Russian Skyscraper Fire vs. 9/11

[daddy8ball]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon

The Pentagon
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.

Big Plane, Small Holes
Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile—part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."


Hole Truth: Flight 77's landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon's Ring C. (Photograph by Department of Defense)FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Intact Windows
Claim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece—even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do—they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Flight 77 Debris
Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"


Aftermath: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn—proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

[jwb]

Show me a video that clearly shows an airliner. If it is not an airliner then what is it?

And who knows why they did not fake an airliner in the footage. Perhaps they figured enough fools would buy it anyway - which they have, including you! The 4 frames that were released clearly shows a much smaller object flying into the Pentagon. We know the dimensions of the airliner and the Pentagon. That object is not an airliner.

have you even looked at a map of where the plane entered the pentagon?

It came in right over Arlington national cementary, not a built up area with lots of CCTV.

[daddy8ball]

Here's the thing about 9-11 conspiracy theorists: There is no evidence in existence, or evidence that CAN exist, that will dissuade them from their beliefs. Nothing.

If video footage existed that CLEARLY showed a plane hitting the Pentagon, in HD, it would be labeled fake. Doctored. CGI.

If CCTV footage existed of the interior of the WTC..clearly showing no people planting demolitions -- that would be labeled doctored as well.

In fact, anything put forth, (not to mention the mountains of peer reviewed, professional papers by multitude of PHD engineers - which DO exist -- and absolutely mathematically NAIL the cause of the WTC collapse) is automatically dismissed out of hand.

There is simply no convincing, or arguing with them. It's fun to point out how silly their stances are (why a controlled demolition..which takes months to set up..as opposed to a politically more effective...and easier uncontrolled demolition)..but one has to know that no matter what arguments you proffer..they will ultimately be labeled as wrong and you will be labeled as a "sheep" who doesn't "get it".

[jwb]

Here's the thing about 9-11 conspiracy theorists: There is no evidence in existence, or evidence that CAN exist, that will dissuade them from their beliefs. Nothing.

If video footage existed that CLEARLY showed a plane hitting the Pentagon, in HD, it would be labeled fake. Doctored. CGI.

If CCTV footage existed of the interior of the WTC..clearly showing no people planting demolitions -- that would be labeled doctored as well.

In fact, anything put forth, (not to mention the mountains of peer reviewed, professional papers by multitude of PHD engineers - which DO exist -- and absolutely mathematically NAIL the cause of the WTC collapse) is automatically dismissed out of hand.

There is simply no convincing, or arguing with them. It's fun to point out how silly their stances are (why a controlled demolition..which takes months to set up..as opposed to a politically more effective...and easier uncontrolled demolition)..but one has to know that no matter what arguments you proffer..they will ultimately be labeled as wrong and you will be labeled as a "sheep" who doesn't "get it".

i just like making people look as stupid as they indeed are...

[Radical Plato]

Here's the thing about 9-11 conspiracy theorists: There is no evidence in existence, or evidence that CAN exist, that will dissuade them from their beliefs. Nothing.

If video footage existed that CLEARLY showed a plane hitting the Pentagon, in HD, it would be labeled fake. Doctored. CGI.

If CCTV footage existed of the interior of the WTC..clearly showing no people planting demolitions -- that would be labeled doctored as well.

In fact, anything put forth, (not to mention the mountains of peer reviewed, professional papers by multitude of PHD engineers - which DO exist -- and absolutely mathematically NAIL the cause of the WTC collapse) is automatically dismissed out of hand.

There is simply no convincing, or arguing with them. It's fun to point out how silly their stances are (why a controlled demolition..which takes months to set up..as opposed to a politically more effective...and easier uncontrolled demolition)..but one has to know that no matter what arguments you proffer..they will ultimately be labeled as wrong and you will be labeled as a "sheep" who doesn't "get it".

Everything you argue is basically what can be said about those who oppose the official story, no amount of evidence contrary to what  you believe will persuade you.  Thousands of highly educated professionals have come forth and disputed the official story.  The video evidence that shows the towers collapsing exactly the way they do during controlled demolitions is indisputable, even a child can see the uncanny resemblance.  The official story began circulating within hours of the collapse, and was reinforced by paid Government sponsored academics from then on. 

No different than say when an Oil company has a serious spill, uses toxic chemicals to clean up and the moment people start getting sick and dying they use Public relations and the media, highly paid academics and propaganda to convince the Public that the sick and dying are liars and lack credibility and their shit is in fact gold.  this is a well worn tactic used by Rich Powerful organisations, They have done it with tobacco, alcohol, asbestos, dangerous chemicals, dangerous drugs, you name it, if you have enough power and money you can make the people believe whatever you like.

[quadzilla456]

If video footage existed that CLEARLY showed a plane hitting the Pentagon, in HD, it would be labeled fake. Doctored. CGI.

