What hit the Pentagon?

[psi_radar]

Rich,

Ok then.


:asian:

Pete

 

[MA-Caver]

If THIS http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/170506reallylook.htm
video was shown intially, I would've believed it... but the official video released... still makes one say... yeeeahh...riiiggghhhtt! http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/

 

[Sapper6]

so you're saying, you believe it wasn't an commercial aircraft that hit the building?

 

[crushing]

If THIS http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/170506reallylook.htm
video was shown intially, I would've believed it... but the official video released... still makes one say... yeeeahh...riiiggghhhtt! http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/

It's kind of funny that a "crude collection of doctored frames" is considered to be more believable than the actual video.

Can anyone in surveillance on this forum give us the usual fps of video surveilance systems? It sure isn't 24 or 30 fps like film and tv.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here are a couple of scholarly opinions on the matter...

A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer


To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven:
I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)
EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole.


It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.
You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757.
Sincerely,

Michael Meyer

And...

News Conference Statement
by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Alexandria VA, 13 March 2006


I'm George Nelson; I served four years of enlisted service, and 30 additional years as a commissioned officer in the Air Force---- Please, let me begin by saying, that I get no pleasure or personal satisfaction whatsoever from speaking out in opposition to the US government's official conclusions, and the 911 Commission's official report of the tragedy that occurred on September 11th, 2001.

I'm a trained aircraft accident investigator. I completed the University of Southern California's accident investigation course in 1989. I was an aircraft maintenance manager throughout my military career and was assigned additional duties as a member of accident investigations for the Air Force. In every case of an aircraft loss, an accident investigation was always conducted and a report was issued through command channels, and it made no difference if the loss was due to an obvious accident or if it had been shot down by enemy fire. An investigation was always conducted, and a report was always filed, even if the plane was under 5,000 feet of water and not recoverable.

In the case of all four reported aircraft losses on 9-11, each one was reported to have been carrying commercial passengers aboard scheduled commercial airliners. Federal Aviation regulations in Part 121, governs the operations of all scheduled airlines that operate inside the United States, including foreign airlines, which transit through our airports in commercial operations. In the case of each aircraft loss that occurred on 9-11, the regulations are very clear and unambiguous— investigations were required, and the reports would have covered the loss circumstances in excruciating detail, including all collateral damage incurred. Especially in the cases of such horrendous loss of life, collection of physical evidence would have been paramount in determining the precise causes of each loss. Scientific and reasoned deductions are permitted only after an exhaustive search and analysis of physical evidence has been completed. Hundreds of parts from each of those four aircraft are critical for safety of flight, and as such, must be meticulously controlled by only one-of-a-kind, dedicated, serial numbers. These parts are required by FAA regulations to be tracked and removed and replaced at a designated number of flying hours or a number of actual cycles. Just like the toughness of black boxes, these components are virtually indestructible and relatively easy to find among the crash wreckage. Each of the aircraft would have two engines that are nine feet in diameter, and would have had many of the critical, serialized parts installed. Several sets of massive landing gears would have been easy to find and identify, and each of these parts would have been linked to one, and only one aircraft in the world. The aircraft parts from the two World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon and the hole in the ground at Shanksville, Pennsylvania would have disclosed the specific identity of each aircraft, and those parts did not “vaporize” as some Pentagon spokespersons have reported. The parts may have since “vaporized” but not during the reported crashes. The well-known “Black Boxes” were reported to have been found, but were immediately confiscated and seem to have since, disappeared.

Independent news photographers and investigators at Shanksville, Pennsylvania were kept far away from the reported aircraft crash site by security cordons and guards. The public could only view the crash site by an aerial photo. The photo shows an impact area only 20 feet long by 10 feet wide, and the photo shows no sign of crash wreckage inside the small area. Most small fighter planes create larger holes than that, and again, no aircraft accident report has been made public. This only serves to heighten the public's growing skepticism of the 911 Commission report.
And then we have the reported crash of a Boeing 757 with a 125-foot wingspan that was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. It made a 16-foot diameter hole in the building at ground floor, and penetrated three inner rings of the building and left an almost perfect circular hole as it exited the third inner ring of the building. If an aluminum Boeing 757 had struck that fortified building, there would have been more aluminum on the ground outside than what went inside, yet there was little visible evidence of an airplane crash on the outside. What physical evidence that could have been of some value, was immediately carted away under cover. And once again, there's the annoying problem of the missing Black Boxes.
In the interest of time, I'm going to relate just one more piece of key evidence. The aircraft that was reported in the government's official story to have crashed into the south tower was United Airlines, Flight 175 carrying 65 passengers, including the crew and five highjackers. One of the television news cameras captured the Boeing 767, just as it was banking into a left turn, seconds before striking the building. Underneath the fuselage, installed across the starboard aircraft wing root, is a visible, large piece of equipment that most viewers have called a “Pod”. Many have speculated what purpose the “Pod” might have served on a passenger carrying, scheduled airliner, but such speculation is pointless at the present time. The fact is, that such extraneous equipment would have never have been installed on a Part 121, scheduled airliner in the first place. Every piece of equipment proposed for use on an aircraft after its production must be issued a Supplemental Type Certificate by the FAA prior to installation. No record of an STC was found that would authorize such external equipment to be used on a Part 121, Boeing 767 airliner. This leads to a more disturbing speculation, that the airplane seen hitting the south tower was not UAL flight 175, but a plane that had been substituted for flight 175.

