Find the airplane

[theavonlady 2]

No, that's not the plane. Have a look at CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

The above is the 1st pic at the Swedish site. There is smoke already appearing at the front of the building.

[Longinius 1]

Then I still haven't seen the plane...

But what IS that blur then? It appears to move in from the right to the left...

I don't think that is smoke. I think its dirt on the lens / lens cover. If you look closely, that area is smudged on all pictures...

[theavonlady 2]

No. Look carefully. Light grey smoke in the impact area at ground level.

BTW, the site you started us off on had a lot of pictures with a lot of questions. One of them was why did they sand and gravel over all the grass. Answer:

It's become a major construction site. This is what I assumed when I first saw the question.

There are other questions there that can easily be answered. The WEB is full of awesome dumbness.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 08 2002,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. Look carefully. Light grey smoke in the impact area at ground level.<span id='postcolor'>

The other darker blurs there are trees. In the ensuing explosion pics, you can distinguish their sillouhettes more accurately.

The gray smoke is coming from behind the foreground trees. That's no smudge on the lense.

[Longinius 1]

You are correct on the gravel thing, that was easy enough to answer.

I still think that is dirt though and this is why:

1. CNN shows pictures before, during and after the impact. This is the first picture and it should therefor be the before one.

2. There are smudges like that all over the picture.

3. All pictures show some kind of blur in that location.

The smudge is clearly visible in the last two pics.

[theavonlady 2]

Here are the pics.

In the first one I've circled the smoke. It does not appear as a smudge in the 2nd and 3rd pics.

In pic 2 I circled the tree, left, and a structure that looked like the top of a flight tower, which can be seen in many Pentagon pics.

In pic 3, I circled the above 2, as well as dark smoke - not in the same location as the smoke in pic 1.

[Longinius 1]

Then we will just disagree, as usual

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 08 2002,11:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then we will just disagree, as usual <span id='postcolor'>

No, you will not!

[Frizbee 0]

Okay.. Fact One: A Truck bomb, creates a huge crator in the ground upon detonation, blowing pieces of the vehicle up to a kilometre or two away. People nearby would have had pieces of truck raining down on them had it been a car or truck bomb.

There would have also been a crator outside the wall of the pentagon. Further: A truck bomb causes a different blast pattern than the impact of a plane, the destruction of the pentagon does not match that of a truck (car) bombing.

Fact Two: The Pentagon was made specifically to protect against total destruction by bombing. An aircraft hitting the building would have only damaged a small section of it, as if you look closely there are small gaps in the building between each section.

Fact Three: The aircraft didn't slam straight into the pentagon like they did with the WTC. THe Pentagon isn't high enough.. and the pilots, having not trained to any degree of good standards, miss judged the impact point and bounced off the lawn before hitting the Pentagon, further limited the damage caused, and stressing the aircraft enough that it disintergrated on impact with the building. That explains the lack of wings and major pieces of shrapnel.

It also explains the necessity for pouring sand onto the lawn, Aviation fuel, as we all know, is highly flammable.. with the fumes given off being explosive. Thus, they could not leave Aviation fuel to just soak into the ground (despite the explosion risk this is highly toxic to ground water, plants etc.) so they pour sand over it to soak it up. And top soil over that to stop any explosions while the rescue workers are doing their jobs. It will probably be removed at a later date if it has not been done already.

Fact Four: The government lied about a truck bomb to keep people from picking up on their poor security??? PLEASE!!! They already had three planes crashed due to terrorist from poor security at airports. A simple truck bomb getting into the Pentagon complex would not have diverted attention from the WTC. They had no need to lie.

Furthermore, the media were kept at a large distance away from the Pentagon, and had to use telephoto lenses to get any pictures of the area, so no pictures would pick up with enough detail, any pieces of the crashed aircraft anyhow. How can they say that there was none?

If any of you actually believe that crap about a truck bomb then you're an idiot.

[Wobble 1]

its VERy simple.. look at the fucking picture.. what do you see.. a burnt spot and on each side of it there is a track leading all the way through the boulding into the countyard.. there is no way a truck bomb could cause this..

what DID cause it was...

what is the most dense and soldi part of the plane.. the engine(s) when the plane hit the thin hollow soft center desintegrated BUT the 2 heavy dense engines carrier right through the building.. they are what created the 2 tracts through the structure..

end of conspiricy.

