Why was the hole in the pentagon so small on 9/11?

Question

share your opinion and address my questions...

the plane that they say hit the pentagon was 155ft long, 44ft high, 124ft wing span yet the hole in the pentagon after the crash was only 16ft. it was mentioned on loose change and im not one to believe in conspiracy theories but this stuck out the most.


why cant the american public see the video footage? do they have something to hide? why no large plan parts found because they say they were "vaporized" in the intense heat yet they were able to identify the bodies? If the plan hit the ground first how come their wasnt any skid marks? How come they never talk about it anymore?

Answer 1

They never talk about it anymore because of all the conspiricy theories get their wrong ideas from what they twist what someone said. I saw a film, showing the plane at ground level, at the time just after the impact.

"They" also say there was no plane in PA. It is just a hole in the ground. Well, two friends of mine were on that plane, then, where did they & the rest of them go, if that is just a hole?If you have studied physics, you know things don't remain intact when they hit at over 500 MPH!
I know the one friends mom & sister, I know what they were taking about on the phone. Not from the gov, but from the mom & sister.

If the US sees it, you do know that the rest of the world sees it too, maybe they don't want to train anyone else how by showing it again & again.

======
hey Braincas...it is personal, & I would have told you in an email, but you don't allow emails, so I guess you won't find out. A good friends nephew was also on that flight, so it isn't just my friends.

Answer 2

There is strong evidence to support a Douglas A-3 Skywarrior armed with a missile hit the Pentagon. One thing we can be certain about; it was not a Boeing 757, as our government claims. Retired General Albert Stubblebine, agrees with your observation when he says, "The Plane does not fit the hole; so what did hit the Pentagon...?"
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4827

One might expect to see three holes in the pentagon, one for the main body and two more for each engine. The engine and engine parts that were found, were found outside of the building, they never penetrated the building thus no hole was created by them. The deep 18 foot hole was most probably made by an on board missile and not the aircraft itself. A radiation expert claims high-radiation readings near the Pentagon indicates depleted uranium (DU) munitions may have been used.
http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm

Witnesses say, the U.S. military secretly had Raytheon Co. refit an A-3 Skywarrior with new jet engines, a missile, and a Global Hawk guidance system, just prior to 9/11. Coincidentally, five key executives of Raytheon Co. went missing on 9/11. The official word is they died in the hijacked planes on 9/11.
http://tomflocco.com/fs/WitnessesLink.htm

The Jet engine(s) found, at the crash site, may be key to identifying what type of aircraft hit the Pentagon: At the very least, they help determine a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. Both the jet engine housing as well as a "front end rotor head" have been identified as belonging to a Pratt & Whitney JT8D jet engine. The P&W JT8D engine has been used on the smaller Boeing 727 as well as a retrofit for the A-3 Skywarior. Two P&W JT8D's do not provide enough thrust to get a Boeing 757 off the ground much less sufficient power to perform the military precision maneuvers the aircraft in question did.
http://physics911.net/pdf/schwarz.pdf

A photograph of a cracked windshield found at the crash site strongly resembles the top canopy glass found on the Skywarrior: No windows of this shape are found on a Boeing 757.
http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/911Pentagon.htm

The landing gear is one part found, inside the crash site, that may be linked to a Boeing 757. It could also be a part that was retrofitted on an A-3 Skywarrior, since the wheels would most likely need to be replaced with something still available.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/084.html

A geometric analysis can show the aircraft that hit the Pentagon is under 85 feet long and therefore too small to be a Boeing 757, which is over 155 feet long. An A-3 Skywarrior is 76 feet 4 inches long. See geometric analysis: also see revision note under comments.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Avt4N5qfsIKkwbXeL7iLXmPsy6IX?qid=20061122203115AAj8XR6

Answer 3

I've seen pictures of a big skid mark in the grass leading up to the pentagon. The idea is that the plane hit and started breaking up before it hit the building. Also, the fuselage of the plane is not much bigger then 16ft. The 44 ft high is for the tail of the plane. The tail is pretty weak and probably broke up instantly. The wings are the same way, weak. Also, most crashes happen at low speeds because the pilots want to impact with the least damage to the aircraft. The pilots on 9/11 were looking for the opposite.

Answer 4

the 16 foot diameter hole was caused by the strongest 16 feet of the plane. The rest of the plane disintegrated. Do you think the tail section was going to punch itself thru concrete and steel?
A few weeks after 9-11 a ******* tail fell off a plane and caused the plane to crash in Queens new york. Those tail sections are weak. I probably shouldn't have mentioned that - it will make you think there is a wider conspiracty. LOL

Answer 5

Some agree, some disagree. I respect an argument or an intelligent point to be made.
I respect that some were there on the ground site.
I do NOT respect mockery and name calling.
Adults are better than that.

