And a 757 hit the Pentagon. So the hole formed by the fusilage hitting the building might be expected to be.....what?... 1000ft? 100ft? 1ft? a bit bigger than 12ft? invisible? fish?
No plane hole in the pentagon?
- Thread starter brantc
- Start date
And a 757 hit the Pentagon. So the hole formed by the fusilage hitting the building might be expected to be.....what?... 1000ft? 100ft? 1ft? a bit bigger than 12ft? invisible? fish?
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
An exact silhouette of a 757, of course.
Yes, I got my physics degree from the Wile E. Coyote University, why do you ask?
Well, I dropped out of an Arts degree in second year (Wollongong), but I still know more about science and engineering than these clowns.
I think Wile E. Coyote University sounds like a fine institution, what say you Bill?
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
Oh twoofie.
first- the image of where the jet struck the pentagon is WRONG. It should be shifted down almost to the ground and then shifted to the LEFT.
Typical twoof LIE by using incorrect information.
second a jet striking reinforced concrete is vastly different than a jet striking steel beams cladded in aluminum.
twoofie you really should do some BASIC research before spewing crapola.
MysteryMammal
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2009
- Messages
- 269
I suppose it's not even worthwhile to mention the Pentagon Renovation project that was started in the '90s. By February 2001, wedge one had been renovated to bring the Pentagon into the modern age and tenants were already back to work in that area (Internet access for all! Hooray! No, seriously, a big part of the plan was to make it less of a pain to hook up all the doodads and doohickeys we use now that were not even imaginable back when the place was designed and built).
Another cool part of the renovation: blast resistant windows and other defensive measures to keep the central hub of our military relatively safe from a variety of attacks.
Point of interest: Flight 77 struck wedge one. Speculation abounds about the damage it would have caused had it struck one of the un-renovated sections. What is fortunate is that all of that blast proofing did its job and casualties were somewhat limited.
The Trade Center Towers, to the best of my knowledge, did not have blast proofing installed on the windows. The plane that struck the Trade Center Towers was more easily able to tear through the structures because, surprise surprise, they weren't designed to take a hit from that large of an aircraft traveling at the velocity it was estimated to be traveling.
ProTip: Velocity plays a big part in damage imparted to an object. You can test this theory by having a young child throw a baseball at you, then compare to the effects received by standing in front of a pitching machine set to lob 80mph fastballs at you.
Another cool part of the renovation: blast resistant windows and other defensive measures to keep the central hub of our military relatively safe from a variety of attacks.
Point of interest: Flight 77 struck wedge one. Speculation abounds about the damage it would have caused had it struck one of the un-renovated sections. What is fortunate is that all of that blast proofing did its job and casualties were somewhat limited.
The Trade Center Towers, to the best of my knowledge, did not have blast proofing installed on the windows. The plane that struck the Trade Center Towers was more easily able to tear through the structures because, surprise surprise, they weren't designed to take a hit from that large of an aircraft traveling at the velocity it was estimated to be traveling.
ProTip: Velocity plays a big part in damage imparted to an object. You can test this theory by having a young child throw a baseball at you, then compare to the effects received by standing in front of a pitching machine set to lob 80mph fastballs at you.
Pinch
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 401
You left out the *sob*
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,887
A W Smith
Philosopher
FailPost. Are you carrying a water can to go along with those red shoes billie gurl? because we are still laughing at you.
Didn't you hear? The plane combines with the concrete and turns into talcum powder. Do the research!
L.
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
I've told you once. The Third Cartoon Law of Physics clearly states that...
Physics is science, so science says Inside Job!
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
And what about those witnesses who saw the plane fly up and over the Pentagon instead of impacting it? Oh, wait. There were none. Never mind.
Longfellow
St. Louis Cardinals Fanatic
I believe that ALL the CIT stooges on the 'net are the most egregious folks I've ever come across. All 4 of them. Most other 'truthers' are either willfully ignorant or charlatans but the CIT group HAS to be the worst of the fringe of the fringe of the fringe.
Guess what, bill? We each have exactly the same amount of proof for our respective viewpoints. We each believe something and nothing anybody else says is going to convince us otherwise. Looks to me like we're both suffering from an Irreducible Delusion.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html
The impact was found to be the result of a 757. The Kinetic energy of the impact was equal in energy to 1100 pounds of TNT.
Here is the study that was done in pdf form. http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf 2.5Mb
The entire plane is there at the Pentagon; someone is making up lies.
There are aircraft parts here along with parts of people smashed in the crash. Where is the plane? It is in pieces after hitting a concrete steel reinforced building at 535 mph. Take your car and smash it at 500 mph and see what remains.
Oops, Mythbusters did it for you.
What car? What plane? All the parts are there. Jets hitting at 535 mph are like a bomb going off. The plane weighed over 181,000 pounds.
TK0001
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2006
- Messages
- 593
Please re-word this. Truthers don't seem to pick up on similes too well.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
So obviously in such a case an independent body should be assembled to arbitrate and cut the Gordian knot.
Three cheers for the new and independent 9/11 enquiry with full powers of subpoena.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
So what if they are? For the moment, let's assume your silly claim is correct. So what? It doesn't change a thing.
The nice thing about reality(tm) is that with correct methodology, facts can be separated from non-facts. In the case of the Pentagon and flight 77, we can look at all the physical and forensic evidence and listen to what all the alleged eye witnesses say and come to a good understanding of what really happened.
Having done that, it doesn't matter what the motivations of any of the eyewitnesses are.
Lots of people saw a big commercial jet fly at the Pentagon.
Nobody saw a plane pop up and fly over the Pentagon.
The radar tapes don't show a plane flying over the Pentagon.
They do show a big plane hitting the Pentagon.
brantc
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 541
What a complete sack of FAIL!!!!!! You have not "deboned" anything. All you guys can do is insult....
As Huel Houser says " You mean to tell me that a 7 Big Fat Plane hit the pentagon and didnt even break the windows?" "You mean to tell me that where the left wing impacted under the windows there is no damage?"
JREF deboners 0 --- Science 1
As Huel Houser says " You mean to tell me that a 7 Big Fat Plane hit the pentagon and didnt even break the windows?" "You mean to tell me that where the left wing impacted under the windows there is no damage?"
JREF deboners 0 --- Science 1