New Pentagon composite photo

[beachnut]

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.

All the planes exploded during impact like planes do at 470 mph, 590 mph, 473 KIAS, and 600 mph. Next question.

 

[WildCat]

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.

It exploded on impact exactly as the planes that hit the WTC exploded on impact. Why on earth do you think it was any different? Please present your evidence, of course.

 

[Mangoose]

Tweeter just gave me an interesting idea. We know the speed at which the plane hit the building. We know its location on the lawn when photographed by CCTV camera. If we know the frame rate of the camera, we should be able to predict where the plane should be in the next frame (the explosion frame), i.e. how far into the building, factoring in the probable rate of deceleration (I think the ASCE Building Performance Report gave a figure for this).

 

[A W Smith]

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.

what evidence do you have that it did explode on impact? I distinctly remember a witness report that the plane entered the building before a fireball.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

I was just about to make my turn up the sidewalk towards one of the entrances when I heard jet engines. It was not the normal jet track into National Airport, which is very, very different. I turned my head about maybe 90 degrees towards the sound of the engines, which were very loud. I fully expected to see A-10s or F-15s or something, and I saw the American Airlines airplane coming down. I watched the entire terminal descent into the building. It’s probably the loudest noise I ever heard in my life. I have heard artillery very close. I have heard rock concerts, but nothing came close to that noise. I watched the entire airplane go into the building.

 

[Corsair 115]

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?

I would suggest studying the difference in the composition and arrangement of the structural elements between the buildings.

 

[Mangoose]

A W Smith: You might be thinking of this one:

At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building."

Or this one:

The right engine hit high, the left engine hit low. For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it.

 

[Gravy]

There are several accounts of a small delay (split-second?) between the Pentagon impact and explosion, which would be expected. Fuel behaves differently than high explosives. Keep in mind that the Pentagon parking lot cameras were only 1 frame per second, so it's hard to judge by them.

 

[njslim]

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.

Because this plane struck the ground at 580mph. the other planes which struck the
buildings once they penetrated the thin exterior wall would encounter mosyly empty
space until reaching the central core. Hitting the solid ground would cause the plane
to abruptly decelerate shredding it into myraid of small pieces. The other planes would
have to travel about 60 ft until encountered solid resistance.

 

[A W Smith]

A W Smith: You might be thinking of this one:



Or this one:

yes those are the ones i read but I couldn't find them quickly enough. i was still looking after posting to add more accounts,

 

[BenBurch]

There are several accounts of a small delay (split-second?) between the Pentagon impact and explosion, which would be expected. Fuel behaves differently than high explosives. Keep in mind that the Pentagon parking lot cameras were only 1 frame per second, so it's hard to judge by them.

As my father (a pilot and certified aviation mechanic) told me when I was about 5; "Fuel burns, vapor explodes." Hence why a FAM has two detonators.

 

[leftysergeant]

And, before anyone asks why there was no coresponding fireball out the other side of the building, most of the fuel was probably expressed fromn the wings outside the building. Notice that the walls of the Pentagon better resisted the passage of the wings than did the towers.

In all three cases, there was a considerable cloud of aerosolized fuel in the air. In the Hezarkhani video you can see it coming out the sides of the tower as grey bulges, which quickly turn to balls of flame.

The air/fuel mixture was probably too rich to ignite immediately. Modern jet fuel has been re-formulated to make it a little harder to ignite, actually. It has to wait just a bit for something hot to make contact with a more oxygen-rich concentration of fuel, upon which it flashed back.

Ben's comparison to a fuel/air munition is a good simily.

 

[uk_dave]

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.

Well I was gonna say "No", but I see everyone else has jumped on this one.

Anyway, I'll still say it

No. Go find out for yourself.

And in the meantime, perhaps you can tell us:

What makes you think the explosion was any different to the wtc towers and what evidence do you base this on?

What makes you think anyone should draw anything for you?

C'mon 'truthers' don't be lazy. You're supposed to be trying to convince us, not the other way round.

 

[scissorhands]

tweeter,

I think you will find that flight 77 exploded outside and inside the building it penetrated.
Just look at the resultant damage caused inside the pentagon.
It travelled a considerable distance beyond initial impact.
Are you suggesting it came to a sudden stop and produced a large fireball?

 

[BenBurch]

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.

The Pentagon had much harder walls than the towers. Totally different sorts of structure. Pentagon was designed to be as solid as possible. The towers were designed to be a LIGHT as possible. And there WAS considerable explosion within at the Pentagon, likely from the center fuel tank, which is what killed many of the victims who worked there.

 

[gumboot]

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.

I think it was probably that one spool that was hit by the engine that I saw a photo of, showing how mangled it was. You're quite right in that it's very very unlikely that the actual aircraft hit most of the spools. Conspiracy Theorists seem to often forget that the aircraft was descending as it approached the building. They seem to think Hanjour just lined it up at first floor level from five miles out and drove it all the way in ten feet off the ground.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Tweeter just gave me an interesting idea. We know the speed at which the plane hit the building. We know its location on the lawn when photographed by CCTV camera. If we know the frame rate of the camera, we should be able to predict where the plane should be in the next frame (the explosion frame), i.e. how far into the building, factoring in the probable rate of deceleration (I think the ASCE Building Performance Report gave a figure for this).

Actually I did something similar to this at one point. By my calculations the aircraft would be well and truly inside the building.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

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?

Why do you think the aircraft exploded on impact?

-Gumboot

 

[Mangoose]

I think it was probably that one spool that was hit by the engine that I saw a photo of, showing how mangled it was.

Nope, only 5 spools survived the attack that have been photographed. There were six originally (see the graphic on the previous page for a comparison of the positions before and after the attack). So one was destroyed completely, and that had to have been the one hit by the engine at over 500 MPH. The one that was really beaten up was closest to the building and could have been damaged by the blast or the collapse of the facade (the rubble of which, I think, was in its proximity).

 

[Gazpacho]

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?

How have you determined the "timing' of the Pentagon "explosion'?

 

[Boone 870]

The composite that Mangoose posted earlier shows the cable spools lying on their sides before the impact. Does anyone know for sure if they were actually on their sides?

Those types of spools normally stand on the vertical flanges of the drum so that a spindle can be placed through the hole in the hub which allows them to be dispensed or moved easily.

That would leave one missing, one knocked over on its side, and the other four rearranged.