A missile could not have caused the damage to the Pentagon.

[TheWraith]

Back in 2000, largely as a response to the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, there began a project to reenforce the external walls of the Pentagon to protect it against car bombs and other external explosions. The new wall, made from 18 inches of reenforced concrete and steel rods, was designed to withstand even a large truck bomb or cruise missile. The wall was backed with 6 inches of kevlar webbing, so that even if a massive explosion cracked the wall or spalled off fragments, they wouldn't fly through the building like shrapnel. They had just completed these upgrades to one side of the building on 9/11--the very side of the building that was struck.

A missile is designed to explode on impact with its target, the force of the explosion punching through the target's armor (if any) and destroying it. The Pentagon's wall, however, was of a thickness that a missile detonation against the outer skin would only destroy some windows. Even a large Tomahawk wouldn't be able to punch a significant hole in the building.

An airplane, on the other hand, isn't designed to explode at all. So when it hit the outer wall, its energy wasn't expended all at once. Rather, it kept going, all its mass striking on the area under its center of gravity, until it broke through in that spot. Combined with the fact that an airliner has far more impact energy than any missile warhead could, it broke through the theoretically impenetrable barrier.

By that time, of course, the plane was little more than a large mass of crushed metal, but it still had enough inertia to plow through the weak internal walls of the building, through a full three rings, another thing that a missile could not have done--since it would only have damaged the outer ring when it exploded.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. You're kidding?

I hope.

[rman]

2. Howstuffworks "How Bunker Busters Work"

http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster.htm

Known as bunker busters, these bombs penetrate deep into the earth or right through a dozen feet of reinforced concrete before exploding.

next

[OldSiouxWarrior]

22. And cruise missiles are not bunkerbusters.

Bunkerbusters are very heavy and can't be carried by a cruise missile. A cruise missile is basically a very small jet airplane with computer guidance and flight programs. The size of warhead they can carry is fairly limited, about 1,000 pounds. If you try to make them armor piercing, you lose lots of high explosive in the warhead as you have to put armor around the warhead. And you still have the problem of the missile being faily slow, so the warhead isn't able to penetrate much.

Bunerbusters are very heavy and carried by planes and dropped from high altitude. Some have a rocket motor to add extra speed. The armor for the warhead is usually a DU alloy.

And they go straight down, not sideways.

[rman]

45. U.S. AIR LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE w/ BUNKER BUSTER WARHEAD

http://www.softwar.net/agm86.html



AGM-86A ALCM - credit U.S. Air Force

WARHEAD - NUCLEAR W-80 NUCLEAR WARHEAD 250 KILOTON YIELD
CONVENTIONAL 1,000+ LB. FRAGMENTARY OR BUNKER
BUSTER WARHEAD WITH ROCKET ASSIST PENETRATION
RANGE - 750 MILES A VERSION
1,500 MILES B VERSION
WING SPAN - 9 FT. 5 IN. A VERSION
12 FT. B VERSION
LENGTH - 14 FT. A VERSION
20 FT. 9 IN. B VERSION
DIAMETER - 25 IN.
WEIGHT - 1,900 POUNDS A VERSION
2,825 POUNDS B VERSION
ENGINE - ONE F-107-WR-100 WILLIAMS TURBOFAN 600 LBS. THRUST
GUIDANCE - GPS, TERCOM AND IR/RADAR IMAGING SYSTEM WITH
ACCURACY OF +/- 1 METER
SPEED - CRUISE MACH .65 - TERMINAL MACH 1.1 B VERSION



next

[OldSiouxWarrior]

65. That won't bust much of a bunker.

Take a look at: http://science.howstuffworks.com/bunker-buster.htm

The one that you reference has only a 1,000 pound payload. If you want to make it penetrate, you have to put the explosive into an armor piercing shell. That shell is going to be heavy and will greatly reduce the amount of explosive carried. That is just the way the laws of physics work.

I would say that the Air Force is calling the ALCM a bunker-buster to get funding from congresspeople who don't know any better.

[rman]

87. sure, that's why is has a bunker busting warhead...