I am curious about the fate of the two titanium engines that disintegrated in the heat. Titanium's' supposed melting point is around 1400 degrees. Kerosene cannot reach that high a temperature.
Also, the blast hardened windows should still have caved under the impact of the engines. Which would mean some sort of round indention at least should appear on both sides of the the original hole. None of the pictures I have shows that.

You have the original hole, and no markings or even broken or cracked reinforced glass where the wings and engines would have hit.

I do not presume to have been there, or to know much about aircraft. I would be grateful if someone who does can answer my questions in an adult manner. thank you

@ fairly smart
I know it's personal, but you brought it up. What were the names of your friends?

@ force=mass
I'm still looking at Prof Sozen's work. He says this is the first incident of its time. I think someone should give him the evidence from the empire state buiding incident. As I recall, a bomber did hit it head-on. The state building was not reinforced in the same manner as the pentagon, but I think he could use the extra data to help twek the program.

As it looks right now, the professor is guiding the physics of it. In other words, it is not a legitimate analysis, it is just a movie.
He is not entering the data for the materials and letting the computer simulate on its own. He is telling the computer what the end result is, now make it all fit.
So the results are neither objective nor scientific.



An engine block from your average automobile traveling at that speed would have remained somewhat intact even at that sort of collision. I cannot buy the "fact" that those two engines, made to withstand the rigours of flying at high altitude, were of a weaker quality build than my Volvo.
In almost every crash site photo I have seen, the engines have tumbled and tossed and rolled, but never fragmented into oblivion. There should have been an airplane at an airplane crash site. There should have been pieces of people, fuselage, tires, wings, tail section ect...
Instead, it all just "fragmented".

If they did hit and shatter, then there should be some evidence of such a hit on the wall. The engines are the most solid part of the craft, yet they made no mark? The rest of the plane was much less strong, and yet had no problem leaving a mark.

This is in fact a miracle then. There have been thousands of plane wrecks all over the world, yet this is the only one where only a few tiny little token scraps are to be found.
Having seen the aftermath of a tanker truck fire, let me tell you that plane couldn't have vaporized in that manner. It was far from ideal for maximum burning conditions.
Those tanker trucks will burn for ages in the best of conditions. Plenty of fuel, plenty of air. Yet there will still be a very unmelted shell of a truck when the fire goes out.

Now let me show you the problem with the popular mechanics style debunking.
lets say this is an arguement over dog leash-laws.

[ MYTH:
Dogs will poo in a park if left unnattended.
FACT:
Dr. Sally Dowell, a Havard graduate and professor says "No, that is just silly".
When asked why she explains;
"A dog always feels insecure if left in an unfamiliar place. That insecurity can turn into aggressive behavior, or fear. A dog in this state of mind will not defacate because it must let down its guard to do so. The animals we tested displayed that exact behavior when we released them in controlled conditions at a nearby park. Furthermore, many did have the need to express their bowels as soon as we allowed them to do so at home."
In simple terms, a dog is simply too nervous to use the bathroom. So this proves that you don't need to watch your step at a park. ]

Can you see the problems with the logic of this article? Now apply that midset to the myth-debunking regarding the pentagon.

High speed planes do cause accidents, but the accidents don't fit the plane, much in the way that a semi won't put a four foot hole in a wall.

Hmm,
I looked at the footage from both the gas station and the frames.
CITGO
Was that the way in which it was released. I'm inclined to hope not, because that scrunched up view of all the cameras really didn't help at all. If someone had robbed the station naked, you still wouldn't be able to recognize them.
If they were released separately, I would like to see the individual videos, instead of the confusing collage.
PENTAGON
That is pictures of the explosion and some stuff flying in the air afterwards. Where is the plane? The pentagon couldn't afford decent video cameras? This shows absolutely nothing of the vehicle, and there should be a lot more metal flying all around for the weakness of the aluminum literally squashing itself against steel reinforced concrete.

Popular Mechanics switched out the stuff on that page. It happened to me until I started hosting my images on photobucket. So I didn't get to see the picture.
I would like to see the entire scene or most of it in one shot. A couple of shreds of an aircraft can come from any of many thousands of models of airplanes.

Answer 6

I honestly have no idea. The anomolies surrounding the Pentagon crash are strange, made more mysterious by the failure of the government to produce a video that shows what happened. It is conceivable that an unmanned plane could have been used, echoing the Pentagon's 1962 plan "Operation Northwoods," which speculated about how staged terror could allow us to attack Cuba. That being said, however, I am still somewhat agnostic on the issue of the Pentagon. I believe it is a distraction from some of the more concrete, more important information that points to some sort of official complicity.

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Man who blew the whistle on Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/cossiga_ex_italian_pres_intel_agencies_know_911_inside_job.htm

Answer 7

The wingspan was vertical on impact....

The only thing that bothers me, is that people are willing to believe that Pentagon of all places is only monitored by a crappy little cctv gate crossing cam at 30fpm. That would put your local 7-11 a step above in terms of security cameras would it not ?

The pentagon has more footage....why they won't release it is beyond the scope of what i'm willing to theorize.

