lightninboy
Well-known member
If you were a greenhorn Muslim wanting to crash into the Pentagon, you would dive into the center of it, not come in at ground level.hopalong said:
IS ALEX JONES A ZIONIST SHILL?
- Thread starter hypocritexposer
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
lightninboy
Well-known member
757 Airliner Size Comparison To Pentagon
This more what a Boeing 757 would look like if it were the actual object in the frame. Remember... The collision into the pentagon was exactly perpendicular, like a missile strike, not 'bombed into' like a kamikaze airplane strike.
Not to mention, the incredible skill necessary for a pilot to achieve such a narrow band of altitude... Like a cruise missile, in the middle of Washington DC.
A Boeing 757 is 44 tall.
That is over half the height of the Entire Pentagon Building, which is only 77 Feet Tall. With all the cameras taping the Pentagon, isn't it odd they cannot prove it, and release a paltry few frames, only after federal judgment makes them?
A
Anonymous
Guest
LB allows me me to sleep at night much better knowing there is hope for our country with so many idiots and morons on this site. there is one with brains...God Bless you LB! you are a real man and I salute you!
Larrry
Well-known member
shaumei said:
A quart of bourbon might help you sleep better, but then you would be just a drunkinstead of a tin foil hat zombie
Steve
Well-known member
Lboy said:
kamakaze strikes were a last attempt before death to do additional damage.. often the plane had limited ability to be controlled and was crashing irregardless.. so they just steered into any target..
the flight into the pentagon was with a working functioning plane.. not one on its last legs after a long battle..
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Flight_School_Dropouts
if you read the "actual reports" on Hanjour it starts to add up,..
two things are clear.. his english was awful and he went to a dozen different flight schools here and abroad.. he trained diligently for one target.
or you could take a few quotes out of context and make a claim he was an idiot who couldn't fly a single engine plane let alone get a federal commercial license and log 600 flight hours..
but then don't we often discount a person who can't take simple instructions in english?
BTW.. many believe he was supposed to dive into the vulnerable roof of the pentagon.. instead of crashing into the re-enforced walls... :?
lightninboy
Well-known member
Steve, you want to quote 911myths.com.
I ain't afraid of taking on 911myths.com.
911myths.com is obviously disinformation put out by the NWO.
Follow the money. Who is behind 911myths.com?
I ain't afraid of taking on 911myths.com.
911myths.com is obviously disinformation put out by the NWO.
Follow the money. Who is behind 911myths.com?
Larrry
Well-known member
lb you have your whole life to be a jerk....so why dont you take a day off
lightninboy
Well-known member
Viewpoint by Cal Thomas: More power to the government
November 23, 2002
From the State Department, which issued them visas, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which failed to go after them when many violated the provisions of their admission, to the FBI, which ignored warnings from its own agents, to flight instructors at FAA-approved schools, who thought little or nothing of accepting cash from Middle Eastern men who wanted to learn to take off in jumbo jets but not land, our government failed miserably to protect us.
http://articles.ivpressonline.com/2002-11-23/appeals-court_24160584
After the 9-11, the story was out that the 9-11 hijackers went to school to learn to take off but not to land. I suspect most people thought the crashes did not use any intense landing skills. However, the Pentagon crash would have required intense landing skill.
November 23, 2002
From the State Department, which issued them visas, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which failed to go after them when many violated the provisions of their admission, to the FBI, which ignored warnings from its own agents, to flight instructors at FAA-approved schools, who thought little or nothing of accepting cash from Middle Eastern men who wanted to learn to take off in jumbo jets but not land, our government failed miserably to protect us.
http://articles.ivpressonline.com/2002-11-23/appeals-court_24160584
After the 9-11, the story was out that the 9-11 hijackers went to school to learn to take off but not to land. I suspect most people thought the crashes did not use any intense landing skills. However, the Pentagon crash would have required intense landing skill.
lightninboy
Well-known member
LOOK CLOSELY (above image), ...This is the picture the administration does not want you to see!