:eyes:

[whistle]

3. Bunker busters will penetrate a hardened reinforced wall and

...exploide inside

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8110184730658784874

[hack89]

4. Which would mean that you would have a small hole ..

punched through the Pentagon wall with all the damage contained inside. Bunker busters have less high explosives inside because the penetrators are made of thicker steel. There would not be a lot of visible damage on the facade of the Pentagon like you see. If the explosion was strong enough to knock down walls you would expect to see the walls collapsed outwards - which is not what you see at all.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. I guess all those new reinforcements that they installed

during the renovations must have worked.

[hack89]

6. I think you are missing the point ..

there is no evidence of a missile hit on the Pentagon. There is too much external damage over too large an area.

on edit: I think you are also overestimating the power of a missile warhead. A fully loaded 757 has orders of magnitude more KE and chemical energy than an air launched missile.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Then where did the engines go?

Specifically two engines or at the least the compressors from a Boeing 757. They had nowhere to go except into the building. You would think they would have been plastering pictures of them all over the media if they actually had something that fit the bill?

[hack89]

8. Here you go...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. The pics show three different engine parts among the debris

but no two parts are the same? So they could have all been from the same engine. Don't they put serial numbers and such on these parts? Or did they file them off? (Just kidding).

Let's say they did use a missile. Wouldn't a missile engine have similar components? The big difference being a missile only has one engine.

[whistle]

14. Or planted them as false evidence

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. That's a little harder to do

Sort of like trying to plant WMD's in Iraq and we all know how well that went.

The pics show parts from something but the government has not presented any evidence that documents what the parts were and exactly what type of engine they came from. They have the physical evidence, there is no good reason why they can't do this. Especially, if the parts were from Flight 77. Then they would be broadcast 24/7 for a least a couple of days.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

23. Please prove your charge. NT

[BootinUp]

18. Missiles generally do not use jet engines.

Jet engines get oxygen from the atmosphere. Missiles usually have an oxidizer component a solid fuel engine stored on board like a rocket engine.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

20. Missile engine is much smaller. NT

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. And 757 engines

are a hell of a lot bigger.

We are only seeing a part of some engine that the gov apparently has a hard time admitting or proving what kind of engine that part came from.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

34. This site matches the engine parts to the 757 engines.

It shows pictures of new engine parts and the engines and compares them to the ones in the picture. Perfect fit. They came from the 757s engine.

And you CTers still have the problem of the DOZENs of eyewitnesses. Unless you want to claim, as some idiots do, that all the eyewitnesses are some of "them".

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. Find me one eyewitness at the Pentagon

that wasn't 'one of them' that actually saw the plane and saw it hit the Pentagon.

By one of them, I mean someone who doesn't work at the Pentagon or for the M$M, specifically USA Today.

I've tried, I can't find one.

BTW: If the parts match exactly, then the DOD, NIST and/or FEMA should have no problem publishing their proof. Show me the beef, not speculation.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

36. How about the cab driver?

http://www.nbc4.com/news/8988021/detail.html

Here is a list of dozens of witness. I will leave it to you to track down what each one does. You may notice that one of them is a Democratic Congressman. Furthermore, what each one does has no bearing on their truthfullness. It is only in the idiot world of CTers that everybody that doesn't agree with the CT is "one of them".

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. Where does your cab driver say

he saw Flight 77 or an American Airlines 757 and where does he say he saw it hit the Pentagon? I would assume with a light pole crashing into his taxi he was a little too busy to be keeping an eye on the plane?

Yes he saw something, and that something hit the light pole but that's about it.

[whistle]

52. This cab driver witness during this interview at least does not

...specifically say that he actually witnessed a 757 jet airliner hit the Pentagon, only the reporters are making that interpretation. The reporter is did not even press this taxi driver about what it was he actually say. However, Lloyd England had to instantaneously wrestle getting back control of his cab when the light pole penetrated the passenger windshield and seat. It sounds like he may have been too busy and too startled to notice whether this was a large jet twin engine 757 airliner or some other type of plane or projectile.

He does say something which raises some red flags when the reporter asks him to describe what happened England replies, "I had to wrestle with the car to stop it and when I did stop the car there was no noise".

Then England says he has just one question for Zacarias Moussaoui, "Why are you taking responsibility for this?"