[ralphwiggum 6]

but why would Pentagon release this photo a day after this post was placed here? maybe they are watching us?

(*play X-Files opening song*)

[christophercles 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 10 2002,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its VERy simple.. look at the fucking picture.. what do you see.. a burnt spot and on each side of it there is a track leading all the way through the boulding into the countyard..  there is no way a truck bomb could cause this..<span id='postcolor'>

What parts are you talking about wobble? these ones in the yellow? Because i believe this was fire damage, these being the least protected parts, the fire tried to escape through the roof in these places.

Also, you can see where the plane entered in this picture, which also shows all the burnt ground from wreckage ect.

And to all the people who are saying "where is the wreckage?", perhaps the plane didnt vaporize on impact, but it could have certainly melted in the fire.

While normally aircraft fuel is made to vaporize and disapate when brought into contact with air, in the case of this crash, it would have been surounded by a building, so the fuel would be kept in a liquid state, in which case it would burn extremely quickly and very hot. Steel will melt at the 1400-1500 degree C range, and it did in the wtc crash, and thats why the building fell in on itself, and aluminium will melt at a much lower temperature. Anyone ever thrown a coke can into a simple camp fire? while i know its a different quality and type of aluminium, but it still has a much lower melting temperature than other metals. this would explain the lack of wreckage, except for the wreckage found on the lawn and the other areas around the crash site.

[Stag 0]

FYI, ladies and gents, aluminium doesn't melt. It BURNS. back when the first built the Bradley there was a lot of controversey over the use of aluminium because of this. In the end they decided it didn't matter, because the kind of temperatures needed to start the burn would only be generated by forces that would destroy the vehicle anyway.

So, drive an aluminium aircraft fully laden with fuel into a hardened target at high subsonic speed, all that kinetic energy has to go somewhere right? it's converted into heat...

Correction, it does melt, of course. But it also burns quite easily.

[christophercles 0]

yeah, you see what i mean, the wreckage isnt going to stay around after a crash with all the aircraft fuel burning.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Ehmm, what about the passengers of the plane?

I must admit that it realy appears a little bit strange that a plane his the Pentagon, but still I dont believe in a political lie. I would not discuss in terms of physics cause this is a field which you can hardly oversee. An argument may sound logical but in reality it isnt.

But strange is the fact that "the plane hit the building vertically. To fly the appropriate curve and dive deep down into Washington, stay at an altitude similar to that of the traffic lights, you must be (as I think) terribly well trained. Minutes before you must keep the plane precisely in the right tunnel, a Boeing does not allow great corrections.

Another question I ask myself is: why didnt the plane dive through the whole building?". Okay, some of you say the pentagon is build very bomb sequre, whatever. But what you think a WTT is constructed like? I am sure a plane of that size (if diving in vertically) would have cut the pentagon into seperate buildings!

But who knows?  

[Guest]

Vertically? You mean like this? :  

And yes, it is bloody hard to get a 737 to do that.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Wow wow wow, pas mal! You did it on your MS Flight simulator! Actually I meant "horizontically"! did you try that? It cant be that easy too, wihtout hitting 10 000 other buildings! (it must be horizontally cause the flames start at the outside of the builidng not in the centre)

Oh btw: I might have misinterpreted the size of the Pentagon. Do you think those realtions in size of plane and building on your screenshots are correct?

[Damage Inc 0]

Wow you are 1337 and played Flight Simulator.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 10 2002,18:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Wow wow wow, pas mal! You did it on your MS Flight simulator!

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, if it's good enough for Osama, then it's good enough for me

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Actually I meant "horizontically"! did you try that? It cant be that easy too, wihtout hitting 10 000 other buildings! (it must be horizontally cause the flames start at the outside of the builidng not in the centre)

<span id='postcolor'>

You mean like this? :

And the final crash:

This was at least as difficult as the vertical approach.

The easiest would be at 45 degrees down angle.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Oh btw: I might have misinterpreted the size of the Pentagon. Do you think those realtions in size of plane and building on your screenshots are correct?

<span id='postcolor'>

The proportions should be correct. Pentagon is one hell of a large building! They should have gone for the Whitehouse instead, much more approchable (or the Capitol building).

[theavonlady 2]

Shivers!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I agree, those screenshots are scary!

Anyhow, unfortunately does the Flight simuator only show the Pentagon in 3D, but not the surrounding buildings. So the curve must have been much sharper!