Look at the red image, it is scaled to size, (ACTUALLY EVEN SMALLER) and shows where the impact patterns SHOULD be, yet, there is no damage except a single hole that goes through 3 sections of the pentagon.
This wall collapsed or was brought down by explosives minutes after this picture, which clearly shows inconsistent damage for a Boeing 757.
Given that the outer wall of the Pentagon had not yet collapsed and the only hole is approximately 16 ft. in diameter, how does a plane over 44 feet tall and 125 ft. wide fit into that hole as shown in the photographic evidence from the Pentagon?
Furthermore, can physics explain why there is no damage to the Pentagon's upper floors where the tail section would have hit?
Close-ups of this section are extremely revealing. Why were America and the world never shown the video and photographs of the Pentagon, BEFORE the outer wall had collapsed showing only one 16 ft. hole.
Many people do not realize that the outer wall did not collapse until almost 30 minutes after the initial impact.
Larrry
Well-known member
lb I'll bet you have a terribly empty feeling ---- in your skull?
lightninboy
Well-known member
Killtown's
Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon?
Could Hani Hanjour really have flown a Boeing 757 and was he even on the plane?
Why did it take so long for the release of the Dulles Airport security video that shows only four of the five alleged Flight 77 hijackers and why aren't any of the photos time stamped?
Why does the media identify two different people as Hani Hanjour in the Dulles security video?
Why is Hani Hanjour the only terrorist listed to not have a passenger number or seat assignment number, if he didn't have a ticket how was he able to get on the plane, and why did the first reports on the Flight 77 hijacker names list a "Mosear Caned" instead of Hanjour?
Is it just a coincidence that the same medical examiners that identified the passenger's remains from Flight 77 were the same that helped identified the remains of the passengers of Flight 93, the other plane that left no trace of itself where it was said to have crashed?
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/hijackers.html
Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon?
Could Hani Hanjour really have flown a Boeing 757 and was he even on the plane?
Why did it take so long for the release of the Dulles Airport security video that shows only four of the five alleged Flight 77 hijackers and why aren't any of the photos time stamped?
Why does the media identify two different people as Hani Hanjour in the Dulles security video?
Why is Hani Hanjour the only terrorist listed to not have a passenger number or seat assignment number, if he didn't have a ticket how was he able to get on the plane, and why did the first reports on the Flight 77 hijacker names list a "Mosear Caned" instead of Hanjour?
Is it just a coincidence that the same medical examiners that identified the passenger's remains from Flight 77 were the same that helped identified the remains of the passengers of Flight 93, the other plane that left no trace of itself where it was said to have crashed?
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/hijackers.html
lightninboy
Well-known member
Hani Hanjour and Flight 77's Unexplained Expert Maneuvers
According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)
The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."
So from a mile out, the man who could not properly land a Cessna at a small airport in Maryland weeks earlier, zeroes in on the conveniently chosen western façade of the Pentagon, flies 20 feet off the ground in a Boeing 757 at 400 mph, clips a number of lamp poles on his way in, apparently providing no adverse interference to his flight path, then runs into a tree and a generator trailer, before depositing the enormous aircraft perfectly in between the first and second floor of the United States' military headquarters. Leaving no visible scratch on the Pentagon lawn, no large sections of airplane, no cars from the adjacent I-395 disturbed by the enormous jet-wake, and no publicly available video evidence of this incredible feat - despite the existence of at least 83 cameras on buildings and lamp posts encircling the Pentagon.
"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)
"Furthermore, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings."
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm
According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)
The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."
So from a mile out, the man who could not properly land a Cessna at a small airport in Maryland weeks earlier, zeroes in on the conveniently chosen western façade of the Pentagon, flies 20 feet off the ground in a Boeing 757 at 400 mph, clips a number of lamp poles on his way in, apparently providing no adverse interference to his flight path, then runs into a tree and a generator trailer, before depositing the enormous aircraft perfectly in between the first and second floor of the United States' military headquarters. Leaving no visible scratch on the Pentagon lawn, no large sections of airplane, no cars from the adjacent I-395 disturbed by the enormous jet-wake, and no publicly available video evidence of this incredible feat - despite the existence of at least 83 cameras on buildings and lamp posts encircling the Pentagon.
