Board Logo
« WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911 »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jul 22nd, 2017, 7:35pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10  ...  14 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911  (Read 24324 times)
drwu23
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 6591
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #105 on: May 23rd, 2014, 10:12pm »

on May 23rd, 2014, 5:42pm, Double Nought Spy wrote:
That sounds about right, as I recall. There were only a couple of stills from the video released eventually. They weren't very clear, since the camera was not intended to monitor the Pentagon and it was a fair distance away. This caused a lot of protest from conspiracy minded people. I don't believe there was ever more of the video released, or any explanation, but I could be wrong. It did look like a large plane.

I used to try to get conspiracy fans to say where they thought the plane and all those people went, if not into the Pentagon. No one ever offered a theory. Strange, given the number of theories they trafficked in.


There isn't any good answer where the plane and the people ended up which is why the conspiracy approach is simply wrong.
User IP Logged

hyundisonata
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 48
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #106 on: May 24th, 2014, 01:09am »

Ok here’s a silly question for the experts lol that will get the conspiracies going. The average body holds a gallon of blood, if the aircraft disintegrated as we are led to believe then that means an average 69 gallons of blood would have been splattered over the pentagon so where is it? Try spilling a pint of blood and see the mess it makes. Ok we can do the evaporation math’s and dust absorbsion but it wont cover half the mess so why did we not see this mess or people in the rescue covered with blood. Just a question lol.
User IP Logged

FlatEarth
Guest
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #107 on: May 24th, 2014, 5:42pm »

on May 24th, 2014, 01:09am, hyundisonata wrote:
Ok here’s a silly question for the experts lol that will get the conspiracies going. The average body holds a gallon of blood, if the aircraft disintegrated as we are led to believe then that means an average 69 gallons of blood would have been splattered over the pentagon so where is it? Try spilling a pint of blood and see the mess it makes. Ok we can do the evaporation math’s and dust absorbsion but it wont cover half the mess so why did we not see this mess or people in the rescue covered with blood. Just a question lol.

Oh Jimmy boy, what are we going to do with you. wink

You're a smart guy, so I think you should have been able to figure this one out for yourself. Take a look at the fuel capacity of a plane like the 777 and you'll find that it holds somewhere between 30,000 and 45,000 gallons of fuel. Let's just assume that the plane that crashed into the Pentagon had only 20,000 gallons. That still dwarfs the measly 60 gallons of blood you propose should be everywhere. That fuel went up in a ball of flame and pretty much cooked the crash site. The scene was not a bloody mess. It was an inferno.

Flat
User IP Logged

hyundisonata
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 48
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #108 on: May 24th, 2014, 6:22pm »

Lol Flat, but is that the case. The fuel was in the wings and as the bulk of the aircraft disintegrated as it punched a hole through the remnants of the wings would be dragged back. It would be different if it flew into the ground that is complete solid but the building is sections that would give as the debris moved forward so surely a good percentage would have been traveling in front of the fireball hence even though the bodies would be liquidized the remains would still move ahead away from the bulk of the flame that we have to consider as an explosion so different forces would be at play regarding the fuel. I just find it strange that no body parts where found to my knowledge from any of the incidents unlike what we had with Lockerbie, now you say it was an inferno but from the TV footage here in the UK it did not seem that bad.
User IP Logged

LoneGunMan
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Sgt. Major of the Deadly,Evil, Reptilian Hunters of America


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3325
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #109 on: May 24th, 2014, 7:32pm »

on May 24th, 2014, 6:22pm, hyundisonata wrote:
Lol Flat, but is that the case. The fuel was in the wings and as the bulk of the aircraft disintegrated as it punched a hole through the remnants of the wings would be dragged back. It would be different if it flew into the ground that is complete solid but the building is sections that would give as the debris moved forward so surely a good percentage would have been traveling in front of the fireball hence even though the bodies would be liquidized the remains would still move ahead away from the bulk of the flame that we have to consider as an explosion so different forces would be at play regarding the fuel. I just find it strange that no body parts where found to my knowledge from any of the incidents unlike what we had with Lockerbie, now you say it was an inferno but from the TV footage here in the UK it did not seem that bad.


If you had bothered to research your post you would find just how wrong you are. All fuel in the 757 is located in the fuselage and the wing root, not in the wings!