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 09 2002,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ehmm, what about the passengers of the plane?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 09 2002,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But strange is the fact that "the plane hit the building vertically. To fly the appropriate curve and dive deep down into Washington, stay at an altitude similar to that of the traffic lights, you must be (as I think) terribly well trained. Minutes before you must keep the plane precisely in the right tunnel, a Boeing does not allow great corrections. <span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure that's correct. Looking at the open area around the Pentagon, maybe even as little as a -5 degree AoA would have been sufficient

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 09 2002,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another question I ask myself is: why didnt the plane dive through the whole building?". Okay, some of you say the pentagon is build very bomb sequre, whatever. But what you think a WTT is constructed like? I am sure a plane of that size (if diving in vertically) would have cut the pentagon into seperate buildings!<span id='postcolor'>

The most powerful concrete buster of the 2nd World War was the RAF's "Grand Slam," Highly streamlined, heavily armoured, and weighing in at 10 tons The Lancaster had to be heavily modified to not only get this thing into the air, but also up to the actual altitude which would enable it to attain the velocity (I believe over mach 2) to penetrate concrete. And the best it could do was about 7 metres. with the Pentagon, you're probably not only talking about concrete, but God knows what other types of materials, and probably considerably thicker than 7 metres. Granted, the 737 would have the mass, but I doubt it had the velocity or density to penetrate armour.

If it dropped in vertically, I'm sure that there would have been some kind of crater, but with a shallow AoA, it would simply have scraped across the top of the armour.

Just a thought, if you are looking for a conspiricy; maybe that sand was put down to hide what had happened or not[/] to some of the more interesting components of the Pentagon's defences?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 09 2002,20:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But who knows?   <span id='postcolor'>

Rgr that

[Wobble 1]

lik I said the plane is not a solid object, only the engines are. the plane itself is like a giant marshmellow.. thats why the engines went through the building on each side and the plane body just made a big burn mark..

P.S. pentagon made of reinforced concrete.

also.. what about the people interviewed and the news person that died on that plane? just nade up? actors?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 10 2002,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">P.S. pentagon made of reinforced concrete...<span id='postcolor'>

But I guess that is basically true for every larger building (or at least I can say this is true in the area of hotel construction in switzerland). On the pictues that thing looks massive. I wonder what they do with the centre of the pentagon? maybe grow the presidents safest carrots, healthy cauliflower, ongions and apples?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 10 2002,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lik I said the plane is not a solid object, only the engines are. the plane itself is like a giant marshmellow.. thats why the engines went through the building on each side and the plane body just made a big burn mark..<span id='postcolor'>

But what impact does a Marshmellow have if it has the speed of a golfball? We are not talking about static plane here, we are talking about a moving one and this speed increases drastically its power.

If you would compress this whole plane into round ball, then you would probably say, wow this thing could break anything (if it has a good speed). But this is what basically happens! when the plane hits a surface it folds itself together and gains density (as you may know from cars) furthermore is a plane build in a round shape and composed of a metal skelleton which again reinforces its structure. Dont misinterpret the power of such a flying lady!

[Wobble 1]

If you would compress this whole plane into round ball, then you would probably say, wow this thing could break anything (if it has a good speed). But this is what basically happens!

if you compressed the plane into a ball you *might* have something as dense and the size of ONE of its engines.. but its not.. its larger and more spread out.. so when it hits its not a small dense object its a large soft object .. kinda like the crumple zones on a car.. they bend in on impace to lessen the jolt to the drivers.. the entire plane is like a crumple zone.. so insted of smashing through the wall like the solid dense engine.. it just crumples up like an accordian against the surface.. so insted of a violent jolt like the sold engines produce.. you have a comparativley much more gradual release of kinetic energy... so insted of POW!!.. you get SMUUUUSSSHH!!.. so the energy is exerted gradually insted all at once.. kind of like trying to push a nail into a piece of wood insted of hitting it,..

the engines hitting the building were like 2 bricks.. the body of plane itself.. a soda can... which insted of releasing all its KE upon impace.. crumples up releasing it slowly.. losing virtually all of the shock factor needed to shatter reinforced concrete..

oh as for why the pentagon is concrete.. it was build during WW2 during the massive naval buildum.. and using concrete insted of steel saved an estimated 5 ballteships worth of the steel..