Wow, he is not sure why Moussaoui is taking responsibility. Trumped up charges maybe?

[Nozebro]

57. He also doesn't know where the light pole came from. I'm not positive,

but if my memory is right, the famous "cab" photos do NOT show a light pole INSIDE his car. It's a bogus made-for-tv story anyhow. N0 airliner crashed at or near the Pentagon, much less clipped any light poles nearby.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

61. So the cabbie is "one of them"?

Amazing how CTers claim that anybody who speaks against the CT is "one of them".

[whistle]

63. Those photos show the light pole laying in front of the cab

....and the windshield has a huge hole, so something penetrated the vehicle. But the details are sketchy (i.e. from where did the pole come, what direction was Lloyd English driving, at what moment did the pole hit the vehicle, could English ever really see the plane approaching, based on these coordinates, etc.).

This story could be investigated a lot deeper than just some after trial news interview to examine if in fact this witness and other so called eye witnesses stories stand up under close objective examination. Also, are all of the eye witnesses free to discuss their accounts or are they all under gag orders by the government to discuss nothing with anyone? That would be most revealing, especially after five years.

Remember in the JFK assassination how many witnesses died or disappeared under very mysterious circumstances? Same thing could be going on with the 9/11 investigations.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

64. Here is where you can find a bunch of interviews

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

As you scroll down, on the far right of each entry you will find the source. Many of them are links to the original source. Some of them even have the email of the person being interviewed.

Of course, you will claim that they are all, "one of them".

[whistle]

92. I don't see Lloyd England's name or testimony on the list, yet

...his taxi cab windshield was pierced by one of of the broken light poles that morning

[Nozebro]

117. Have you found Mr. England's testimony yet? No, I'm dead serious.

His taxi was SAID to have been hit by a light pole that had been struck by "the plane", but if you do
a little research, you'll understand why that couldn't have and didn't happen...unless HE took a "planted" pole that was conveniently placed, and did the deed himself.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

37. The beef has been shown to you. You closed your eyes.

I posted a site with pictures of the engine parts. That's enough. No reasonable person doubts a plane hit the Pentagon. Even other MIHOP CTers are saying that the "no plane people" are an embarrassment.

You are the one making the claim that those are not the right engine parts. The burden of proof is on you.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Wow, three whole parts from some engine

were found in the rubble. Did anyone ever get the serial numbers from those parts and match them to the engines that were on Flight 77?

[jberryhill]

115. No

Nobody checked the fingerprints on JFK's corpse when it arrived in Washington, either.

Are you suggesting that TWO planes hit the Pentagon?

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. I didn't say no plane

I said show me the parts from Flight 77. It shouldn't be that hard to positively ID the parts that were recovered.

[Nozebro]

58. Find ME proof that AA FL 77 was scheduled & DID take off on 9/11. n/t

n/t

[OldSiouxWarrior]

62. The burden of proof is on you.

You are the one claiming that it wasn't and didn't. You must prove it.

It is laughable the extremes that CTers will expand a CT.

[Nozebro]

104. It's up to those that say FL 77 flew on 9/11 - to prove it did.

Good luck proving the impossible, Chief.

[BootinUp]

76. you're not serious.

[mirandapriestly]

101. isn't it true the flight wasn't listed as a regular flight?

[Nozebro]

105. As opposed to an IRRegular flight? Translate, please. EOM

n/t

[OldSiouxWarrior]

68. How about Patty Murray, Democratic Senator from Washington.

She personally watched the crash, personally saw the plane hit.

She voted against the Iraq war. Now are you going to claim that a noted Democratic Senator is lying about what she saw?

You wanted a witness that wasn't military or MSM. I have given you two. A working class cabbie and a noted Democratic Senator.

Of course, since you are devoted to your CT, you will refuse to believe either of them.

[DoYouEverWonder]

89. Got a link for her story?

I'd love to see what she said herself.

Thanks

[DoYouEverWonder]

91. Never mind, I found it myself

Too bad she didn't see a plane. Try again.


WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Sen. Patty Murray looked out a window of the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

And saw the Pentagon explode.

"I didn't see the plane. But I was looking out the window and saw the explosion and the flames," said Murray, D-Wash.

