See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 Pentagon Explosion:9:45 AM
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_g1buWhAA
Published: Apr 9, 2007
Author: youtube
Post Date: 2007-04-09 19:31:02 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 10325
Comments: 114
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_g1buWhAA
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 94.
#5. To: honway (#0)
That video appears to show an explosion some time after the initial attack, whatever it was. There is a great video by pilots for truth which examines the flight data info, and suggests that the airplane did not hit the Pentagon. It suggests that a winged missile was dropped by the large aircraft, which never got below about 300-400 feet.
How big were those wings, Paul? A hundred feet from tip to tip? Because something knocked down lightpoles spaced that far apart at least. And something created a plane shaped hole in the Pentagon about 90 feet across. Those missile wings must have been made of unobtainium to do that. ROTFLOL!
Um... I don't remember seeing a plane shaped hole in the pentagon. I remember seeing a round hole, but not a plane shaped hole, because had there BEEN wings on the thing over 100 feet from tip to tip, There would have been much more lateral structural damage to the outer exterior of the building. Not to mention an absence of plane parts on the lawn at the time of the explosion, or how pristine the ground was all the way up to the Pentagon. A PLANE THAT SIZE, IN ORDER TO HIT THE PENTAGON AS LOW AS IT DID, WOULD HAVE DESTROYED A GOOD 300 yards of lawn on the way up. How do I know? A private firm asked me to make a scale model of the plane in question for their research, and with everything to scale, the engines would have drug the ground in order for the fuselage to hit as low as it did. Please, if you will, explain to me that little factoid.
Then you'd better take a look at post #42, Tommy. And there are plenty of more pictures where those came from. They show what is clearly a plane shaped hole in what was a reinforced outer wall. The hole is clearly on the order of 80 to 90 feet wide. And there is damage on both sides of the outer face beyond that ... out to where one would expect given the size of Flight 77. Now mind you, experts do not suggest that those portions of the wings and tail that contained no fuel penetrated the building. It is the mass of that fuel that allowed that to happen. Here's a few links you might want to visit if you really want to know the facts about the damage: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html You've only looked at a photo taken from the direction that the plane came. Why, with a basic understanding of physics, would you expect debris to bounce back along a roughly 45 degree trajectory relative to the face of the structure in the direction the plane came from at hundreds of miles an hour? Basic physics tells you that any debris should continue in the direction the plane was moving after bouncing off the wall (like a pool ball striking a pool table wall at an angle that's not 90 degrees). And if you look down range of the impact site, you find plenty of debris in the photos. Here are a couple: and A PLANE THAT SIZE, IN ORDER TO HIT THE PENTAGON AS LOW AS IT DID, WOULD HAVE DESTROYED A GOOD 300 yards of lawn on the way up. No, if you compare the dimensions of the plane (and remember, the landing gear were up) to the size of the hole, you will see that the plane easily fits in that hole without the engine touching the ground. Now the engine did apparently hit the construction generator that was some distance in front of the building. You don't know what you are talking about, Tommy. Here is a drawing of a 757 with dimensions. The diameter of the fuselage is about 13 feet. The engines appear to extend 4 to 5 feet below the bottom edge of the fuselage. So the distance from the center of the fuselage (which is actually above the nose of the aircraft) to the bottom of the engines would be at most 12 feet. Just as a check on the above, here's a site that looks at the dimensions of the Pentagon hole and 757 in detail. http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm It states that the distance from the "Top of the fuselage to bottom engines. (landing gear was up)" is 17.7 feet According to that site, the width of the fuselage is 12.5 feet. Take 6.25 feet from 17.7 feet and you get about 11.5 feet from the center of the fuselage to the bottom of the engines. Now let's look at the hole in the structure. Turns out it is 20-25 feet from the top of the central hole to the ground. Notice that the top of the holes on each side of the main hole are about midway down ... say 10-13 feet. What does that tell you? Here's another drawing of a 757 from what I would assume a good source. Now if those drawings are to scale, then the tail sticks up about as much above the top of the fuselage as the top fuselage is above the ground. This photo of a 757 would seem to confirm that: So if the top of the tail is 44 feet above the ground, then the top of the fuselage, with the wheels on the ground can only be about 22 feet. Now, look at the drawing again. The top of the wing is about 40% of the way down from the top of the fuselage (again confirmed by the photo). Thus, the top of the wing must be about 12 to 13 above the ground, with the wheels extended. In other words, even with the wheels extended below the engines, the top of the wing would still be at about the top of the damage that REAL experts say is caused by the wings. And the wheels weren't down that day according to eyewitnesses. And from a link I provide earlier (http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html ) is this, Tommy. ******** "The following graphic from the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report (2003: 20), shows schematically what the orientation of the plane to the building would have been like when the nose made impact (before the wings reached the facade)." ******** So you don't know what you are talking about. You really need to take a look at this: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html "In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence -- primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757."