Lone
User IP Logged

De Opresso Libre! I Have Been many Men, In Many Times, I Shall Be Again!
\"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.\"
Plutarch



FlatEarth
Guest
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #110 on: May 24th, 2014, 11:02pm »

on May 24th, 2014, 6:22pm, hyundisonata wrote:
Lol Flat, but is that the case. The fuel was in the wings and as the bulk of the aircraft disintegrated as it punched a hole through the remnants of the wings would be dragged back. It would be different if it flew into the ground that is complete solid but the building is sections that would give as the debris moved forward so surely a good percentage would have been traveling in front of the fireball hence even though the bodies would be liquidized the remains would still move ahead away from the bulk of the flame that we have to consider as an explosion so different forces would be at play regarding the fuel. I just find it strange that no body parts where found to my knowledge from any of the incidents unlike what we had with Lockerbie, now you say it was an inferno but from the TV footage here in the UK it did not seem that bad.

They identified most of the passengers on the plane based on the Wikipedia article I read, so they must have recovered body parts. I'm pretty certain much of the fuel made its way into the structure, but I'm not an expert and I could be wrong. By looking at the pictures, there sure appeared to be a significant fire. Some of the bodies that I assume were Pentagon employees were burned beyond recognition. Those pictures can be found on the internet but they are gruesome and I won't post them here.

Flat
User IP Logged

dave54
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1209
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #111 on: May 25th, 2014, 12:08pm »

on May 24th, 2014, 11:02pm, Flat wrote:
... I'm pretty certain much of the fuel made its way into the structure, but I'm not an expert and I could be wrong. By looking at the pictures, there sure appeared to be a significant fire...
Flat


Most, if not all the jet fuel was consumed in the first 1-2 minutes. After that was the building itself became the fuel -- the furniture inside the building, the carpeting, the paint on the walls, etc. That will all burn. In an enclosed space the temperature inside a burning room can easily reach upwards of 3,000 degrees F near the ceiling, even in an ordinary house fire. At those temperatures fire retardant treated fabrics will burn (the heat breaks down the chemicals and turns them into flammable gases.) Even some of the smaller thinner pieces of aluminum from the plane would burn up.

I am surprised the conspiracy hypothesis is still alive after all these years. It is so easily refuted.
User IP Logged

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post is 100% gluten free and made with recycled electrons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hyundisonata
Junior Member
ImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 48
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #112 on: May 25th, 2014, 12:32pm »

I have to admit it is not a conspiracy I have much interest about, when Bush was shown talking to a class of children when informed about the attack the smirk on his face along with the fact he just continued with the children said it all for me.
User IP Logged

ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8074
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #113 on: May 25th, 2014, 12:39pm »

I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CURIOUS AS TO WHERE THE ENGINES AND LANDING GEAR VAPORISED TO? POOF...CAN YA NAME ANY OTHER AIRLINE ACCIDENT WHEREIN THE ENTIRE PLANE VANISHED ~ KINDA LIKE MH370 cool

User Image

MOREOVER ~ IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THIS BIRD TO STEEP DIVE 650 MPH AND LEVEL OFF AT 10' A.G.L (ABOVE GROUND LEVEL) WITHOUT PREPLANNING AN APPROACH ~ IN MY PRIVATE PILOT'S MIND ~ AS WELL AS SEASONED PILOTS WHOM DID SIMULATOR RECREATION ~ CERTAINLY ONES CHOICE TO INTERPRET WHAT ALLEGEDLY OCCURED ~ wink

User Image

SHALOM...Z

EDIT FOR CONSPIRACY CREDIT:

WHY DID BLDG.NO.7 CRUMBLE ~ IMPLODE ~ IT WASN'T EVEN TOUCHED BY PLANE OR DEBRIS ~ cool cool cool ~ WASN'T NO. 7 THE BUILDING THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY THE REINFORCED BUNKER FOR SUCH DISASTERS...
« Last Edit: May 25th, 2014, 12:46pm by ZETAR » User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
INT21
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3028
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #114 on: May 25th, 2014, 1:03pm »

I also remember not being particularly interested in the conspiracy side of this .

But one thing did seem odd. Straight after the pentagon hit we were getting pictures of the hole in the wall (before that area collapsed.
There was a neat hole some thirty feet across to be seen.

But the engines are much more than thirty feet apart.
Being the heaviest items, they would have kept going straight on after the front end hit.