The National Transportation Safety Board decides which of three organizations will take the lead role in Part 121 accident investigations. Sometimes the NTSB will assume the lead, and in some cases they will assign lead responsibility to the FAA, but most always if criminal foul play is suspected, the lead role will be assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the technical assistance of both the FAA and NTSB. It's fair to say, in this case that the NTSB suspected criminal foul play on 9-11, so which agency had primary responsibility for the investigations and required reporting? Where are the reports? Where is the physical evidence to back up those reports? Does anyone recall TWA Flight 800 that was bound from the US to Paris about four years ago? The FBI was assigned the lead roll, suggesting that foul play was suspected, and the FBI gave almost daily reports on the evening news channels, but ultimately the FBI's conclusion was, that a spark in one of the internal fuel tanks caused the fatal explosion. At least we all knew in that case, there was an investigation conducted, such as it was.

I could go on and on with the many weaknesses in the 9-11 Commission's report, but there's little reason to belabor the details, so I'd like to offer just two or three websites where anyone who's the least bit interested can find most every weakness in the 9-11 Commission report. In these few minutes we've just begun to scratch the surface. For further information, we suggest you research the following websites for yourself, but there are many more credible sources available. Check out--- www.st911.org; www.physics911.net or the website edited by the couple sitting to my left; www.wingtv.net/.
I'm frequently asked by people hearing me speak about9-11, “Why in the world are you speaking out about this tragedy? Doesn't it worry you?” I answer the same way every time I'm asked----- “Because I'm a man with a conscience. You can see by my age that I must have grand children, and I do. I'm about to turn this country that I deeply love, over to my children and my grand children. And as I look around, I don't like what I see happening to it.

Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Well being an engineer, and having read previously that the pentagon was built for containment and also absorbtion for assualt.

I also remember hearing people saying that the Towers would not fall either with a simple airplane hitting them. Yet given tests of extreme heat on metal under load you get collapse and once collapse begins then it cascades.

I also remember reading a post on the Escrima Digest from a person who was in the building when it was hit. He used the term the building was hit, and that clean up and finding bodies was underway and of a higer priority then posting, but was grateful to let those who asked about him that he was still alive.


People can believe that a group of civilians tried to take over a flight in air that was under terrorist control, yet others cannot believe that a building built to stand up to just about everything but a nuke was not destroyed and his thought of how it should be on the outside of the building.


When accidents happen wierd things happen, even to the best designed building or vehicle, be it a plane or an automobile.

I have seen and talked to some lawyers about accidents where my company was in court for a law suit for fire. The battery of the car was twenty five feet out of the car embedded in a tree. The engine was also embedded into a tree. If the engine cannot turn and the battery is not attached there is no power to have a fire from the design of the vehicle. But as people were burned and the jury is about emotions then an award was issued.

So how was the fire started and continued to get fuel from the back of the car into the cabin?

Wierd things happen, people have a source of ignition with them that is consumed in the fire. Yet design is design, and wired thing happen.

I am confused by those that are unable to accept an obvious point and must look for something more complicated.

 

[Makalakumu]

I am confused by those that are unable to accept an obvious point and must look for something more complicated.

These guys are experts in their fields and they are only basing their conclusions off of what they see. Our government holds all of the cards and they could provide evidence that could rebutt all arguments, even against well educated experts, if there story is true. I'll wait until that happens. As for now, this is anything but obvious. I think that legitimate questions exist.

 

[Rich Parsons]

These guys are experts in their fields and they are only basing their conclusions off of what they see. Our government holds all of the cards and they could provide evidence that could rebutt all arguments, even against well educated experts, if there story is true. I'll wait until that happens. As for now, this is anything but obvious. I think that legitimate questions exist.

Am I not an expert Engineer also? Ok I did not work on planes but I did work with Armor and also Balistic weapons. Does not my opinion or view also make sense?