The pictures of the hole that I have seen, are a LOT lower than the CG picture you have posted. In fact, the pictures I have seen, show the hole being right at ground level. The engines extend roughly 5 feet lower than the fuselage. For it to have flown that low, knocking down the various light poles, and remained at ground level, it would have dug ruts into the lawn, which it did not. For the official story to work, the plane would have had to have come in at roughly a 30 degree angle, and struck nose first at a downward trajectory, as opposed to the near belly landing that is shown in all of the pictures that endorse the government story. The funny thing about how it would have had to have hit the building, is that there would have been MUCH MORE damage done to not only the exterior, but the upper portions of the building prior to the collapse of the structure. But hey, don't let me confuse you with any kind of reality check, you just go ahead and keep on telling your stories.
By all means ... post your pictures. I bet you don't. Because you are wrong. Wouldn't the light poles be knocked down if a wing or engine clipped one near the top? That's what eyewitnesses say happened. And how high are those lightpoles, Tommy. Certainly more than a few feet. Why? That's not what the damage to the lightpoles, generator, fence and structure say. That's not what the vast majority of the eyewitnesses say happened. You are just making up a number, Tommy. Why not say 90 degrees. It would be just as valid. So go on, Tommy ... post those pictures you have of the hole in the exterior of the structure. Prove to us the top of the hole was a LOT lower than what I posted. Dare you.
http://lawn.1accesshost.com/_webimages/tomhoran_pentagonfromriverhouse.big2.JPG http://911lies.org/images2/16_foot_hole_pentagon.jpg http://911lies.org/images2/calculating_757_size_pentagon.jpg http://www.freedom-force.org/pics/pentagon_composite.jpg You ask, and you shall receive. It has to suck to be you. I mean, you must think the entire planet is dumber than you. Do your friends think you're smart? If so, are they as dumb as fence posts? They'd have to be, in order to tolerate your incessant bullying, and your outright superiority complex you seem to have. Maybe if you weren't so strident, people would actually enjoy debating you. I learn a lot from your posts. It's unfortunate that you feel compelled to act like an asshole. Again, I await your input, as erroneous as it will inevitably be.
Ok, let's take a look at the photos you linked: Number 1: ROTFLOL! Tommy, you just proved you don't know what you are talking about. That's the EXIT hole on the INTERIOR of the building, not the ENTRANCE hole on the EXTERIOR. Number 2: This one gave a hotlinking error. Number 3: ROTFLOL! Tommy, that circle is NOT where the fuselage of the plane hit. It's highlighting something to the RIGHT of where the fuselage hit. In the area hit by the wing. Look at these two images and you will see what I mean: Number 4: ROTFLOL! Tommy, if anything that image proves that the top of the fuselage was AT LEAST the height I claimed. In that image it is depicted as being about 3.5/10ths the height of the building ... i.e., .35*77 = 27 feet. Number 5: ROTFLOL! Tommy, that composite isn't nearly as good as the one I posted and it only proves you wrong. Here's my composite: Now if the top of the building is 77 feet, how high do you think the top of the central hole in that image is? Perhaps even more than 25 feet. Number 6: ROTFLOL! Tommy, you posted another picture of the EXIT hole in the inner ring, not the EXTERIOR hole. ROTFLOL! Tommy, you again only prove my point. You claim you built a model to scale? Let's see if you understand scale. The top of the building is about 77 feet high. The drawings I posted indicate that the height of the tail of the plane WITH THE LANDING GEAR DOWN is 44 feet. Now does that image really look to scale given that the landing gear aren't even down in it? I'm not so sure. But assume the perspective is just fooling me and that the rendition is to scale.What does your ruler tell you the height of the top of the fuselage is in that photo? A third the height of the building? Let's see ... that would be 26 feet. Right, Tommy. What ever you say.