"It was a horrible feeling. No words can describe what I feel. We all go about our lives thinking something like this could happen. It did," she said.

http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/terror/0912-2.html

[mirandapriestly]

102. delete, someone else already posted answer.eom

[DoYouEverWonder]

108. Mmm, still waiting

Have you found anyone else yet who saw both the plane and the explosion at the Pentagon, that doesn't work at the Pentagon or for the M$M? Or did you give up since you've provided me with 'solid' evidence twice, even though neither story met the above criteria.

[DoYouEverWonder]

43. And a 757 Engine is much bigger

n/t

[OldSiouxWarrior]

51. Nope. Look at the site I posted. The sizes match correctly. NT

[hack89]

67. I take it you didn't read the article?

They explain in great detail why they could not be missile engine parts. They specifically identify the engine as one that is commonly found on 757s.

[DoYouEverWonder]

90. Commonly found on a 757

I would assume that if this part is so common, that the same part or a very similar part is used on other engines? Again, we shouldn't have to speculate, the serial number would ID exactly which engine the part came from and which plane that engine was attached to. In court, close ain't good enough.

[hack89]

93. Again you are missing the point ...

it clearly was not an engine from a missile, Global Hawk or an A3. If you are now advocating a theory that another 757 or similar sized airliner was substituted for flt77, lets hear it.

[Nozebro]

94. Yes, we know it isn't from those. The point you are AVOIDING is

that the engine part that was "found" was obviously planted.

[DoYouEverWonder]

95. Whether or not it was planted

doesn't matter in regards to this argument. My beef is that no one has positively identified it. They claim it is from a 757, but there are parts that look like that on all aircraft engines. Just because 757's engines may or may not have a part that looks like the one in the picture, so do 100's of other types of engines.

The only way to prove it came from Flight 77 is to get the serial number off it and match it to the plane they claim crashed into the building. This shouldn't be that hard to do.

[hack89]

96. Who says they didn't?

As far as I know, the FBI has not released any of their investigative files - most likely because it is an ongoing investigation.

[DoYouEverWonder]

98. I guess they'll finish they're investigation

as soon as they find Osama.

You know damn well, that if they had definitive proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, they would have run the video or shown the pictures over and over and over.

An ongoing investigation, crap. That hasn't stopped them from holding a press conference and broadcasting their 'evidence' any other time.

[hack89]

100. I disagree ..

the 911 truth movement means nothing to the FBI, Bush or the average citizen. They feel no pressure to release anything.

[DoYouEverWonder]

103. Too bad

they supposedly work for the American people. We do pay their salaries. But of course, if you live in BushCo world, means you never have to be held accountable.

I don't care whether or not the truth movement means anything to the FBI or not, but you would think that the 9-11 families would matter and there are at least a few of them who want to know the truth too.

[hack89]

110. Simple fact of life. nt

[Nozebro]

106. Circular reasoning there, doctor. Actually kind of funny, though.

If they haven't released any of their investigative files, then how do you know it's an "ongoing investigation"?

You have a lot more faith in Bushco than us Truth Seekers.

[hack89]

109. I have no faith in Bush - I just know that the FBI

has always been a secretive organization and you are deluding your self if you think they will voluntarily release investigative files. It is purely reflexive and has nothing do do with who is in power.

[Nozebro]

111. ANOTHER Strawman argument. How many fallacies can you put in one

thread? How many ways do you actually know to avoid addressing the subject?

[hack89]

112. And what exactly is the subject?

I thought we were talking about engines?

[hack89]

97. No ... when I add the eyewitness accounts to the physical evidence ..

it is clear to me that a 757 hit the Pentagon. No one reported a missile or anything other than a airplane.

[Nozebro]

107. Were those eyewitnesses from an Oral Roberts congregation?

They must be if they're true believers and claim to have seen "miracles" right there at the First Pentagon Church of Prolonged Suffering And Gooey Death.

[whistle]

10. In the case of the TOW, yes, but I think a cruise missile leaves

...an opening about the size of what appears in the Pentagon photos and also is propelled by a single turbine engine that some experts have identified as resembling those few engine parts that were found at the attack site. Those engine parts in no way belonged to any 757 jet.

