Pentagon vs. Towers & Building 7

[jmb597]

For all who believe that a 757 didnt hit the pentagon, I would like you to explain why the impact of the planes made two very tall, strong buildings that were built to withstand a 707 hitting them, collapse in seconds, while leaving only a 16ft hole in the pentagon. I would also like you to explain why building 7 collapsed from only debris and fire on a few floors in seconds, while an entire 757 supposedly going into the pentagon is still standing.

http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257.php (this is someone comparing a 707 and 767 that I thought was interesting)

[Kevin Fenton]

1. 16 feet?

The hole in the Pentagon was 90 feet, not 16. 16 feet is a number Thierry Meyssan pulled out of his ear.

If you are interested in a careful analysis of the dimensions of the hole, then perhaps you would like to read this article at one of the better 9/11 sites:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

This article is quite long and makes the ocasional error, but it is also very good:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

[DemInDistress]

2. would you mind showing us that 90'ft. hole? nt

[Kevin Fenton]

5. It was in the links I provided...

... but if you can't be bothered to open them, then I can post some of the photos here.

www.911review.com says:
"The most common argument advanced to support the no-757-impact theory is that, on the one hand, there was almost no aircraft debris outside the Pentagon, but on the other, the hole in the building's facade was much too small to have admitted the plane into the building. The conclusion that no jetliner crashed there seems simple and inescapable when presented with certain photographs. However, analysis of the available photographs shows that the debris outside the building is difficult to quantify, and the dimensions of the impact hole (or more accurately, holes) are frequently underestimated."

Here's where the left wing hit:

Notice the missing wall above the white car in the photo.
This is in the section of the building that did not collapse. It is to the left of the collapse section.

Here's where the centre and right wing hit:

The hole made by the right wing extends into the section to the right of the section that collapsed.

Before criticising the official account, you might actually like to read it. You can find it here:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

[salvorhardin]

6. Self-delete

Misplaced snark.

[DemInDistress]

7. certainly doesn't look like a 90' footer..does it?

I'd say from this picture maybe 20' maybe... got something more substantive to back up that 90' foot claim?
Yes? No?.. we would appreciate any cooperation, thank you !!

[Kevin Fenton]

11. Which picture?

The collapsed section was 65 feet. There were clear holes on both sides of this, so how can it be 20 feet in total? Whatever the final figure is, it must be more than 65 feet.

Look at the picture in post 9, it makes the size fairly clear.

[jmb597]

4. No...

the hole was 16ft before a section of the wall collapsed.

[rman]

8. Only if one assumes there's a hole behind all the obscuring

smoke and water jets.

[Kevin Fenton]

10. The wall is clearly missing in the photo posted in post 9

It's not obscured by smoke and water jets.

Tobias claims it's 96 feet. I'd say he's fairly accurate.

[jmb597]

25. The wall...

is NOT clearly missing. Roof is intact here...

I just don't know that we are looking at the same photo!

[Kevin Fenton]

29. This photo

The ground floor wall is missing. You can see inside the building. Why would the roof fall down immediately?

[Make7]

33. That picture is not displaying.

Is this the one you are talking about?



(hopefully that shows up properly)

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

34. Yes, it is

It displays fine for me.

[Make7]

35. REMOTE LINKING OF IMAGES NOT ALLOWED

That's what I see instead of the picture. The same message is displayed in Netscape and Internet Explorer for me. I think your computer might be using a local copy of the picture stored in your browser's cache - I've had that issue before with pictures in my posts.

Anyway - if someone can't see it in your post, then you can point them to the copy in my post.

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

46. Thank you for your explanation

I use Firefox. Why anyone would use Internet Explorer is beyond me - it's dangerous.

[jmb597]

38. Sorry but...

the hole is not obvious so i am not sure what this proves. We all know there is a small hole there, but not big enough for a 757. Plus, was this after the wall collapsed.

[jmb597]

36. because...

no wall to support it. Do you really think the upper half of the building would be intact if a 757 flew into it?

[Kevin Fenton]

47. What are you talking about?

After the wall collapsed?

This photo was clearly taken before the section that collapsed did so. We know this because we can see it standing up.

We know the ground floor wall is missing because we can see inside the building. For example, we can see the fires there. We know the first floor wall is intact, because we can see it.

With reference to the fact that the wall did not support the upper floors (they were supported by columns inside the building), why would the destruction of the wall on the ground floor immediately cause the roof to collapse?

