Clear evidence for why the Pentagon hit makes no sense

[spooked911]

This frame (frame 2) of the officially released video:


The bright white flash here strongly suggests the explosion is taking place AT IMPACT, right at the wall.

If this were the case. the plane HAD to have blown up-- at this point-- right outside the wall.


This means the explosion should have blown up most of the plane, if not all of it, OUTSIDE the Pentagon. At minimum, this explosion should have left many large pieces of plane all over the lawn.

Yet relatively few plane pieces were visible on the lawn.

This means, either the video is completely fabricated or the explosion shown had nothing to do with a plane crash.

[k-robjoe]

1. Apropos

"TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian military transport plane crashed into a 10-story apartment building as it was trying to make an emergency landing Tuesday, ripping open the top of the structure and igniting a huge fire. At least 128 people were killed — 34 on the ground. (...)

Firefighters managed to put out the fire in the building, which was damaged and charred but still standing.
(...)
The C-130 aircraft had just taken off from the nearby Mehrabad Airport en route to the southern port of Bandar Abbas. The plane experienced a technical problem and was returning to the airport for an emergency landing when it hit the building, state-run television said."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_plane_crash;_ylt=Ant3D4WC3IBRNRFEi6wfcI_lWMcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGVna3NhBHNlYwNzc3JlbA--

[spooked911]

2. Yes, this would seem to be quite different from what happened on 9/11

from your link: "Most of the plane fell at the base of the building, smashing parked cars and damaging the structure's support columns. Witness Mohammad Khatibi said the fuselage fell nearly straight down after the wing hit the top of the building. Wreckage was scattered over a wide area."

So much for planes going into buildings and vaporizing and so forth. Also, it seems as though the building withstood the hit quite well.

[Kevin Fenton]

4. How fast do you think it was going? (n/t)

[hack89]

9. self deleted

[philb]

16. It seems the hit today by big Iran plane on building left the building

standing. I don't know the details but to what degree was that similar to WTC?

[Kevin Fenton]

3. Either it's a fake or it's missile

If that picture is real, the Pentagon was hit by a missile.

Here's the picture of the object approaching the Pentagon:


Here's a picture of what we would see if a 757 were present:


However, I don't think they're real. I must have posted this link:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm
about a million times. Have you read the bit about the photos yet?

[hack89]

5. Think for a second...

Where is the fuel on an airliner - in the relatively flimsy wings.

Where is the center of mass of an airliner - the fuselage. There is no fuel in the fuselage.

It seem pretty clear to me that what you are seeing is the fuel in the wings exploding on impact and disintegrating the wings. The fuselage did not explode (no fuel remember) and penetrated the building.

[spooked911]

6. oh yeah-- wings disintegrate ALL THE TIME when a plane hits something

and blows up.

However, I do believe having the wings blow up would cause the fuselage to break apart some.

[hack89]

7. They do ..

what else would you expect volatile aviation fuel to do in a crash? Give me a break!

Your second point might be relevant except half the fuselage would be inside the building before the wings impacted and exploded - right?

[spooked911]

10. And the other half would blow up outside-- which is precisely my point

[hack89]

14. Not quite right...

First off, the explosion you see is a low pressure explosion as fuel is atomized and ignited. It is not comparable in any way to a high explosive detonation, where there is barely any flame but rather a quick black puff of smoke. The fuel explosion would not generate the destructive shock waves that high explosives would.

Secondly, as Lared has pointed out, all that wreckage is still moving towards the building at 500 feet per second.

[spooked911]

12. Also, there is typically fuel in the center fuel tank. Surely that would

blow if the wing tanks went.

[ixion]

25. but where's the debris field, then?

there would be debris left from the plane, including the area BEHIND the wings, which would be pushed AWAY from the building by the force of the explosion. There would be a huge section of the tail, at the very least, I would think.

[LARED]

8. Please explain how a white flash strongly suggests

the explosion took place at impact, verses say 100 milliseconds after impact when at least some of the jet was inside.

Lets say the jet was moving 340 MPH. That equates to 500 feet per second at impact. At those speeds it is not possible to determine if that image was at impact or some time after.

BTW, even if what you are theorizing is true, the exploding jet is still moving at 500 feet per sec into the building.

[spooked911]

11. Surely the impact slowed things down

Regarding your point about the flash-- if it blew up inside, we wouldn't see the flash. Surely you're not telling me the explosion was disconnected from the plane itself.

[LARED]

13. If what you are saying is true, then why

do we see fireballs exiting the WTC after the aircraft are inside?

[spooked911]

17. I'm not talking about the fireballs-- I'm talking about this bright flash

--which we didn't see with either wtc hit. The bright flash would indictae the exact point of detonation. I don't buy at all that the plane exploded and then somehow the fuselage continued in.

[janedoe]

19. How long does it take for 100% of the fuel to ignite?

Also, I just see one fireball. Shouldn't we at least see two?
(One for each wing.)

[spooked911]

22. Indeed. Also, if it was the wings blowing up, wouldn't we see the tail

sticking out of the flash?

[Kevin Fenton]

23. Generator

If the stills weren't faked, we might also see the generator, fence, construction equipment, firetruck, etc.

[philb]

15. I thought there was general agreement that the picures are a hoax

There have been lots posted on this and I thought virtually everyone agreed these pictures were fake.

The blast color is not the color of a gasoline explosion- as at WTC
If this is real what happened at Pentagon was not same as at WTC.

As you note, the explosion appears outside the building and above the building primarily, and at that time the building was still intack so it makes no sense how there could be an explosion above the Pentagon other than the primary explosion was outside. such as at the trailer.

[spooked911]

18. I think frame one that shows some sort of "plane" is fake

I think the other frames show the real explosive event.

What actually happened there is a diffeent story.

[rman]

20. How do you explain the date- and time stamp,

and the skipping of a whole second in that sequence of images?

[spooked911]

21. Stupidity? I don't know-- how do you explain it?

[rman]

24. I think it's doctored.

At any rate i think there are to many anomalies in this footage for it to be considered reliable.