[Make7]

11. RE: "Those engine parts in no way belonged to any 757 jet."

See Post #8.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

24. Those engine parts are waaaay to big to have been in

any cruise missile. Cruise missiles use small jet engines.

[DoYouEverWonder]

53. With the ones they are using in Iraq

they are finding they work better when they blast a hole in the wall first and then send the bunker buster in through the hole. They could have done the same thing at the Pentagon, making the opening hole as big as they wanted. That's why I find the 'generator' pointing at the hole suspicious. Fire the first shot from there and then send in the missile behind it.

[hack89]

73. Except the missiles you are talking about are small..

shoulder fired anti-tank missiles. No way in hell they have a warhead large enough to cause the damage at the Pentagon.

[TheWraith]

25. You can't launch a bunker buster sideways.

They're air-dropped bombs, completely seperate from missiles. You can go through the roof of a building, but not the side of it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. Really, they can't go sideways?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-118.htm

[OldSiouxWarrior]

66. The BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon is not a bunker buster.

Yes, we have many weapons that do go sideways. But genuine bunker busters need the assist of gravity to get the momentum to go punch through into the bunker.

[BootinUp]

69. But then your back to a missile with rocket propulsion n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

71. You mean it would have to have an engine?

That sort of look like this?

[hack89]

72. Just much smaller.

The Williams F107 is a small turbofan engine made by the Williams International company. The F107 was derived from the Williams WR19 and designed to power cruise missiles. It has been used as the powerplant for the AGM-86 ALCM, BGM-109 Tomahawk, and AGM-129 ACM,

# Length: 48.4 in (1,230 mm)
# Diameter: 11.8 in (300 mm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_F107

[BootinUp]

74. I was just pointing out

that the missile delivery system for the bunker buster weapon you found uses a rocket motor (rocket motors have no air intake turbofan system, they are not much more than fuel and a nozzle.)

[TheWraith]

86. Do you even know what those photos represent?

Here's a hint--it's not a sideways bomb. Read the associated article. It's a test where a bomb was "skipped" into a tunnel, essentially bouncing it off the ground and through the door. You couldn't penetrate a reenforced wall that way--the bomb wouldn't have enough inertia.

[BootinUp]

9. You make a valid point, but of course

as others indicated, they believe there may be newer more sophisticated missiles which could have penetrated the outer wall and they have no problem believing one was used. It really doesn't matter that there is no evidence of a missile strike, nor that there is evidence of an airplane crash by many many eyewitness it just requires a belief in the evil control over all of our lives by the government to erase any facts or arguments you care to make. Nice post.

[mhatrw]

12. Where did the engines hit the wall? Where did the tail hit the wall?

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Why is that 'generator' on fire?

Why is there only one fire engine fighting the fire?

[OldSiouxWarrior]

21. Because it is on fire.

There is no need to explain why the generator is on fire. Obviously, it was close enough to the impact to catch on fire. Do you think Rove ran over and threw gasoline on it and torched it?

The picture does not cover the entire scene. Dit that amazing fact ever occur to you? There is only one fire engine IN THE PICTURE. That does not mean there is only one fire engine there.

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Yes, I have thought about it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=96665

There is no good reason why they never had more then three fire trucks and it was usually just two trucks in front of the Pentagon fighting the fire all day and into the next. It wasn't like the equipment wasn't available or that there wasn't room to park them. Yes, there is some equipment on the other side that we can't see, but it took hours to get even one truck to the inner courtyard because they couldn't fit through the tunnel. In the meantime, we supposedly have an airplane full of people and an unknown number of employees injured and dead. You would think they could have fought the fire a little more aggressively? Have you ever seen a foam truck in action? They're very effective.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

33. Yes, I have seen foam in action.

A long time ago, I worked for a while in a refinery as a guard. We had to practice first response fire fighting. I know what foam can do. If you will look at the various pictures, there is lots of foam all over the place.

However, that is a question of response after the impact and says nothing about whether or not a plane hit the pentagon.

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. This why is did the Pentagon continue to burn

until the next day?

It's not like they couldn't access the site.

[DoYouEverWonder]

81. Sorry about the above title

that wasn't even written in English.

