| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: The Pentagon Holes |
 |
|
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You want to elaborate a bit on why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's the exit hole. On the inside of ring "C" and caused by landing gear getting that far, as I recall.
Note the "no parking" sign.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | That's the exit hole. On the inside of ring "C" and caused by landing gear getting that far, as I recall.
Note the "no parking" sign. |
Obviously an aircraft will have three sets of landing gear - one under the nose and one either side further back.
When you say 'landing gear' - which do you refer to - one set or all three sets?
The reason I ask is the accompanying picture was taken inside The Pentagon of the landing gear (hence the use of artifical light/flash) - so if the picture was taken 'indoors' - how do this tie in with the pic of the hole?
In other words, if the landing gear punched a hole that size, wouldn't it be 'outside' (between rings) and not inside under cover? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | That's the exit hole. On the inside of ring "C" and caused by landing gear getting that far, as I recall.
Note the "no parking" sign. |
Obviously an aircraft will have three sets of landing gear - one under the nose and one either side further back.
When you say 'landing gear' - which do you refer to - one set or all three sets?
The reason I ask is the accompanying picture was taken inside The Pentagon of the landing gear (hence the use of artifical light/flash) - so if the picture was taken 'indoors' - how do this tie in with the pic of the hole?
In other words, if the landing gear punched a hole that size, wouldn't it be 'outside' (between rings) and not inside under cover? |
Different sets of landing gear in different places seems favourite. And likely I'd have thought, given the obstacle course of concrete and steel they went through.
p.s. they're not "holes" , there's only one shown in the original post.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woodee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
that chap looks rather contrasty against his backdrop doesn't he?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| just something id like conformation on by anyone critical to what im about to ask. from the front of the pentagon the hole dosnt look very large either, now because of this people say a plane cannot fit through it. however the explaination for this is that the plane hit steel reinforced concrete wall(alot stronger compared to the towers), using the point to explain away the small hole in the pentagon(which sounds reasonable maybe). so the pentagon was obviously very strong not to leave a gapeing hole like the towers, so how did the landing gear which is smaller than the plane in mass manage to go through 3 rings and cause a hole not far of the size of the hole where the plane hit? it just seems amazing that the pentagon is so strong it only left a small hole compared to plane mass but at the same time so weak the landing gear crashed though 3 steel reinforced concrete walls and left a hole worthy of the size of the landing gear. this is not comment to prove anything wrong just a comment to get confirmation this is what is being said happened at the pentagon. plane mass compared to hole, and landing gear mass compared to hole just seems a little strange and am wondering why the much heavier engines did not have the same effect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | just something id like conformation on by anyone critical to what im about to ask. from the front of the pentagon the hole dosnt look very large either, now because of this people say a plane cannot fit through it. however the explaination for this is that the plane hit steel reinforced concrete wall(alot stronger compared to the towers), using the point to explain away the small hole in the pentagon(which sounds reasonable maybe). so the pentagon was obviously very strong not to leave a gapeing hole like the towers, so how did the landing gear which is smaller than the plane in mass manage to go through 3 rings and cause a hole not far of the size of the hole where the plane hit? it just seems amazing that the pentagon is so strong it only left a small hole compared to plane mass but at the same time so weak the landing gear crashed though 3 steel reinforced concrete walls and left a hole worthy of the size of the landing gear. this is not comment to prove anything wrong just a comment to get confirmation this is what is being said happened at the pentagon. plane mass compared to hole, and landing gear mass compared to hole just seems a little strange and am wondering why the much heavier engines did not have the same effect. |
The way I envisage it, is that all the heavy parts of the plane went through the front wall, then what happened to the various bits depended on what columns and so on they hit inside, the landing gear that came out through the wall into the C ring by chance missing anything substantial so that it still had sufficient energy to penetrate the wall. On the ground floor the building was continuous, without rings before the C ring, so that it penetrated two walls, one on the way in and one on the way out.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Then Daddy Bear said "Who has been eating my porridge.....?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thats just a presumtion and dosnt answer anything unless you expect me just believe it on your say so. and it dosnt answer the question about why the whole plane was only strong enough to cause a small hole in one wall, but the landing gear was strong to cause holes in 3 or more walls? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ...... and landing gear mass compared to hole just seems a little strange and am wondering why the much heavier engines did not have the same effect. |
Part of the answer is in the original photos.
That inner wall is 2 layers of brick.
Are aircraft engines heavier than the landing gear? Bear in mind a lot of that massively strong mechanism is tucked away inside the plane. Dunno. In any case it would depend what the engine hit on the way through.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do any pictures exist of what punched out the final hole? In other words, has anyone ever seen the landing gear/whatever outside of the final hole in the daylight?
It must have been a substantial chunk to create such a large hole - where is it, it would definitely have been captured on film? You see fireman walking about soon after the event - the really heavy metal part was just 'moved'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ...... and landing gear mass compared to hole just seems a little strange and am wondering why the much heavier engines did not have the same effect. |
Part of the answer is in the original photos.
That inner wall is 2 layers of brick.