 

[MA-Caver]

These guys are experts in their fields and they are only basing their conclusions off of what they see. Our government holds all of the cards and they could provide evidence that could rebutt all arguments, even against well educated experts, if there story is true. I'll wait until that happens. As for now, this is anything but obvious. I think that legitimate questions exist.

It's been four years... what possible "National Security" matter could they be wanting to protect? Besides why "wait for an opportune moment?" Probably to help W's polls boost back up from the dismal 29% he's sitting on.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Also what about those who within 24 hours claimed it was a plane, that were at ground zero.

That is moving real fast for the government and their brain washing or convincing people of what they think they saw.

 

[Rich Parsons]

It's been four years... what possible "National Security" matter could they be wanting to protect? Besides why "wait for an opportune moment?" Probably to help W's polls boost back up from the dismal 29% he's sitting on.

Besides the obvious politcal issues which I do not doubt are at part of the heart, but as for safety if one released the exact details then others would have a road map on how to destroy the Pentagon.

A friend of mine asked another friend of mine about how long it took to power up his nuclear reactors on his ship. Before he could answer I said it was classified. The third person commented, "Classified?". I replied yes, as if I knew how fast they powered up and how fast to come up to max speed, I could back calculate knowing the average efficiency of the reactor the number of rods and cores they were using.

There are obvious things out that people ignore and or do not realize what it can do in the right hands.

 

[Makalakumu]

Well being an engineer, and having read previously that the pentagon was built for containment and also absorbtion for assualt.

I happen to have a degree in physics, so I kinda understand some of this stuff...

I also remember hearing people saying that the Towers would not fall either with a simple airplane hitting them.

According to the engineers who built the WTC, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of multiple 727 strikes, hurricanes, conventional bombs, etc. They were over-engineered to a very high degree.

Yet given tests of extreme heat on metal under load you get collapse

Actually, according to the head of the department in charge of materials testing for the company that actually tested the WTC steel, the steel should not have failed...

See Kevin Ryan's letter

http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm

It should be noted that Mr. Ryan was fired after asking these questions...

and once collapse begins then it cascades.

This is physically impossible. It violates the law of conservation of momentum. See structural engineer Judy Wood's Phd argument...

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

I also remember reading a post on the Escrima Digest from a person who was in the building when it was hit. He used the term the building was hit, and that clean up and finding bodies was underway and of a higer priority then posting, but was grateful to let those who asked about him that he was still alive.

I'm glad that he made it out of there...

People can believe that a group of civilians tried to take over a flight in air that was under terrorist control, yet others cannot believe that a building built to stand up to just about everything but a nuke was not destroyed and his thought of how it should be on the outside of the building.

The explanation stating that 19 terrorists armed with box cutters hijacked four commercial air planes and flew them into some of the most heavily guarded structures on the planet is a conspiracy theory...in the truest sense.

When accidents happen wierd things happen, even to the best designed building or vehicle, be it a plane or an automobile.

I have seen and talked to some lawyers about accidents where my company was in court for a law suit for fire. The battery of the car was twenty five feet out of the car embedded in a tree. The engine was also embedded into a tree. If the engine cannot turn and the battery is not attached there is no power to have a fire from the design of the vehicle. But as people were burned and the jury is about emotions then an award was issued.

So how was the fire started and continued to get fuel from the back of the car into the cabin?

Wierd things happen, people have a source of ignition with them that is consumed in the fire. Yet design is design, and wired thing happen.

Weird things can happen. Yet, even those need to have an explanation. And even then, certain things are predictable. For instance, the explanations cannot violate the laws of physics. Nor can they push the realms of extreme probability without extraordinary proof.

 

[Makalakumu]

Also what about those who within 24 hours claimed it was a plane, that were at ground zero.

That is moving real fast for the government and their brain washing or convincing people of what they think they saw.

I don't know what happened, Rich. I am not convinced by the governments theory. In my opinion, they have not provided the evidence to support their theory. Further, the sheer amount of lies and distortions contained within leads me to believe that they are lying.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

 

[Makalakumu]

Am I not an expert Engineer also? Ok I did not work on planes but I did work with Armor and also Balistic weapons. Does not my opinion or view also make sense?

I respect your opinion. However, I don't think that you've taken a look at some of the details of this thing. There are alot of very educated people out there analyzing the information that is available and coming up with the conclusion that there is no way, based on the current information, that the official story can be true.

 

[Makalakumu]

Also what about those who within 24 hours claimed it was a plane, that were at ground zero.

That is moving real fast for the government and their brain washing or convincing people of what they think they saw.

I think that Steven Colbert summed it up best...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1766908,00.html

"Over the last five years you people were so good - over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out ... Here's how it works: the president makes decisions ... The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spellcheck and go home ... Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!".

