I have already pointed out the landing gears and tires and engine components inside the Pentagon as well, which are consistent with a B-757. The soot came from the fire inside the Pentagon,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2433 Share Posted February 1, 2012 It was part of American 77, and much of the wreckage was still inside the Pentagon. Sorry, I can't quite see it happening like that! I don't think that piece would make that hole, then land right there. Looks flimsy too. Way too flimsy to smash through that wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted February 1, 2012 #2434 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Babe Ruth, are you saying that you believe the round hole in the interior wall was made by the aircraft fuselage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted February 1, 2012 #2435 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The blast I was referring to wasn't going in the same direction as plane, but out from impact area. Ok... so you are saying that an explosion should only propagate in the direction of travel of the object exploding. So please explain to me what happens when an object explodes when its not moving. Please explain to us what happens when a bomb dropped from an aircraft hits the ground and explodes. The CCTV shows Some kind of fire / explosion, not like crash test. And how far was the CCTV from the impact site, compared to the cameras set up at the crash test...? Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 1, 2012 #2436 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Sorry, I can't quite see it happening like that! I don't think that piece would make that hole, then land right there. Looks flimsy too. Way too flimsy to smash through that wall. It is what is behind the wall and what you see are the remains. Look what happened when a small jet skidded off a runway. So much for claims that aluminum aircraft cannot penetrate walls. Edited February 1, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 1, 2012 #2437 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Ok... so you are saying that an explosion should only propagate in the direction of travel of the object exploding. So please explain to me what happens when an object explodes when its not moving. Please explain to us what happens when a bomb dropped from an aircraft hits the ground and explodes. And how far was the CCTV from the impact site, compared to the cameras set up at the crash test...? Cz I think you misunderstand. Look at the crash test, then the CCTV & see the difference. Anyway, don't get too worked up by it all, it's not the end of the world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 2, 2012 #2438 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted February 2, 2012 #2439 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Sorry, I can't quite see it happening like that! I don't think that piece would make that hole, then land right there. Looks flimsy too. Way too flimsy to smash through that wall. In other words, I have no evidence to back up my conslusion that it was impossible other than it doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 2, 2012 #2440 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Babe Ruth, are you saying that you believe the round hole in the interior wall was made by the aircraft fuselage? No sir. I say it was NOT made by the aircraft fuselage because if it actually happened, the fuselage was utterly compromised, deformed and destroyed within milliseconds of impact. Further, there should be more or less matching holes made by the large steel parts that were the engines and main landing gear. It's just too perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 2, 2012 #2441 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Sky Good picture of the Lear sticking into the wall. Obviously the walls were built differently and the planes were travelling at different velocities at time of impact, but did you notice how the airplane is STILL IN THE HOLE? The fuselage is still intact, the wall is much thinner, and it did not penetrate other buildings (rings) before this. Great picture, but not the best comparison. I'm comfortable with the mythical Boeing penetrating 1 wall at the Pentagon, but going through several rings and then making a perfect exit hole? Puhleeze! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted February 2, 2012 #2442 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Sky Good picture of the Lear sticking into the wall. Obviously the walls were built differently and the planes were travelling at different velocities at time of impact, but did you notice how the airplane is STILL IN THE HOLE? The fuselage is still intact, the wall is much thinner, and it did not penetrate other buildings (rings) before this. Great picture, but not the best comparison. I'm comfortable with the mythical Boeing penetrating 1 wall at the Pentagon, but going through several rings and then making a perfect exit hole? Puhleeze! If you read his comment on the picture, the plane skidded off the runway into the building, not traveling @ excess of 500mph, yet still did significant outside damage to a building. The purpose of that picture shows that even a private jet can do damage to an outer wall at lower speeds and still penetrate Edited February 2, 2012 by RaptorBites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted February 2, 2012 #2443 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Absolutely Raptor, especially a wall one brick thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 2, 2012 #2444 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Sky Good picture of the Lear sticking into the wall. Obviously the walls were built differently and the planes were travelling at different velocities at time of impact, but did you notice how the airplane is STILL IN THE HOLE? That is because the jet is not moving anywhere near 500 mph, which is a big difference betweeb that jet and American 77, and yet, its fuselsage still penetrated the building. The fuselage is still intact, the wall is much thinner, and it did not penetrate other buildings (rings) before this. That is because the aircraft had skidded to a halt after sliding off the runway and wasn't even flying, but you can see the hole in the wall that was punched in by the fuselage. So much for claims that aluminum fuselages cannot penetrate walls. Edited February 2, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 2, 2012 #2445 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) If you read his comment on the picture, the plane skidded off the runway into the building, not traveling @ excess of 500mph, yet still did significant outside damage to a building. The purpose of that picture shows that even a private jet can do damage to an outer wall at lower speeds and still penetrate Yes indeed, and the 9/11 conspiracy folks have been claiming that there was no way a fuselage could penetrate walls despite the fact that the evidence was already overwhelming they could. Edited February 2, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 2, 2012 #2446 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Absolutely Raptor, especially a wall one brick thick. The walls of the Pentagon are not that much thicker than what you see in the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted February 2, 2012 #2447 Share Posted February 2, 2012 No sir. I say it was NOT made by the aircraft fuselage because if it actually happened, the fuselage was utterly compromised, deformed and destroyed within milliseconds of impact. My mistake. I worded my thought incorrectly. Babe Ruth, are you under the impression that the official explanation for the hole is that it was made by the fuselage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 2, 2012 #2448 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Yes indeed, and the 9/11 conspiracy folks have been claiming that there was no way a fuselage could penetrate walls who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 2, 2012 #2449 Share Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) who said that? Babe Ruth said: In each and every case, the aluminum fuselage is badly damaged, deformed, sacrificed, or destroyed, while the truck, hangar, or concrete wall is unscathed. Aircraft fuselages are designed to fly through the fluid air, NOT to penetrate other structures. Edited February 2, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted February 2, 2012 #2450 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Skyeagle, we have had (and no doubt will continue to have) differences on some topics , but I have to heartily applaud your tenacity, patience, accuracy and logic here. You are fighting the good, and correct, fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now