Are aircraft engines heavier than the landing gear? Bear in mind a lot of that massively strong mechanism is tucked away inside the plane. Dunno. In any case it would depend what the engine hit on the way through. |
massivley isnt the word id use to descibe that hole that was made by the landing gear. also i like the way you avoid the rest of the post and just ignore it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ...... and landing gear mass compared to hole just seems a little strange and am wondering why the much heavier engines did not have the same effect. |
Part of the answer is in the original photos.
That inner wall is 2 layers of brick.
Are aircraft engines heavier than the landing gear? Bear in mind a lot of that massively strong mechanism is tucked away inside the plane. Dunno. In any case it would depend what the engine hit on the way through. |
are we now suggesting that only the outer wall of the pentagon is steel reinforced concrete? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ...... and landing gear mass compared to hole just seems a little strange and am wondering why the much heavier engines did not have the same effect. |
Part of the answer is in the original photos.
That inner wall is 2 layers of brick.
Are aircraft engines heavier than the landing gear? Bear in mind a lot of that massively strong mechanism is tucked away inside the plane. Dunno. In any case it would depend what the engine hit on the way through. |
massivley isnt the word id use to descibe that hole that was made by the landing gear. also i like the way you avoid the rest of the post and just ignore it |
No need to be so aggressive.
I thought I was answering the pertinent points of your post in good faith.
What is it about the Pentagon damage that you find inconsistent with the impact of a 757 travelling at high speed?
Incidentally the CT site 911research.wtc7.net has an essay by Hoffman which decribes The Pentagon attack as a "booby trap" for 9/11 truthers. It's worth reading and may answer many of your questions :
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Incidentally the CT site 911research.wtc7.net has an essay by Hoffman which decribes The Pentagon attack as a "booby trap" for 9/11 truthers. |
So they are setting booby traps. I wonder why they feel the need to do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ...... and landing gear mass compared to hole just seems a little strange and am wondering why the much heavier engines did not have the same effect. |
Part of the answer is in the original photos.
That inner wall is 2 layers of brick.
Are aircraft engines heavier than the landing gear? Bear in mind a lot of that massively strong mechanism is tucked away inside the plane. Dunno. In any case it would depend what the engine hit on the way through. |
are we now suggesting that only the outer wall of the pentagon is steel reinforced concrete? |
read :
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
for information on the building structure, and a lot more
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | Incidentally the CT site 911research.wtc7.net has an essay by Hoffman which decribes The Pentagon attack as a "booby trap" for 9/11 truthers. |
So they are setting booby traps. I wonder why they feel the need to do that. |
It's by a noted CTist who's actually trying to defend your cause, blackcat. He's trying to warn fellow CTists away from making fools of themselves by creating a "booby trap" for themselves.
Maybe you should have read the article before making your remarks?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | Incidentally the CT site 911research.wtc7.net has an essay by Hoffman which decribes The Pentagon attack as a "booby trap" for 9/11 truthers. |
So they are setting booby traps. I wonder why they feel the need to do that. |
It's by a noted CTist who's actually trying to defend your cause, blackcat. He's trying to warn fellow CTists away from making fools of themselves by creating a "booby trap" for themselves.
Maybe you should have read the article before making your remarks? |
Instead of citing 'articles' to explain things away;
Something substantial travelling at speed would have needed to have made this - bearing in mind 'it' passed through a combined thickness of 9ft of reinforced concrete all the time losing velocity.
Having reached the final wall and then making such a large punchout hole;
1) I picture a wrecking ball when I see the hole - yet there is nothing whatsoever that suggests what made it. One engine remained outside The Pentagon, the other passed through 3 walls/9ft of concrete? Where is one single picture of what created the hole? If it was landing gear - it would be plainly visible.
2) Having made the hole, the object then suddenly loses all impetus and drops to the ground immediately outside, bumps gently up against the next outer wall or falls between rings? How can an object that generated such a huge hole in a concrete wall, then lose all forward motion and then not continue on to at least dent the next upright surface?
Forget the articles - try and answer yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I did read it and I am aware that it is fellow truthseekers who are warning against it becoming a "booby trap". Since it is blatant that no 757 hit the pentagon I think they lack the courage of their convictions. To assume the powers that be are sitting on evidence to use it for maximum effect is the same as suggesting the ptb need to cover something up or else why would they do so? If they had evidence of a 757 hitting the pentagon we would have seen it years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whats more interesting is that the metal poles in the walls seems to bend outwards in those shots. The damage (not debris) in that shot looks like the impact came from inside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
1) I picture a wrecking ball when I see the hole - yet there is nothing whatsoever that suggests what made it. One engine remained outside The Pentagon, the other passed through 3 walls/9ft of concrete? Where is one single picture of what created the hole? If it was landing gear - it would be plainly visible.
2) Having made the hole, the object then suddenly loses all impetus and drops to the ground immediately outside, bumps gently up against the next outer wall or falls between rings? How can an object that generated such a huge hole in a concrete wall, then lose all forward motion and then not continue on to at least dent the next upright surface?
|
In the space of a few lines you claim the landing gear is just outside the hole, then ask why it isn't .
And you state that this debris ended up making "such a huge hole in a concrete wall" , when the photo clearly shows brick.