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Here we go again....

Save the tifoil, read this thread again http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30749

PLENTY of experts way more credible than any HS teacher have weighed in on this. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS agree with the collapse. Ill take their word over some conspiracy theory hack with an astronomy degree in physics any day.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

Welcome to the companion Web site to "Why the Towers Fell," originally broadcast on April 30, 2002. The program follows a team of forensic engineers during their in-depth investigation of the precise causes of the Twin Towers' collapse. Here's what you'll find online:

Did You Know?

1. Most structural engineers were surprised when the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

2. Engineers believe that part of the reason why the towers remained standing as long as they did after impact was because of redundancy in their design: The weight of upper floors pushing down on columns lost in the impact was transferred to other columns nearby that were left intact.

3. Only four people escaped either tower from above the floors where the planes struck, using what appears to have been the only stairwell not destroyed or blocked by the impacts: Stairway A in the South Tower.

4. One of those survivors recalled that when struck by United 175, the South Tower swayed in one direction for seven to ten seconds before swinging back and stabilizing.

5. The World Trade Center was designed to withstand hurricane-force winds.

6. It was also designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, though engineers apparently did not take into consideration the plane's fuel load.

7. Each plane that hit the Twin Towers released an estimated 10,000 gallons of flaming jet fuel into the buildings.

8. Temperatures of the fuel fire may have reached 2,000°F.

9. Though no evidence has turned up that the fires burned hot enough to melt any of the steel, eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength because of the intensity of the fire.

10. While there are signs that the fire melted aluminum from the fuselage or wings of at least one of the planes, there is no evidence that the aluminum burned.

11. Many structural engineers feel the weak link in the chain within the towers was the angle clips that held the floor trusses between the interior and exterior steel columns.

12. The angle clips were smaller pieces of steel than the columns and therefore gave out first.

13. Each floor was designed to support approximately 1,300 tons beyond its own weight, but when one or more gave way in the intense fire of the impact zone, the combined weight of higher floors crashing down reached into the tens of thousands of tons.

14. Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons.

15. There was no chance of either tower tipping over, for a 500,000-ton building has too much inertia to fall any way except virtually straight down.

16. Each 208-foot-wide building would had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base.

17. Each building collapsed in about ten seconds, hitting the ground with an estimated speed of about 125 miles per hour.

18. The collapse was a near free-fall. With no restraint, the collapse would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185 miles per hour.

19. The reason the 110-story towers collapsed into a rubble pile only a few stories high was that they were about 95 percent air.

20. The roughly 300,000 tons of steel from the World Trade Center is fully recyclable and represents just a single day's production by the U.S. steel industry.

Sources

Note: Unless otherwise specified, all sources are NOVA/WGBH.

7. "Towers Fell as Intense Fire Beat Defenses, Report Says," by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, The New York Times, 3/29/02, p. A14.
8. Ibid, p. A1.
13. "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, JOM: The Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, December 2001, available at www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
15. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
20. Ibid.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I respect your opinion. However, I don't think that you've taken a look at some of the details of this thing. There are alot of very educated people out there analyzing the information that is available and coming up with the conclusion that there is no way, based on the current information, that the official story can be true.

I do not doubt that people have different opinions.

I never said the government never has lied to us or not given the whole truth.

Live video for the second plane flying into the second tower with the first plane being later showed on personal video.

Would any one believe it if it had not been seen by so many?

So what caused the collapse? Pre-planted explosives? So the US Government killed thousands of people so they could create the freedom act, and homeland security? I think not. I do believe that parties took advantage of a situation as many do who are in power when such a situation arises.


Yet it seems that people are quick to only look at one side.

As to physics, this is good. The basics make sense and can be explained by experts to make their opinion sound right.

I argue all the time with Ph D's because they only have theory, and have no idea what happens under pressure and also under different temperatures.

I have been in meetings where people could not agree because both sides are able to present something in a simple manner for a presentation for the boss types to make a decision. If no concurrance is found then no decision is made so the new idea is not used until other data can be found.

People who start out with the comments that they are educated and also have experience with something that has limited relationship to the subject at hand, but it distracts and it impresses people, so they listen to the rest.

It is a way to write using positive words and negative words to get your point across it is also part of the standard brain washing techniques that all politicians and others in power use to control people and get people to think the way they want them too.

Being a physicist I would hope that you had an open mind to question for sure, but also recognize that sometimes the easiest answer is the correct answer.

I still think that people took advantage of a situation not people planing this devious act, that would be almost impossible to hide.

 

[Ray]

Did You Know?

1. Most structural engineers were surprised when the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

Did you know?

1. The titanic was unsinkable?