It should read: Then why did the Pentagon continue to burn.

[BootinUp]

17. Hard to see much of anything in that picture. Lots of smoke. n/t

[mhatrw]

32. Then please present another photo that shows these things. n/t

[BootinUp]

44. Some thorough analysis

A neat computer generated recreation that you may not have seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Found it at
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lamps.html


This pentagonresearch site is pretty comprehensive. After looking through that material I think its hard to dispute a large passenger aircraft struck the pentagon.

Hope you find it interesting.

[mhatrw]

54. I've seen it. I still don't see where the engines or tail hit the wall.

Perhaps you can supply this evidence? I want to believe a 757 hit the Pentagon, but I can't see where the engines or tail hit the facade.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

59. Because real life is NOT like TV cartoons.

In the cartoons, a character runs through a door and leaves behind a perfect cookie cutter outline of his figure. It that what you are expecting a plane hitting a wall to do?

A plane is a fragile tube of aluminum with some steel and other materials, and a lot of fuel in the wings. The wings are an aluminum framework with a very thin aluminum skin, and lots of fuel in the wings. When all of that stuff is moving at 500 mph, and hits something solid, it shatters. It loses all cohesion and all the bits are moving forward, disconnected to each other, each little piece on it's own trajectory.

Take a look at this picture. You can clearly see the damage at the ground level where the wings hit, and the massive damage in the center where the body and engines would have hit. You don't see a cookie-cutter outline of a plane because this isn't a TV cartoon.

[mhatrw]

60. I asked for where the engines and tail hit the facade.

BEFORE THE COLLAPSE, of course.

What are 757 engines made out of again?

[MervinFerd]

19. You are wasting your time, Mr. Wraith.

Of COURSE the damage was not caused by a missile. It was caused by a 767. That has been demonstrated beyond any conceivable refutation by every possible kind of evidence.

Anyone who believes these ridiculous theories has already abandoned rational argument for some kind of bizarre faith. Whatever evidence you bring forward will only be incorporated into the ConspiraToon---"Who knows what new kinds of missiles the military may have secretly developed."

There is no rational way to deal with such foolishness. Derision and ridicule are the only effective arguments.

Would you like to hear about "Spontaneous Airframe Combustion"?

[TheWraith]

26. You're probably right. But sometimes it's worth saying anyway.

If my messages provide a counterbalance to a few people who might otherwise read here and get a skewed idea of what the fact are, or if what I say stems the flow of misunderstanding, then it's worth it.

[Will Scoffield]

27. You're right. It is worth it. And it resonates

at least with people who think.

I've lurked for a long time and have seen this over and over again. I have to admit that I'll never understand the conspiracy theory view, which requires people to suspend their disbelief indefinitely in order to "believe" some half baked nonsensical theory based on no evidence whatsoever.

Keep doing what you're doing. It's worthwhile.

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. Really, a 767?

I always thought it was supposed to be a 757 that hit the Pentagon?

[KJF]

29. Please be more careful in future

At the impact site there was no "18 inches of reenforced concrete and steel rods" in the exterior wall, or any other wall in the Pentagon.

The ASCE report states:

... the original exterior Ring E wall is mostly non-load-bearing masonry infilled in a concrete frame. The exterior surface is 5 in. thick limestone, which covers the frame, backed by 8 in. unreinforced brick that is infilled in the frame.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf#search=%22Pentagon%20building%20performance%20report%22

There was concrete backing in some places, but I've never seen anyone argue convincingly that it was present in the place the plane hit. Also, I have never seen a picture of any such concrete backing at the plane impact point; all available pictures show the limestone and brick - the only concrete elements I have seen are the floors and interior columns.

[TheWraith]

85. Emphasis on the ORIGINAL E-Ring wall.

The new wall that they had just completed on one side was in fact made with concrete, reinforced by steel, and backed by kevlar.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/renovation.html

I did make a mistake, though--I thought that the renovations were inspired by the embassy bombings in Africa, but according to a magazine article, it was actually the attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that originally provided the spark to start the project.