I'm not quite sure what game you're playing here, but it certainly seems to be one. What's going on?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | telecasterisation wrote: |
1) I picture a wrecking ball when I see the hole - yet there is nothing whatsoever that suggests what made it. One engine remained outside The Pentagon, the other passed through 3 walls/9ft of concrete? Where is one single picture of what created the hole? If it was landing gear - it would be plainly visible.
2) Having made the hole, the object then suddenly loses all impetus and drops to the ground immediately outside, bumps gently up against the next outer wall or falls between rings? How can an object that generated such a huge hole in a concrete wall, then lose all forward motion and then not continue on to at least dent the next upright surface?
|
In the space of a few lines you claim the landing gear is just outside the hole, then ask why it isn't .
And you state that this debris ended up making "such a huge hole in a concrete wall" , when the photo clearly shows brick.
I'm not quite sure what game you're playing here, but it certainly seems to be one. What's going on? |
I have not claimed the landing gear is outside the hole - I have said all along there is no picture of anything whatsoever outside the hole - copy and paste where I have said that the landing gear is outside the hole.
The only thing that is going on is your waffle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | the photo clearly shows brick. |
On the outer side. It clearly shows reinforced concrete inside the brick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ignatz waffled;
| Quote: | | And you state that this debris ended up making "such a huge hole in a concrete wall" , when the photo clearly shows brick. |
Agreed blackcat - the photo clearly shows reinforced concrete.
What game are YOU playing Ignatz? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strange how people go quiet when trounced.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | Strange how people go quiet when trounced. |
Nah - people can go quiet when they're getting ready for work, driving in and actually doing some. While I'd love to earn a living at home it just ain't to be.
Anyway -
Funny old RC wall you have there, considering they only introduced the idea of RC infill between exterior RC columns as part of the upgrade for improved blast resistance.
"The idea of supporting the brick infill walls with a reinforced concrete wall "backing" was rejected as a "typical" approach because of the Pentagon's extensive fenestration (although this design was accepted for "blank" wall panels with no window openings) .... Wedge One -- one of five sections of the Pentagon -- was the first to be retrofitted, and the upgrades to the exterior wall were complete by 9/11/01"
But apart from that, there's only several things wrong with your RC analysis
The metalwork is shiny, unlike the dull matt rust of rebar.
There's only one horizontal section, unlike the square mesh rebar used in concrete wall sections
The metal is between what you label "concrete" and the brickwork, when rebar would be in the concrete.
There are no "concrete" remains whatsoever attached to the hanging "rebar"
One piece at least has lagging on it.
There are 90° 3-D connections and what look suspiciously like soldered joints on the metalwork
What you're seeing is a bunch of plumbing and/or conduits behind wall panelling.
While we're here, I don't suppose you could be troubled to tell us what you think happened to cause the observed damage? Or are you "just asking questions"?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | thats just a presumtion and dosnt answer anything unless you expect me just believe it on your say so. and it dosnt answer the question about why the whole plane was only strong enough to cause a small hole in one wall, but the landing gear was strong to cause holes in 3 or more walls? |
You were saying "how could it happen" and I am replying how it could happen, I am not saying that it did. But where bits of the plane ended up must depend on what they hit, there were a lot of columns inside which could have stopped heavy parts. I do not know why you say 3 walls, whatever came through only went through two walls, apart from internal walls/partitions.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i take it from looking at the pentagon pictures, the outer ring is a the next ring in is b and the one after c, how can it only of been two walls and how does landing gear tucked inside the plane not met the same resistance than the plane its self. it does seem that the whole pentagon area is only explainable if we ignore certain facts or change them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: |
But apart from that, there's only several things wrong with your RC analysis
The metalwork is shiny, unlike the dull matt rust of rebar.
There's only one horizontal section, unlike the square mesh rebar used in concrete wall sections
The metal is between what you label "concrete" and the brickwork, when rebar would be in the concrete.
There are no "concrete" remains whatsoever attached to the hanging "rebar"
One piece at least has lagging on it.
There are 90° 3-D connections and what look suspiciously like soldered joints on the metalwork
What you're seeing is a bunch of plumbing and/or conduits behind wall panelling.
While we're here, I don't suppose you could be troubled to tell us what you think happened to cause the observed damage? Or are you "just asking questions"? |
What you might find to your benefit is to not base your printed responses on opinion. What you consider to be 'plumbing' is in fact;
Included in the spaces would have also been the office contents since they were moving back into Wedge 1. Then finally the "C" ring wall had steel mesh and rebar....
More importantly, you remember the;
| Quote: | | In the space of a few lines you claim the landing gear is just outside the hole, then ask why it isn't . |
Well, I asked for the quote where I said that - you failed to deliver = we both know you misread 'engine' for 'landing gear' and feel foolish. Okay, you will learn to live with that.
I then asked you to supply evidence of what made the hole, a photo, some proof, any proof? Instead you play the turnaround card - you ask ME for my opinion. Nice sidestep, but it is a difficult question so I accept you had to try a ploy.
So, while we're here, I don't suppose you could be troubled to supply the answers I asked for?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
