New Pentagon composite photo

[AMTMAN]

Do you guys really think a Boeing 757 caused that hole? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

So what evidence do you have that it was not? I'm guessing you have none.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Seems to line up pretty accurately. Speaks to the size of the impact hole, but I am sure the truthers will cry foul.

"Obviously manipulated."

 

[Tweeter]

Lucky the plane didnt hit those cable reels.
Why are those two beams on the bottom left bent different ways?

 

[Reality Believer]

^^^ Resist response agents. This is just a flaming bag of dog poop on the doorstep.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do you guys really think a Boeing 757 caused that hole? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

Why do you think a 757-200 did not cause that damage?

 

[Slayhamlet]

Lucky the plane didnt hit those cable reels.
Why are those two beams on the bottom left bent different ways?

Are you serious?

 

[leftysergeant]

Lucky the plane didnt hit those cable reels.
Why are those two beams on the bottom left bent different ways?

Somebody with a better memory than mine can link you back to a Google Earth pic that showed them sitting on the disks farther back from the wall. They were rolled under the aircraft, maybe helping it to stay off the ground. Notice that the flanges are bent up on two of them. That is not blast damage.

I'm not sure which two columns you are talking about, but the appear to be two columns just inside the building that look as though an engine or a large part of one hit both of them obliquely.

Or maybe you are impaired by mixed-eye-dominance and are refrring to those bits of cieling hanging intro the impact zone from right to left.

 

[kookbreaker]

Lucky the plane didnt hit those cable reels.

What makes you think it didn't hit them?

Why are those two beams on the bottom left bent different ways?

Do you expect symmetry in this kind of impact?

 

[Tweeter]

Are you serious?

Yeah.

 

[Tweeter]

What makes you think it didn't hit them?



Do you expect symmetry in this kind of impact?

because if it would of hit them they wouldnt be there like the concrete wall behind them.
no

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

because if it would of hit them they wouldnt be there like the concrete wall behind them.
no

Experts in their respective fields have found the damage at the Pentagon to be in agreement with what would be expected from a 757-200 crashing in to it. What expertise and evidence can you present that outweighs that of the experts that have already made their conclusions known?

 

[kookbreaker]

because if it would of hit them they wouldnt be there like the concrete wall behind them.

You're certain of that? You realize that they are made of two very different materials, and that one was fixed in position wheras the other one can move, right?

no

So what is the problem?

 

[leftysergeant]

The plane hit the spools from above and dragged the a slight distance toward the building until they stopped, either because they dug into the ground sufficiently to resist the traction, or hit an obstacle, or the rear of the aircraft rose into the air as the nose was forced down on impact with the wall, thus rising out of contact, or some combination thereof.

A blast opposite the spools would have pushed them up against the wall. Between the wall and the spools, a blast would have driven the spools away from the building. It really is that simple.

 

[uk_dave]

Experts in their respective fields have found the damage at the Pentagon to be in agreement with what would be expected from a 757-200 crashing in to it. What expertise and evidence can you present that outweighs that of the experts that have already made their conclusions known?

Oh that was cruel!!!

 

[gumboot]

I think there's some good photos somewhere showing just how badly those cable spools were mangled by the aircraft.

I would not expect the damage to the spools to be similar to the damage to the wall for several reasons:

A) The aircraft hit the spools at an oblique angle, whereas it hit the wall at a perpendicular angle.
B) The wall is rigidly held in place making it more brittle. The spools are able to move.
C) The wall is a thin object with a very large facing, thus making it more vulnerable to concentrated impact forces. In contrast the spool is small and compact.
D) The spools were on the ground and therefore can only have been "clipped" by the aircraft. In contrast the wall absorbed the full force of the aircraft.

-Gumboot

 

[Mangoose]

Excellent composite!

leftyseargent: I think this is the photo you are thinking of:

Notice that one of the spools that was on the lawn pre-9/11 was destroyed in the attack. Do truthers ever mention this fact? Here is another comparison of the spools before and after the attack, using the positions of the spools in the satellite photo but with a slightly different attack angle:

And here is how the plane looked as it hit the building:

 

[Mangoose]

gumboot: I don't think the plane hit the spools, other than the one struck by the engine. I believe there was enough clearance between the spools on the ground and the bottom of the fuselage (which did not have the landing gear in place). Notice that the second floor slab is missing in the center hole where the fuselage struck. This suggests that some of the fuselage was higher than the level of the floor slab -- just as it appears in the ASCE graphic above.

I think the ground-level wake turbulence of the plane (visible in the CCTV frames) blew the spools into disarray and beat them up a bit, along with the (almost simultaneous) fireball which had its own blast effects.

 

[T.A.M.]

Tweeter, as an airplane crash investigator, please tell us how it should have looked. I am assuming given your determination that it looks wrong, that YOU MUST BE an airplane crash investigator. Otherwise, your comments would just look stupid.

TAM

 

[A W Smith]

the spools are in on the conspiracy

 

[Tweeter]

Could someone tell me the reason why this "plane' exploded on impact and the other two planes that hit the towers didnt explode till they were inside the buildings? Also could you maybe draw the airplane on the OP`s picture to give me more information.