[KJF]

88. It wasn't

And the article you link to does not support your argument. There was no concrete backing in walls with windows:

In a section entitled FInding a Solution, Structure Magazine writes:

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).
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/pentagon-retrofit.htm

If you wish to claim there was concrete backing, please produce a picture of it.

[rman]

46. If you really want to mess up a building, don't use a military weapon,

just fly a passenger plane into it.

Much lower cost, much more damage.

Terrorist know this because unlike all of the US government, secret services and military, they are not incompetent beyond belief.

[BootinUp]

47. kamikaze or suicide flights don't exactly carry a low cost

to the suicider.

[BootinUp]

48. And additionally

The question is what was the easiest way for an Al Qaeda cell to launch a devastating attack. Hijacking an airplane was a relatively easy operation. the people on board did not know the intention was suicide attack. So the threats of being stabbed or claims of a bomb on board outweighed allowing them to take control of the aircraft presumably to fly it and land it somewhere.

[Grateful for Hope]

49. Might be true for the first two flights

but, what about the PA and Pentagon flights where the passengers presumably knew of the other attacks from conversations they had with those on the ground?

[BootinUp]

50. Looks like there was a 50/50 proposition

of the passengers attacking the hijackers to stop them. That makes sense to me. I see no evidence the phone calls were made until after the planes were commandeered.

[Grateful for Hope]

56. It's difficult for any of us to know what when on on those planes

so, my comment was just a hypothetical.

[whistle]

55. I can't find a date for this article, but I think it came out sometime...

...in 2003, but I am not sure. The AFP article suggests that the engine part recovered from the Pentagon crash site did not come from the 757 passenger airliner. It does suggest that it might have come from a Golden Hawk whatever that is. I have seen similar claims in video presentations and also in features which have covered the 9/11 event attacks.

What hit the Pentagon based on the scattered parts which were photographed (by FEMA) could not have been a 757 aircraft. So why do the Pentagon and the official White House stories stick with this claim? The bigger the lie, the more believable it becomes.

<snip>
Controversy Swirling Over September 11 Pentagon Mystery: Industry Experts Can’t Explain Photo Evidence

American Free Press

Since AFP first published a photograph from the 9-11 Pentagon crash site, there has been a great outpouring of interest—and disinfo.

When American Free Press published a hard-to-find photo from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) archive showing a small turbine disc from the Pentagon crash site, it was hoped that readers could help identify the object (Sept. 15 & 22). Since the photo and article were published there has been an outpouring of interest—and disinformation—about the unidentified jet engine part.

The photograph reveals a crucial piece of evidence, which if positively identified could help prove what kind of aircraft hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Is this the 9-11 smoking gun?" Fintan Dunne, editor of WagKingdom.com asks on a web page dedicated to the FEMA photographs. These photos could be the keys to unlock the cover-up, Dunne wrote on Oct. 7.

"Among all the arguments about 9-11: tower fires, WTC 7 collapse, etc., none seems as straightforward as that posed by the jet engine part," Dunne said. If the Pentagon photos are authentic, he said, then either the turbine is from a Boeing 757, or it is not. The web site appeals to "aero engineers" for help in identifying the disc seen in the FEMA photos.

The photograph is one of many taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a FEMA photographer, at the Pentagon crash site on Sept. 13, 2001. In the FEMA on-line photo library, the best photos of the unidentified disc are numbered 4414 and 4415, archived at: www.photolibrary.fema.gov/ photolibrary/advancedsearch.do.

Several readers wrote to AFP suggesting that the unidentified disc was a piece from the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) mounted in the tail section of a Boeing 757. Honeywell makes the GTCP331-200 APU used on the 757 aircraft. No one suggested, however, that the small disc was a piece from one of the main engines of a 757-200.

AFP contacted Honeywell’s Aerospace division in Phoenix, Ariz., and sent high-resolution photos for their examination. "There’s no way that’s an APU wheel," an expert at Honeywell told AFP. The expert, who cannot be named, added: "That turbine disc—there’s no way in the world that came out of an APU."

American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, manufacturers of the 757’s turbofan jet engines to try and identify the piece.

"If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine," Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy." <more>

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/121003mysteryenginepart.html

[OldSiouxWarrior]

70. This site debunks that:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Detailed photos and engineering drawings of and assembled engine. The pictured parts fit perfectly.