So why didn't the engines punch out holes, or at least make the gap wider ?

You only have to look at the devastation cause when an EL Al plane crashed into a building in Holland.

As for building seven. It does seem odd that they didn't send in fire crews at the beginning as there was no obvious risk.

HAL
INT21
User IP Logged

Isn't it midnight, on the other side of the world.
Do you remember
the face of a pretty girl ?
Double Nought Spy
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 1429
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #115 on: May 25th, 2014, 2:03pm »

Definitely something very stinky about Building 7. tongue Probably several very stinky things.

The Pentagon is no ordinary building. It's interesting to read about how it was built, and the remodeling projects that included carbon fiber armor and other such exotic things. There was a lot of debris on the ground outside the building, but not nearly as much as some people would have expected. I certainly would not presume to know what the scene should look like if a heavily loaded 757 hit that particular building. There is little to compare it to. Until I see some convincing evidence to the contrary, then I will believe the people who saw an airliner hit the Pentagon, and the people who dealt with the aftermath. So far I have seen nothing but wild theorizing.
« Last Edit: May 25th, 2014, 2:04pm by Double Nought Spy » User IP Logged


All sane people detest noise. --Mark Twain

GhostofEd
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

You know, I'm like a smart person


PM


Posts: 1383
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #116 on: May 25th, 2014, 2:15pm »

on May 25th, 2014, 1:03pm, INT21 wrote:
I also remember not being particularly interested in the conspiracy side of this .

But one thing did seem odd. Straight after the pentagon hit we were getting pictures of the hole in the wall (before that area collapsed.
There was a neat hole some thirty feet across to be seen.

But the engines are much more than thirty feet apart.
Being the heaviest items, they would have kept going straight on after the front end hit.

So why didn't the engines punch out holes, or at least make the gap wider ?

You only have to look at the devastation cause when an EL Al plane crashed into a building in Holland.

As for building seven. It does seem odd that they didn't send in fire crews at the beginning as there was no obvious risk.

HAL
INT21


I don't known, maybe the wings collapsed? This and other 911 conspiracy theories are alive and well on many forums. They are even trying to find discrepancies with every detail including body parts. There must be hundreds+ pages on just that hole.

I'm convinced you can take any event, even a sporting one, and find little tidbits that will support anything one wants to propose regarding the outcome. Why did the manager change the line up at the last minute, why were balls changed, etc. etc. and when there is no answer that satisfies it supports the theory.

As far as building 7, I thought it was already evacuated and there were most likely higher priorities. I've not followed all these theories but those who want to believe in the conspiracy will never be convinced otherwise. While those who do not believe probably will never change either. Then you need to agree on what particular conspiracy is even under discussion. It often seems the need for a conspiracy often over shadows what the actual facts are.
User IP Logged

"The concept of shaking hands is absolutely terrible, and statistically I’ve been proven right."

~ D. Trump 2004
purr
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

..you talkin' to me...YOU TALKIN' TO ME..??!


PM

Gender: Female
Posts: 4791
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #117 on: May 25th, 2014, 2:40pm »

on Aug 19th, 2013, 6:28pm, Flat wrote:
Hmmmm...

Quite thoughtfully and rationally, huh?

User Image

User Image

User Image

I hope you were kidding!

Flat

P.S. Sorry, purr, if I came on too strong, but you don't usually make yourself such an easy target and I couldn't resist! Please don't beat me! I'm old.


Hi Flat, gimmi a break, you make it sound like you are 200 years old but alright: how's about some superficial scratching, might keep you young!

smiley

Thank you for comments and the jetliner images, looked at them with interest but I wasn't kidding, 100% serious about this terrible terrorist attack.

Note my wording. My model of the three WTC buildings' explosions, fires and eventual total collapse includes a claim of no passenger planes HITTING them. I did not exclude planes flying towards WTC with passengers and real terrorists on board. This may be dealt with as a separate (though not an easy) question.

Before explaining to you, as rationally as I am able, why I seriously consider no (0 = zero) planes hitting the WTC buildings I'll tell you where I'm coming from.

After 9/11 I didn't take the conspiracy ('false flag') theories serious, and found especially accusations of malevolent intent/involvement on the part of US agencies preposterous. No choirboys, yet they wouldn't slaughter 1000's of their citizens. However, lots of the imagery and official theories presented questions. Then I read the official government report on the building 7 collapse as it came out after some years, and came to think the official version was unsatisfactory, even falling short of the truth. Most of my ideas come from US gov information.