Throw a Christmas tree ornament against a solid wall BAC. It would more closely resemble the realities of a reinforced concrete wall being hit by the mostly air reality of the aluminum bubble of an aircraft. There should have been a huge field of debris from the preponderance of material unable to pierce and enter that reinforced and very strong structure. But all we see are easily hand seeded 'alibi' pieces of debris, all we have is a relatively clean scene of a crime where Bush and company tried vainly to simulate an impact to have their cake and eat it too: A situation where the messy and unreliable el Qaeda plotters were not allowed to hit the wrong area of the building or miss it entirely -- or go for a more attractive and easier to find target like the White House or Capitol. A situation where they got the public galvanizing effect a false flag operation attempts to invoke, without all the messy range of possible bad outcomes becoming a reality. The Washington part of the staged demolition is particularly troubling for people like you who shill for criminals because it is one where it is painfully obvious in a far more black and white manner that things are not as this Administration would claim them to be.
All you demonstrate is that you don't know the first thing about impact. Ever seen a photo of a piece of STRAW driven into a telephone pole? What you forget is that mass is important and the mass of the entire fuselage sections was considerable. Likewise the mass of the wings, engines, and the fuel in the wings was considerable. Combine that mass with a high velocity and you do indeed get something that can penetrate reinforced concrete. And experts in impact problems around the world have looked at the Pentagon case and NOT ONE has voiced a view in line with yours. NOT ONE. Which leads me to suspect that you don't know what you are talking about. Just like Tommy.
The straw in a tree invoked high interest in the 1950s when one was photographed because it demonstrably showed that a tornado has incredibly high velocities in a very focused manner to them. Whatever hit that building was not propelled there by a tornado. I am from an aviation family and my father -- who was a commercial pilot -- also worked for a time as an inspector at Pratt and Whitney aircraft. I have also seen first hand the aftermath of two light plane crashes. One was a Beech Baron that impacted the water tower at Hammonasset State park in Madison, Connecticut that had taken off from Griswold Field. The other was a Cessna that failed to make a go around to make an emergency landing at the airport in Florence, Oregon and hit guy wires slamming it into the ground. I have spent much time in my life talking about and learning about what happens to aircraft in crashes informally, and I don't care if you are not impressed by my reasoning abilities concerning them.
#96. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#94)
Actually, the velocity of tornados are LESS than the speed of Flight 77 at impact. An F5 (and that's a BIG tornado) has wind speeds up to 319 mph. Flight 77 was going over 500 mph. Again, you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#5)
It suggests that a winged missile was dropped by the large aircraft
#25. To: BeAChooser (#6)
#61. To: TommyTheMadArtist, Paul Revere, ALL (#25)
Um... I don't remember seeing a plane shaped hole in the pentagon. I remember seeing a round hole, but not a plane shaped hole, because had there BEEN wings on the thing over 100 feet from tip to tip, There would have been much more lateral structural damage to the outer exterior of the building.
Not to mention an absence of plane parts on the lawn at the time of the explosion, or how pristine the ground was all the way up to the Pentagon.
How do I know? A private firm asked me to make a scale model of the plane in question for their research, and with everything to scale, the engines would have drug the ground in order for the fuselage to hit as low as it did.
#72. To: BeAChooser (#61)
#74. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#72)
The pictures of the hole that I have seen, are a LOT lower than the CG picture you have posted. In fact, the pictures I have seen, show the hole being right at ground level.
The engines extend roughly 5 feet lower than the fuselage. For it to have flown that low, knocking down the various light poles, and remained at ground level, it would have dug ruts into the lawn, which it did not.
For the official story to work, the plane would have had to have come in at roughly a 30 degree angle
#75. To: BeAChooser (#74)
http://www.thetruth.mysite.com/pentagon%20hole.jpg
#87. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#75)
You ask, and you shall receive.
http://www.thetruth.mysite.com/pentagon%20hole.jpg
http://lawn.1accesshost.com/_webimages/tomhoran_pentagonfromriverhouse.big2.JPG
http://911lies.org/images2/16_foot_hole_pentagon.jpg
central hole and right side damage 
Right side damage. 
http://911lies.org/images2/calculating_757_size_pentagon.jpg 
http://www.freedom-force.org/pics/pentagon_composite.jpg
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/hole.jpg
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg
It has to suck to be you.
#90. To: BeAChooser (#87)
#93. To: Ferret Mike, TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#90)
Throw a Christmas tree ornament against a solid wall BAC. It would more closely resemble the realities of a reinforced concrete wall being hit by the mostly air reality of the aluminum bubble of an aircraft.
#94. To: BeAChooser (#93)
Replies to Comment # 94. The straw in a tree invoked high interest in the 1950s when one was photographed because it demonstrably showed that a tornado has incredibly high velocities in a very focused manner to them. Whatever hit that building was not propelled there by a tornado.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 94.