"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)
"Furthermore, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings."
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm
lightninboy
Well-known member
- Pratt & Whitney / Roll Royce engines
- 12' x 9' Diameter Titanium steel alloy
- 6 tons each
- Melting point of titanium: 1,688°
- Max burning Temp of Jet-Fuel: 1,120°
Not to mention, the 757 supposedly disintegrated, yet, you can see un-burnt desks, and un-melted computer screens immediately next to the impact sections.
You can see, the pilot passed up a clear direct frontal assault on his target.
He then passed through the air space of Reagan International. During this maneuver they dropped 7000 feet and by all reports did it like an ace fighter pilot.
Amazingly, the pilot managed maneuver the 757, through obstacles, attaining a flight level of 20 feet , in distance of about 1/4 mile, in order to strike the only wall of the entire Pentagon to be reinforced to withstand such an attack.
How could a 757 clear highway structures at A and manage to strike point B without touching the ground? Physically impossible!
"I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast – it sounded nothing like an airplane."
Lon Rains
editor for Space News (Pentagon eyewitness)
Dozens of Video Cameras Missed something like this?
CNN Reporter at pentagon:
"there does not appear to be any evidence that a jet-liner crashed here"
There seems to be a few 'clean & placed' pieces of plane, small enough to carry off the lawn, which was undisturbed.
The only piece of wreckage that appears 'genuine' in the FEMA photo is the front shaft-bearing housing from a US Air Force A-3 Skywarrior, or something very similar.
As details of the passengers on the four hijacked flights emerge, some are shown to have curious connections to the defense company Raytheon, and possibly its Global Hawk pilot-less aircraft program.
A surprising number of passengers, especially on Flight 77, have military connections.
- 12' x 9' Diameter Titanium steel alloy
- 6 tons each
- Melting point of titanium: 1,688°
- Max burning Temp of Jet-Fuel: 1,120°
Not to mention, the 757 supposedly disintegrated, yet, you can see un-burnt desks, and un-melted computer screens immediately next to the impact sections.
You can see, the pilot passed up a clear direct frontal assault on his target.
He then passed through the air space of Reagan International. During this maneuver they dropped 7000 feet and by all reports did it like an ace fighter pilot.
Amazingly, the pilot managed maneuver the 757, through obstacles, attaining a flight level of 20 feet , in distance of about 1/4 mile, in order to strike the only wall of the entire Pentagon to be reinforced to withstand such an attack.
How could a 757 clear highway structures at A and manage to strike point B without touching the ground? Physically impossible!
"I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound. I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast – it sounded nothing like an airplane."
Lon Rains
editor for Space News (Pentagon eyewitness)
Dozens of Video Cameras Missed something like this?
CNN Reporter at pentagon:
"there does not appear to be any evidence that a jet-liner crashed here"
There seems to be a few 'clean & placed' pieces of plane, small enough to carry off the lawn, which was undisturbed.
The only piece of wreckage that appears 'genuine' in the FEMA photo is the front shaft-bearing housing from a US Air Force A-3 Skywarrior, or something very similar.
As details of the passengers on the four hijacked flights emerge, some are shown to have curious connections to the defense company Raytheon, and possibly its Global Hawk pilot-less aircraft program.
A surprising number of passengers, especially on Flight 77, have military connections.
Steve
Well-known member
lightninboy said:
you know when I was 16, I wrecked a car... went airborne right over a ditch, under a fence took out a post (snapped it right off).. and then flew off a rock pile.
and to this day I still can't figure out how I didn't break one strand of the five strand barb wire fence.. or didn't punch a hole in the oil or transmission pan.. and I wasn't even a stunt driver yet..
but then sometimes the darnedest things happen in a crash..
BTW, I was able to drive the car home as well,.. sure don't build them like they used to.. :?
it was a crash.. if it was impossible to fly a plane at 400mph 20 feet above the ground.. then we would have a hell of alot less plane crashes...
lightninboy
Well-known member
The photograph was taken in the first minutes of the fire. Firetrucks are on the scene, but as yet these vehicles have not gone into action. Moreover, the upper floors of the building are yet to collapse. Now, there is no trace of significant debris, no engine, no black box, no undercarriage. Nothing! And yet, according to the official version, a Boeing 757-200, an air freighter with a wingspan of 38.05 m, a length of 47.30 m, a height of 13 m and a weight of 100 tons, struck the ground and first floors of the front of the building, hedge-hopping as it approached, flying just a few metres above the ground at a minimum speed of 400 km per hour, without knocking down a single streetlamp or even causing any damage to the magnificent lawn in the foreground, the car park, or the helipad.
The course followed by the phantom plane: it managed to avoid trees, streetlamps, construction sheds; it did not even dirty the lawn.
They even went so far as to state that sixty-three of the sixty-four passengers were able to be identified by their DNA… which, as everyone knows, is destroyed at 100oC! "A real achievement!" laughs Emmanuel Ratier.
He then puts a simple question: Is there in the history of aviation a single case of a crash in which the bodies of passengers were found without any debris from the plane around?
Are we dealing with an enormous breakdown or a deliberate decision to remain passive even while keeping highly alert?
A first clue in favour of this last hypothesis is provided by the strange confession of George Bush on 4 December 2001, relating how he watched a live television broadcast of the first crash into the World Trade Centre:
"I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card – actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading programme that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower – the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom [busy for half an hour, specifies Emmanuel Ratier, reading a book about goats, which is plainly staggering after the first impact!], and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America is under attack.""
"It is one of two things," comments Ratier: "either the president of the most powerful country in the world had no idea what he was talking about despite all the details, or he was fully informed of the attack about to take place and watched it on a private television circuit." For there was no reason for a television network to film the Twin Towers in a live broadcast at the time of the first attack. The pictures of this were taken by amateurs and were broadcast by the television networks well after the president had left the school he was at. "They were, therefore, secret pictures," concludes Meyssan, "broadcast live in the security communication room installed in the school ready for his visit."
"Victory in Afghanistan" is supposed to have been won, but the war continues. Against whom? Against "terrorism". What is "terrorism"? It is not a State, nor an organisation, nor a doctrine, but a mode of action, observes Meyssan. The expression "War on terrorism" makes no more sense than "War on war". At a concrete level, George Tenet, director of the CIA, presented Bush on 15 September 2001 with a "Worldwide Attack Matrix". Approved by Rumsfeld, this secret war has been launched against anything that stands in the way of the absolute supremacy which the United States is on the way to exercising over the entire universe.
http://www.crc-internet.org/june2a.htm
A
Anonymous
Guest
this is exactly what happened....i would love to hear the neocons on here explain this...
Mike
Well-known member
Eyewitnesses:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
They probably aren't neo-cons, but will they suffice? :lol: :lol:
I mean really. Should I listen to loony conspiracy zealot, or an actual eyewitness who was there and saw what happened?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html
They probably aren't neo-cons, but will they suffice? :lol: :lol:
I mean really. Should I listen to loony conspiracy zealot, or an actual eyewitness who was there and saw what happened?
lightninboy
Well-known member
Mike,Mike said:
Do you have proof these people aren't victims of a psy-ops?
If a 757 wouldn't fit in the hole, these people are obviously wrong.
Mike
Well-known member
lightninboy said:
Yes, I have proof. The eyewitness statements were taken within a few days/hours of the crash...........................................................
With enough speed, a 757 will fit in a prairie dog hole.
lightninboy
Well-known member
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 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.)
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 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
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html
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 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.)
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 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
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html