Now to explain 0 number of passenger planes impacting. cool

After the apparently reported, photographed and filmed terrorist attack flying into two buildings, three buildings sustained structural and fire damage, and eventually failed by catatrophic collapse. The third building affected was building 7, without a plane impact, with superficial structural damage, no kerosine igniting yet with many hours of fire raging inside, in the end collapsing nearly identically to the other WTC buildings, its internal steel supports suddenly failing, followed by pancaking straight down. Logically the similar failures of the steel internal support indicate all three collapses had a similar cause. A cause taking the steel out of play entirely.



Flat, it can't be the jets, because building 7 wasn't hit, yet falling the same way. Cannot be impact damage, because 7 wasn't impacted. Cannot be structural damage, building 7 had too little, superficial, damage, no threat to its steel. Can't be superheated fires, due to jetfuel/kerosine, no kerosine spreading inside 7. Extremely improbable that all three buildings' steel support GRADUALLY failed through extreme heat, since such a fire induced failure is unprecedented, plus building 7 had floors with functional sprinklers (lowering temperature) and functional fire seals between offices and floors (fire containment), each factor militating against a building-wide superheated fire. Anyhow, no superheat capable of weakening the steel was actually measured. Nor were the steel beams in the WTC debris kept intact for a CSI, any results made available to subsequent scientific investigators. (The steel was purportedly shipped out to China, I am not sure in this instant.)

Simply, the super fires at building 7 were computer modeled, as were the catastrophic failures of the steel beams. Not forensically researched. Instead reverse engineered: we know building 7 fell, possess extensive video records of how it fell, then investigators may reason back to why, its most probable sequence of causes.

Such fait accompli (fact = three buildings collapsed), computer assisted (models are adjusted until they 'work') mode of reasoning, unrestrained by vital forensic material like the physical steel and actual measurement of heat that might melt/weaken steel support beams, inevitably will yield a result: the most probable outcome a powerful computer can generate.

My opinion here is that building 7's sudden complete collapse, near identical to the other two WTC buildings, barring such spurious science, is impossible because the steel ought keep them upright. No mechanism was proven, no mechanism scientifically/factually shown, explaining how the steel structure failed, as if suddenly vanished, resulting in three buildings pancaking downwards.

The only mechanism known to cause a series of building to collapse straight down, section by section, is some (perhaps advanced?) form of controlled demolition.

To end, could at least the first two collapses have been caused by jet impact, leaving only building 7 an unprecedented fluke? In principle, sure! But here's photographic evidence suggesting it just didn't happen.




User Image
Photographic detail of flight 175 moving into/through South Tower on 9/11, emerging with an intact nose cone. That cone will crumple if hit by an adult geese. This one sailed though reinforced layers of steel and concrete without a visible dent. Impossible, unless the plane did not hit/impact, never entered the tower.




Do you feel a little scratch yet?

cheesy


purr
« Last Edit: May 25th, 2014, 2:49pm by purr » User IP Logged

Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.

-RONALD REAGAN
ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8074
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #118 on: May 25th, 2014, 3:29pm »

PURR,

QUITE SOUND LOGIC ~ grin

User Image

SHALOM...Z
User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
LoneGunMan
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Sgt. Major of the Deadly,Evil, Reptilian Hunters of America


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3325
xx Re: WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ON 911
« Reply #119 on: May 25th, 2014, 4:45pm »

I can't tell you how many people think that the Twin Towers were conventionally built structures. An assumption that is completely false!
When these buildings were built they were cutting edge in structural engineering. Most of the floors were designed with no permanent walls. They were designed with temporary walls to accommodate any Corporation that might rent them and the floor plans could be changed at will to the needs of those companies!

The only walls that were cinder block or poured concrete and permanent were those of the stairwells and elevator shafts along with those needed for mechanicals!

We know the engines went completely through and sailed quite a distance hitting other structures
It would not be that far fetched to have the front of the fuselage make it through the building mostly intact and only slightly deformed!



Lone
« Last Edit: May 25th, 2014, 4:47pm by LoneGunMan » User IP Logged

De Opresso Libre! I Have Been many Men, In Many Times, I Shall Be Again!
\"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.\"
Plutarch



Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10  ...  14 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 18,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls