Save all the 'unpatriotic terrorist' or 'tin foil hat' posts. If someone can in fact provide reputable information to refute this, I'll be glad to listen. This is a little discussion going on over at gzhq between another forum member and myself, but i wanted the tw pov.
Lets look at it mathematically...
look at that impact hole
the pentagon is 77' 3.5" tall.
So look at the first pic again. The hole isnt as wide as it is tall. You could probably estimate that hole at about 60' wide and be pretty close.
So you've got a whole almost 80' tall and 60' wide right?
Flight 77 that hit the pentagon was a Boeing 757 that has a wingspan of 124 feet and is 155 feet long, 44 feet tall.
Now look on either side of that hole in the first picture...do you see any impact marks from wings? How would an airplane that was 124 feet wide fit into a 60 foot hole? It wouldnt unless the wings broke off or punctured the building. There are no cuts from the wings on either side of the hole..so that rules out the idea of the wings cutting into the building and being burned up by the fuel.
this is the path of flight 77
so it would have hit and looked something like this at that angle of impact
Also..remember this was a plane that was totally fueled up for a cross country trip. It had already been to dulles airport from ohio, and had estimated over 9000 gallons of jet fuel.
jet fuel burns at 800 degrees, aluminum melts at 600 degrees, when jets fuselages are made, the aluminum is heated to 700 degrees and poured into molds. So yeah, it could have melted the fuselage...but it wouldnt have evaporated into thin air. Burning out in the open like that isnt the same thing as heat concentrated in a mill...some of the plane would have to be left over, atleast the tail section..something.
It had enough fuel in it to make a 124x155x44 plane evaporate into thin air, but left white walls in the open gash it just created? Metal filing cabinets still standing and in one piece...and remember this is the same type of crash that burned so hot that it basically melted the SUPPORT BEAMS of both world trade centers in less than 45 minutes...and the pentagon fire burned for 60 hours.
So this same fuel fire that would have occured melted the support beams of not 1 but 2 skyscrapers but didnt even burn the paint off a $100 filing cabinet? (psst..notice that wooden stool on the second floor...must have been fire retardent wood??)
For all you conspiracy theorists, You can brush it off any way you like. You can say 'all you have is information on the net from conspiracy sites'.
On the net or in real life, the pentagon is 77'3.5" tall, the plane still has the same dimensions, and the impartial eye of both on scene images and the unflinching eye of sattelite images (as well as a nice little mockup done by perdue) show you, not by supposition, but by clear cut mathematical facts, that you arent going to have an aircraft of those demensions, with that mass, moving at that speed, carrying that much fuel and made from the materials it was, do that minimal amount of damage to a structure with the size and construction of the pentagon and the surrounding grounds.
/me dons his flame retardent boxers
Lets look at it mathematically...
look at that impact hole
the pentagon is 77' 3.5" tall.
So look at the first pic again. The hole isnt as wide as it is tall. You could probably estimate that hole at about 60' wide and be pretty close.
So you've got a whole almost 80' tall and 60' wide right?
Flight 77 that hit the pentagon was a Boeing 757 that has a wingspan of 124 feet and is 155 feet long, 44 feet tall.
Now look on either side of that hole in the first picture...do you see any impact marks from wings? How would an airplane that was 124 feet wide fit into a 60 foot hole? It wouldnt unless the wings broke off or punctured the building. There are no cuts from the wings on either side of the hole..so that rules out the idea of the wings cutting into the building and being burned up by the fuel.
this is the path of flight 77
so it would have hit and looked something like this at that angle of impact
Also..remember this was a plane that was totally fueled up for a cross country trip. It had already been to dulles airport from ohio, and had estimated over 9000 gallons of jet fuel.
jet fuel burns at 800 degrees, aluminum melts at 600 degrees, when jets fuselages are made, the aluminum is heated to 700 degrees and poured into molds. So yeah, it could have melted the fuselage...but it wouldnt have evaporated into thin air. Burning out in the open like that isnt the same thing as heat concentrated in a mill...some of the plane would have to be left over, atleast the tail section..something.
It had enough fuel in it to make a 124x155x44 plane evaporate into thin air, but left white walls in the open gash it just created? Metal filing cabinets still standing and in one piece...and remember this is the same type of crash that burned so hot that it basically melted the SUPPORT BEAMS of both world trade centers in less than 45 minutes...and the pentagon fire burned for 60 hours.
So this same fuel fire that would have occured melted the support beams of not 1 but 2 skyscrapers but didnt even burn the paint off a $100 filing cabinet? (psst..notice that wooden stool on the second floor...must have been fire retardent wood??)
For all you conspiracy theorists, You can brush it off any way you like. You can say 'all you have is information on the net from conspiracy sites'.
On the net or in real life, the pentagon is 77'3.5" tall, the plane still has the same dimensions, and the impartial eye of both on scene images and the unflinching eye of sattelite images (as well as a nice little mockup done by perdue) show you, not by supposition, but by clear cut mathematical facts, that you arent going to have an aircraft of those demensions, with that mass, moving at that speed, carrying that much fuel and made from the materials it was, do that minimal amount of damage to a structure with the size and construction of the pentagon and the surrounding grounds.
/me dons his flame retardent boxers
