How can a plane 140 ft x 160 ft hit the pentagon at 500 mph and leave a 70 ft hole with no wreckage?

Question

I have been waiting for the answer to this one for a long time. Be nice to figure out why it didn't leave a big streak in the lawn as well.

NO STREAK BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE?

ARE YOU MADDD? Officially flying 500mph a couple feet from the ground! Look at other plane wrecks- there is always, ALWAYS a HUGE STREAK.

Answer 1

-----Explanation of Wreakage------
1.There are numerous photographs of large pieces of the plane, many of these were published in the newspapers. Here’s a nice picture:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6#flight77debris

Anyone can see that the larger pieces are of a plane. Couple this with the eyewitness accounts below & it's irrefutable that it was a plane. (As opposed to the theory that it just disappeared somewhere)

2. Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" (from Pop Mechanics Website)

-----Explanation of Hole size------
“The Pentagon Building Performance Report” says that the hole in the Pentagon was somewhat smaller than the diameter of the plane (Pop Mech book pp 66+). This is explained by Professor Mere Sozen, a “Kettelhut Distinguished Professor Civil Engineering” at Perdue University (PM p 69). Sozen says that it’s the energy of the plane, not its size that determines the size of the hole. The plane is not a cartoon character that punches out its outline. Moving at 531 MPH it more fluid than solid and this explains why you get the hole you got.

---------Eye-witness accounts--------
Dozens, if not hundreds, of people stuck on I-395 saw the low-flying plane & this is well-documented in the press. The following is a direct quote from Wikipedia. The footnotes give you the source in media.

"The Pentagon is surrounded by Interstate 395 and Washington Boulevard, on the side where the impact occurred. Steve Riskus witnessed the plane crash into the Pentagon, as he was driving along Washington Boulevard and stopped to take photographs moments after the impact.[21] Mary Lyman, who was on I-395, saw the airplane pass over at a "steep angle toward the ground and going fast" and then saw the cloud of smoke from the Pentagon.[22] Jim Sutherland, also on I-395, witnessed the plane pass 50 feet overhead, heading in a straight line into the Pentagon.[23] Mary Ann Owens, of Gannett News Service, was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when she saw the airplane pass 50 to 75 feet overhead and crash into the Pentagon.[24] Another witness, Daryl Donley, saw the crash as he was driving on Washington Boulevard. Among debris that was scattered as the plane crashed, he found a "scorched green oxygen tank marked 'Cabin air. Airline use'" on the road.[24] Mr. Donley also had a camera with him, and took some of the first photographs after the crash.[25] USA Today reporter Mike Walter, while driving on Washington Boulevard, also witnessed the crash.[26] He recounted to CNN, "...looked out my window. I saw this plane, the jet, American Airlines jet coming. And I thought, this doesn't add up. It's really low. And I saw it. It just went — I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings, it went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. Huge explosion."[13]
((This is about half of the eyewitness list. They all say they saw the plane))


I hope this helps.

Answer 2

Summary Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the following claims about the debris from the crash: There was no aircraft debris. There was insufficient aircraft debris for a jetliner crash. There was an absence of aircraft wreckage that should have survived a jetliner crash, such as pieces of wings and tail. The absence of signs of bodies, seats, and luggage in photographs of the crash site prove that the attack plane wasn't Flight 77. Claim 1 is disproved by numerous post-attack photographs of the Pentagon. Claim 2 is based on the unfounded assumptions that the quantities of debris can be established from public evidence. Claim 3 is invalidated by a review of the debris fields of any number of jetliner crashes. Claim 4 supposes that bodies, seats, and luggage should have survived in easily recognized forms, and that they would have ended up in places that were photographed. However, the impact holes would have admitted an entire fuselage of 757 into the building, and there is no complete photographic record of the interior wreckage available to the public.

Answer 3

Hmm.

Now, how many people would have to know about something like that ahead of time?

You'd have the people willing to die by flying the other three "diversionary" planes. You'd have to have all the people on the ground doing the cleanup. You'd have to have all the people who made the decision to make this happen. You'd have to have the military personnel who fired the "missile", not to mention all the people who. saw the "missile" take off and hit the Pentagon. You'd have to explain how the people who left on a plane (including a famous news personality suddenly disappeared without anyone know where or why.

Yep, sure sounds like a conspiracy to me. Easy to pull off and easy to keep under wraps for the six years since.

Now that they know I am on to them, I'm gonna sit here under my aluminum helmet and watch out for the black helicopters.

Answer 4

Well...there are some suspicious things, and I haven't been convinced by the conspiracy therorists, there is just something not quite right about the whole thing...but is it really worth worrying about now? It's been six years and really that's not long...I think that it will take at least a couple of decades for people to begin to move on and disconnect enough to be able to properly look into what happened and either find out that it was all as it was depicted or something is being hidden. Until people feel comfortable enough for that to happen I think we should jsut focus on respecting our fellow human beings and living peacefully. Consperacy or not, I would guess that greed, hate and ignorance were the cause so maybe we should work on ridding humans of these traits.

Answer 5

Stop the conspiracy theories! There was no "streak in the lawn" because of the angle the plane crashed!

Answer 6

Even better...How can they have identified all the bodies (but one)
when there were hardly enough parts. plus the guys removing parts were in suits and ties. At the PA site everyone was suited in chem suits.

On the second link there is a animated gif of what I feel should have been seen from the guard shack camera.
Peace

http://www.stj911.org/
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

Answer 7

I'd like to know why so many American Citizens are not asking the same question?


Personally I'd like to Ask Bush's Cousin some questions who happened to be over security of the trade towers during 9/11.

Answer 8

the plane is similar to a BIG soda can- long and quite thin.
how small can you crush a can, and then cook it in 8000 gallons of jet fuel ?

Answer 9

Star!

I wish more would question dicktator Bush.