So now you are admitting there is no evidence of a plane in the video of the Pentagon. That is very telling. It is more concerning that there is no plane in the video than if there was one in it. Even if doctored. Why would they remove a plane from the video when their official story is an airliner crashed into the building?? lol!!!

There is no plane in the video. 4 frames is enough to determine this because the object flying into the Pentagon can be seen in these 4 frames and it is not the correct size or shape to be an airliner as claimed. End of story!

[daddy8ball]

So now you are admitting there is no evidence of a plane in the video of the Pentagon. That is very telling. It is more concerning that there is no plane in the video than if there was one in it. Even if doctored. Why would they remove a plane from the video when their official story is an airliner crashed into the building?? lol!!!

There is no plane in the video. 4 frames is enough to determine this because the object flying into the Pentagon can be seen in these 4 frames and it is not the correct size or shape to be an airliner as claimed. End of story!

No, that's not what I'm admitting at all. If I was going to admit it, I would say it clearly. I've seen the low frame count CCTV footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. I can see how a CT would take the one frame showing an object (a plane that's already clipped poles and bounced off the ground) and twist it to any manner of objects as they see fit.

The CCTV youtube video is a plane. There is a plane missing. We have calls from people on that plane prior to it crashing We have eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash. We have workers who handled the bodies of the crew.

What is telling, here, is that you completely ignore all that. Completely.

[Agnostic007]

"In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.

Go figure."

So... the guy who is legally liable if the structure was poorly designed....suggests it was a planned demolition?

[jwb]

"In fact, the Structural Engineer who designed the buildings said they could withstand three 747 jets hitting them at the same time.

Go figure."

So... the guy who is legally liable if the structure was poorly designed....suggests it was a planned demolition?

The structural engineer never said anything of the sort.

[daddy8ball]

Just leaving this here:
Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.

9/11 demolition theory challenged

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm

Dr. Keith A. Seffen

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/

Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

"Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi

 

 Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

 

More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse...

 

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis"  (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G. 
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
 “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of  Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell:  A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

[quadzilla456]

OH, Like the eyewitness says?

TIM TIMMERMAN, EYEWITNESS: I sure am.

FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw. TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.

And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.

FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?

TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.

FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?

TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.

FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...

TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.

FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.

TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.

You mean this ground? Most of the energy went into this ground? I want a Pentagon Lawn - it is fucking indestructible!

This witness is probably a CIA agent. Clearly a liar.

[daddy8ball]

You mean this ground? Most of the energy went into this ground? I want a Pentagon Lawn - it is fucking indestructible!

This witness is probably a CIA agent. Clearly a liar.

There were many, many eyewitnesses who saw the plane. Are they all CIA agent liars?

[quadzilla456]

Here is what you would expect if it hit the ground first:







And you know what, even if it did not hit the ground the engines at a minimum would have dragged the lawn as it crashed into the ground floor.

[quadzilla456]

There were many, many eyewitnesses who saw the plane. Are they all CIA agent liars?

Well obviously Timmerman is. I am just responding to his interview. He said most of the energy was dissipated when hitting the ground. Obviously that is a lie. The lawn shows no signs of impact. So what is it?

Let's just take this one step at a time. Debate on this instead of calling everyone liars. You are avoiding the questions being raised. What's your explanation?

[daddy8ball]

Well obviously Timmerman is. I am just responding to his interview. He said most of the energy was dissipated when hitting the ground. Obviously that is a lie. The lawn shows no signs of impact. So what is it?

Let's just take this one step at a time. Debate on this instead of calling everyone liars. You are avoiding the questions being raised. What's your explanation?

I think this should do nicely. Let me know if you have any questions: 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

[arce1988]

 I was USMC and I do NOT trust the USA

[quadzilla456]

I think this should do nicely. Let me know if you have any questions: 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

That has nothing to do with my question about Tim Timmerman. What are your thoughts on Tim Timmerman's claim that it hit the ground first? is he mistaken perhaps?

[daddy8ball]

That has nothing to do with my question about Tim Timmerman. What are your thoughts on Tim Timmerman's claim that it hit the ground first? is he mistaken perhaps?

Why would he be mistaken? Are glancing impacts unknown to you? How do you think gliders landed during the D-Day assault in WW2? The effect of a plane when it hits the ground depends upon a lot of factors -- speed and angle, for example.

Are you saying that any time a plane touches the ground, regardless of circumstance, it immediately bursts into flames and causes a crater?

Seriously?

[quadzilla456]

Why would he be mistaken? Are glancing impacts unknown to you? How do you think gliders landed during the D-Day assault in WW2? The effect of a plane when it hits the ground depends upon a lot of factors -- speed and angle, for example.

Are you saying that any time a plane touches the ground, regardless of circumstance, it immediately bursts into flames and causes a crater?

Seriously?

LOL, it does if it is crashing. This was not a controlled landing?!