As far as I can make out you are arguing that (1) there is no significant hole, (2) the building should have fallen down because the hole is so big, and (3) the building has already fallen down. There appears to be a contradiction here.

[simonm]

3. I am unsure of what to believe

But one thing I am sure about is that they are hiding something. The video tapes should not be secret.

[Kevin Fenton]

13. They're not really hiding anything

It's just something to distract us from the WTC.

[rman]

14. Except for the videos of the Pentagon impact

The one from the gas station and the one from the hotel.

They're hiding something.

[Kevin Fenton]

19. I'll rephrase it

The evidence available to the public is sufficient to determine whether the plane was hit by a Boeing 757 or not (it was). In this regard, I don't think the videos would change things much.

If one of the videos not yet available shows the plane's tail number, then it would definitely be evidence worth seeing - oops, I forgot about this originally.

[rman]

21. It is sufficient in your opinion, not in the opinion of many others.

[Kevin Fenton]

22. Then they should have another, closer look at it

The vast majority of Meyssan's arguments were not just wrong, but intirely ficticious, for example:
(1) The plane passed through two walls, not six;
(2) The walls were not reinforced concrete, but masonry and limestone;
(3) The part it hit was not empty;
(4) It hit the edge of the renovated section, not the middle;
(5) The renovations did next to nothing to mitigate the effect of the impact damage;
(6) The video stills are clear fakes;
(7) The eyewitnesses generally think it was a medium-haul jetliner, not a missile.
Etc.

What do you honestly think? 757 or not?

[jmb597]

26. The video WOULD change much...

we could actually SEE a plane! How would that not change things? Why is it that we were allowed to see the planes go into the World Trade Towers over and over again, but we aren't allowed to see even stills of the pentagon?

[MrSammo1]

17. Or hide what really happened there?

[Tobias]

9. The hole was arround 96 ft., see this pic:

[Kevin Fenton]

12. Good picture!

And welcome to DU.

[MrSammo1]

16. But not big enough for a 757.

Plus no vertical stabilizer mark!

[mirandapriestly]

18. The exit hole is what freaks me out

I mean, what had the momentum to make it all that way without being destroyed? Plus where are the parts?



I can't tell from looking at that picture if it is from plane contact. Pictures I've seen look like it could be cracking.
(I mean the entrance picture)

[Kevin Fenton]

20. Parts

The photo you posted was taken after the parts were cleared up. He's one before they were cleared up:

See, plenty of parts.

Here's another picture of A-E drive, supposedly opposite the punchout hole. It appears to have been taken soon after the hole was made:

See, lots more parts.

Here's a photo showing the punchout hole from the inside:

5N is the last column in the way of the debris flow before the punchout hole. It has clearly suffered mechanical damage, indicating that the debris flow contained large pieces capable of causing such damage.

[jmb597]

27. I don't see parts here...

now, what made that perfect round hole and then conveniently fell in little pieces once the impact was done? MAKES NO SENSE and to me, you are clearly reaching.

[Kevin Fenton]

31. What do you see then?

Here's another photo of the punchout hole with some green plane debris conveniently circled:


What made the hole?
Probably parts of this:

[jmb597]

40. You think that little pile was strong enough to make that hole...

I am seriously laughing right now. Prove it made that hole. Prove the parts of the wheels did it. Jesus.

[mirandapriestly]

45. Oh, that is what I said and I didn't see yours first, I swear..nt ;)

[jmb597]

28. IF the plane disenegrated as it went through the pentagon...

how are these columns still standing? How did they supposedly identify the people in the plane? the story is clearly bogus and it makes me very angry thinking we would believe this story.

[Kevin Fenton]

30. Columns

"IF the plane disenegrated as it went through the pentagon how are these columns still standing?"
Clearly, every single column in the whole Pentagon should not have been destroyed by the debris. You must identify specific columns using their numbers. Then, perhaps, you might have a coherent point.

"How did they supposedly identify the people in the plane?"
DNA analysis mostly.

[jmb597]

39. so what you are telling me is....

an entire plane disappears, but individuals DNA is easily found? BULLSH_T

[Kevin Fenton]

48. If you stopped overstating...

... I might be worried you had a point.

Who said the DNA was "easily found"? Some people weren't identified at all.