And you still have the problem of the DOZENS of witness, one of which is Patty Murry, a noted DEMOCRATIC U.S. SENATOR, who voted against the war. She personally saw the plane hit.

[whistle]

77. And this site has the facts on the Air Force's Global Hawk un-maned

...aircraft. Something like this aircraft slamming into the Pentagon, based on the visual condition of the Pentagon site in those photos right after impact. Remember also that witnesses arriving on the scene could smell cordite explosives and those comments are on tape.


http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175

[BootinUp]

79. "witnesses arriving on the scene"

Why is it our eyewitenesses a full of shit and your nosewitnesses are the shit?

[whistle]

80. Witnesses include firefighters, Pentagon personnel, construction

...workers, customers from neighboring businesses and reporters near the site or arriving moments after impact who were apparently interviewed by reporters and recorded. As for what type of aircraft would match the impact hole and leave minimal debris, now that I found a description of the Global Hawk and looked at the specifications on that aircraft, it suggests a far better match than a Boeing 757 passenger airliner that is part of the official story. Fill the Global Hawk with high explosives, flying at 500mph, single engine jet, remote controlled, totally un-maned and no passengers, well, that fits.

As for what happened to AA Flight 77 and all of the passengers on board, I guess the official story supporters have to answer the Loose change suggestion, that th flight if it even was scheduled on September 11, 2001 to fly, actually landed in Cleveland OH.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

82. You have gone off the deep end.

Engine parts matching a 757 were found. None matching a Global Hawk were found.

Dozens of eyewitnesses saw the crash, including a noted DEMOCRATIC SENATOR. None of their testimony supports your case.

There are pictures of debris. Those have been posted.

I have posted pictures of the damage from the wings impacting.

Pictures of other head on crashes have been posted and they all show that the airplane disintegrates.

The flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder were recovered.

There were all the phone calls that passengers made to family.

A Global Hawk explosion would not produce a tunnel of damage, it would produce a sphere of damage. (Bursting radius of the charge.) A bullet that hits a person produces a tunnel of damage from the entry point to the exit point. The 757 hitting the pentagon did the same, because it was a tubular body moving forward - like a bullet.

The idea of FL77 not existing, or that it diverted to Cleveland and the passengers disappeared is silly.

No plane CTers are like the Creationists that insist on a 6,000 year old earth.

[hack89]

75. I think you need to google American Free Press

it will become very clear why they are banned on DU.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

83. No, I mean this ....

Critics charge that it is a subtle recruiting tool for anti-Semitism and the political extreme right-wing. The classified section includes ads for the National Alliance, Christian Identity materials, and Creativity Movement books including White Man's Bible, Nature's Eternal Religion and On the Brink of a Bloody Racial War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Free_Press

Their founder Willis Carto is a piece of work too:

In 2004, Carto joined in signing the New Orleans Protocol on behalf of American Free Press. The New Orleans Protocol seeks to "mainstream our cause" by reducing violence and internecine warfare, and was written by David Duke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto

[BootinUp]

84. fascinating....n/t

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

116. or

strategically place explosives along the path an object would be expected to take throughout the building.. but like the 757 theory, there is no evidence to support it so were back sq 1 = no valid theory re: what hit the pentagon.

[whistle]

99. I am watching videos of the demolition of WTC Towers on 9-11...

....and it is very clear in those videos that the impact holes on each of the towers show not only the fuselage of the 767 penetrating the outside reinforced steel webbing, but the giant jet engines and the wings clear out to their tips also penetrating that webbing and the concrete floors. If the jets hitting the towers could do this, then what prevented the engines and wings of the 757 which was supposed to hit the Pentagon from penetrating the outer skin wall of the Pentagon? Check it out at this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-71432126902195...

courtesy of Soothsayer in GD

[jberryhill]

113. The "outer skin wall of the Pentagon"?

The "OUTER SKIN WALL OF THE PENTAGON"?

You are seriously suggesting that the outer wall of the WTC towers and the outer wall of the Pentagon are at all comparable?

After "My Pet Goat", try reading the "Three Little Pigs" as an introduction to structural engineering.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

114. too much assumption..