You sound so dumb in your arguments. What's your IQ?

[daddy8ball]

LOL, it does if it is crashing. This was not a controlled landing?!

You sound so dumb in your arguments. What's your IQ?

The pilot was attempting to hit the Pentagon, not crash into the ground. Logic dictates this would be a low approach (as the CCTV footage -- and the eye witness accounts support).

Instead of questioning my IQ, and labeling my arguments as "dumb" -- why don't you provide some credible evidence that it is simply impossible for a plane to have glancing impact on the ground? Thanks.

In all, there were 189 deaths at the Pentagon site, including the 125 in the Pentagon building in addition to the 64 on board the aircraft. Passenger Barbara Olson was en route to a taping of Politically Incorrect.[45] A group of children, their chaperones, and National Geographic Society staff members were also on board, embarking on an educational trip west to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California. [46] The fatalities at the Pentagon included 55 military personnel and 70 civilians.[47] Of those 125 killed, 92 were on the first floor, 31 were on the second floor, and two were on the third.[48] The Army suffered 75 fatalities—far more than any other branch. Another 106 injured were treated at area hospitals.[48] Lieutenant General Timothy Maude, an Army Deputy Chief of Staff, was the highest-ranking military officer killed at the Pentagon; also killed was retired Rear Admiral Wilson Flagg, a passenger on the plane.[49]

On the side where the plane hit, the Pentagon is bordered by Interstate 395 and Washington Boulevard. Motorist Mary Lyman, who was on I-395, saw the airplane pass over at a "steep angle toward the ground and going fast" and then saw the cloud of smoke from the Pentagon.[51] Omar Campo, another witness, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the airplane flew over his head.
"I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here".[52]

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work and stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the airplane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."[52] Daryl Donley witnessed the crash and took some of the first photographs of the site.[53]

The collapsed area and subsequent fire damage.
USA Today reporter Mike Walter was driving on Washington Boulevard when he witnessed the crash, which he recounted,
"I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon".[54]
Terrance Kean, who lived in a nearby apartment building, heard the noise of loud jet engines, glanced out his window, and saw a "very, very large passenger jet". He watched "it just plow right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere."[55]Tim Timmerman, who is a pilot himself, noticed American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon.[56] Other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike witnessed the crash, as did people in Pentagon City, Crystal City, and other nearby locations.[51]

[quadzilla456]

The pilot was attempting to hit the Pentagon, not crash into the ground. Logic dictates this would be a low approach (as the CCTV footage -- and the eye witness accounts support).

Instead of questioning my IQ, and labeling my arguments as "dumb" -- why don't you provide some credible evidence that it is simply impossible for a plane to have glancing impact on the ground? Thanks.

But the eyewitness Tim Timmerman said it crashed into the ground first. Regardless, because of the size of the plane and how low it crashed it would have dragged the lawn. Even a controlled landing would have ripped the shit out of the lawn. That lawn had no signs of distress whatsoever.

[daddy8ball]

But the eyewitness Tim Timmerman said it crashed into the ground first. Regardless, because of the size of the plane and how low it crashed it would have dragged the lawn. Even a controlled landing would have ripped the shit out of the lawn. That lawn had no signs of distress whatsoever.

The part of the lawn you see in the photos directly in front of the impact site.

 If it was a glancing impact (akin to a stone skipping on water), then after the glancing contact, the plane would then "skip" back into the air. The plane did this, and actually impacted between the first and second floors of the Pentagon. Therefore, before impact, the plane was airborne and not dragging on the lawn.

Hope this helps.

[Seven Copper Coins]

Those are plane crash pictures, jets that lost power and fell from the sky. They flew the jet under power into the side of the building...they were aiming for the building.

I love the way you people compare apples and oranges and go "A-HAaaa!!"

E-kul has said about 20 times now it's "exactly" the same as a controlled demolotion. the only thing that is similar is that gravity works and the building fell straight down. In every controlled demo vid i watch, they film it from a half mile away and you can hear dozens of sequential explosions echoing for miles, a deaf person could hear them.But the govt managed to mask the largest demo ever so that the 500 film crews there didnt pick up what would have been hundreds of detonations.

When pressed he says  Well, I'm not sure of the technology the govt has...that's all they have..guessing and assuming.

[tommywishbone]

This news just in!!  The sun actually isn't hot at all. The sun is only about 75 degrees. It's just a conspiracy between the government and air conditioner salesmen, to get us to buy expensive air conditioners.

[quadzilla456]

The part of the lawn you see in the photos directly in front of the impact site.

 If it was a glancing impact (akin to a stone skipping on water), then after the glancing contact, the plane would then "skip" back into the air. The plane did this, and actually impacted between the first and second floors of the Pentagon. Therefore, before impact, the plane was airborne and not dragging on the lawn.

Hope this helps.

Haha ok. A glancing stone. Oh brother.