There are tons of wreckage, so why do you think the plane disappeared?

[jmb597]

53. tons of wreckage?

Or tons of scraps from furniture, walls, and whatever else was in the room. That is what the so called wreckage looks like.

And as far as the DNA goes...you are right...some of the victims weren't identified, including the hijackers...

[jmb597]

42. also

I am not saying every column, I am talking about the one that is shown in the pic. Because, if a plane is disenegrating- due to fire right? I would think the columns would be weak as well. But no...its still standing...a 757 just passed through its still there. Where did they say the wings were?

[Kevin Fenton]

50. Specifically...

Why do you think the plane "disintegrated" due to the fire?

With reference to the fact that the columns were made from reinforced concrete, why should they weaken in the fire?

[jmb597]

52. because if the plane was just flying through the building...

and getting smaller while hitting columns things, then there would still be huge chunks of the plane, not little tiny pieces. It's ludicrous to think the plane would keep going to the point that its dust there would be NO WAY the exit hole could be made if that was the case anyway. How can you explain that? Plus, if a 757 hit the world trade Center and was supposedly the cause of the collapse, then how is the pentagon still standing? WHERE IS THE GOD DAMN PLANE?

I am sorry, but that concrete column still standing right in the middle where the plane supposedly hit, only says to me that a 757 didn't really go though there. If the plane disentegrated going through that area, I would think an impact of a 757 that weighs tons and was going 300-500 miles per hour would have made that column weak to the point of collapsing...especially if the impact was strong enough to tear the plane in tiny pieces. I just don't buy it.

[jmb597]

43. Looking at the pic of the inside with that column...

makes it even more apparent that a 757 didnt go thorugh it...look at the ceiling! you think a 757, which is ENORMOUS, got through there without demolishing everything? wow!

[Kevin Fenton]

51. What...

Is the ceiling made of and what is the plane made of?

[jmb597]

55. here is the thing...

that picture of the inside...I am assuming that is the ground floor because of the exit hole. Correct me if I am wrong.

Anyway, the Pentagon is 77 ft. high, a 757 is 44 ft high which includes the tail. If the plane did not touch the ground, but flew directly into the pentagon going 300-500 miles per hour, more than the ground floor and 1st floor would be gone-INCLUDING THE ROOF IN THAT PICTURE. Plus, the plane had to have been flying SEVERAL ft above the ground, which would indicate that the upper levels INCLUDING THE GROUND FLOOR CEILING would be destroyed. The Pentagon is 5 stories high.

[mirandapriestly]

44. So, a plane makes it through those rings, blasts a hole in the exit

then falls apart into small pieces? (+ I don't know what those pieces are) I dunno, I'm NOT SAYING there wasn't a plane, but I can understand the skepticism. Plus,if I'm not mistaken, the hole looks larger than the planes' circumference. I've seen a comparison and the hole was a lot larger.

[jmb597]

23. how is it that...

the roof is intact? This picture only proves there was no plane.

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Why...

... should a plane hitting the ground floor and first floor cause the roof to collapse?

[jmb597]

41. because of the tail.

Because it didn't hit the ground before entering...

[Kevin Fenton]

49. Specifically...

Why should the lightweight aluminium tail impacting a heavy non-load-bearing element cause the roof to collapse?

[jmb597]

54. If the tail went in, it would have done damage to higher places...

the hole doesn't even FIT the tail to begin with. AND if it fell off at some point, then it would be lying in the lawn or inside the pentagon for us all to see - same for the wings.

[MrSammo1]

15. collapse in seconds............

It didn't take seconds.......and it wasn't the jets that caused the Towers to collapse.

It was explosives.

But the jet impacts at the Towers do prove one thing. That a jet didn't hit the Pentagon.

The clear outline of the damage done to the steel box columns can clearly be seen.

[jmb597]

24. oh, I meant that WHEN the towers collapsed, it collapsed in seconds.

I also believe it was explosives. My point is that I would like someone to compare the 4 buildings and let me know why the pentagon withstood a plane going into it. And whatever the size of the hole, its still wasn't big enough for a 757 to go through it. It's mind boggling to see the pics and the 16 foot hole on the inside wall and still believe a plane was there. WHERE IS THE PLANE?!

[MrSammo1]

37. I've had contact with Jim Fetzer

about this subject. He and professor Jones are going to do an experiment concerning the steel compared to the all important limestone facing.