It would be nice if they could just put this one to bed... it was over 6 years ago that it happened..... it's not like it should be top secret at this point.

Answer 8

the same class of plane hit the towers but the damage was totally inconsistent between the pentagon and the towers. Odd how the huge turbine shafts blew completely through the towers while the body shredded and only got 1/2 way thru. but at the pentagon the tin can body and fiberglass nose punched a large hole while the titanium shafts bounced off without leaving a mark. hmmmm.

Answer 9

Did you see the hole? I DID. I was working half a mile from The Pentagon on 9/11. I know people who SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, and three of my clients were actually injured in the explosion. It was a plane.

Also, if it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, how do you account for the grieving family members of those PASSENGERS WHO DIED on the plane??

Answer 10

Sorry, but the hole was 90 feet in diameter, not 16 feet.

Source: “Pentagon Performance Report" by the ASCE, page 23, at:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

Yes 90 feet is still somewhat smaller than the diameter of the plane.

This is explained by Professor Mere Sozen, a “Kettelhut Distinguished Professor Civil Engineering” at Perdue University.

Professor 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’s more fluid than solid, & this explains why you get the hole you got.

See how Prof Sozen used supercomputers to analyze the impact at:
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
----------------------------
Some other points to support this:

CLAIM: Security tapes were not released
FACT: Yes they were

In March of 2002, five frames of video footage from a Pentagon Security camera were released & you can see them here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/fiveframes.html

On May 16, 2006, the Department of Defense revealed footage from two video cameras, which you can observe here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html

Footage from the nearby Citgo gas station was released on September 15, 2006, and you can view it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk

I understand that the video from the Sheraton Hotel really didn’t show anything, but I don’t have a link for it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CLAIM: Engines were made out of titanium & shouldn’t have broken
FACT: The engines were not stamped out of a solid block of titanium

Instead, engines are intricate assemblies of thousands of parts that are welded or joined together by fasteners. Yes, some of the pieces were titanium. In hitting reinforced concrete, the engines were smashed apart. This is what happens all the time in plane crashes

Greg Feith, former senior investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), says this (utter destruction) is typical. Feith says that in 1997, a high speed plane crash In Sumatra left nothing more than a tire carcass and engine-parts the size of a pot lid. (Pop. Mech., “Debunking 9/11,” p. 87-88). Notice what he said about the engine.

The engines did not "vaporize"; they were smashed apart. It's really simple.
--------------------------------
Other questions:
Q: Why did the plane punch out its outline on the twin towers but not on the Pentagon?

A: The Pentagon is made of reinforced concrete which was later upgraded to be "blast resistent." This means it was unbelievable massive and resistent to impact. The towers were light and airy with an average denisty of balsa wood (think about it). That's why the 2 impacts are different.
-------------------
EYEWITNESSES:

There were huge numbers of eye-witnesses including those who saw the plane while stuck on the interstate, the rescue workers, the on-lookers, the medical examiners office, the air-traffic controllers who located the plane coming to Washington & ordered the jets to intercept it.
=============
Most importantly, if it were a missile, then where did the plane & its passengers go?
===========
MYTH: High speed plane acidents don't cause much damage.
FACT: This is just not true. See the quote above from the former Chief Investigator of the FAA.

Also, forensics text books say the same thing. In “Medico-legal Investigation of Death" by Spitz & Fisher, 2nd ed., page 411, it says:

"With the crash of modern jet planes, even in the absence of extensive fire, the high speeds of impact lead to disintegration of the aircraft and the passengers within."
================
MYTH: Prof Sozen somehow fudged his results about the crash
FACT: Sozen is actually the leading expert, or near-leading expert, on such crashes in the United States. His article clearly says the computer simulation uses principles of physics to derive results. The claim that he "guided" the physics is simply not true and is equivalent to calling him a fake. Hardly.

WIthout getting too fancy, anyone can see that 120-foot-diameter plane with an aluminum shell will not punch out a full 120 ft circle when hitting blast-hardened reinforced contrete.

The outer part of the circle will be supported by the surrounding wall & will not give way. Only the inside part of the cirlce will be blown out. The impact circle will receive pressure that is highest in the center & lowest at the edges.

Also, a 90 foot hole is gigantic. I'm surprised it wasn't smaller
+++++++++++++++++
CLAIM: No plane debris was found. It “evaporated.”
FACT: This nonsensical claim was made up by the theorists. There isn’t an official or scientist who claims this.

In fact, clear wreckage of a plane was found & photographs were printed in all the papers. Here's a nice photo from 9/11 that clearly shows plane wreckage:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...
(scroll down after clicking).

In addition the “American Society of Civil Engineers” & the “Structural Engineering Institute” (both are non-governmental) investigated the Pentagon crash. Their report is called "The Pentagon Performance Report" & it’s at:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

The report contains abundant references to plane debris & body parts found in the Pentagon. For example, on page 26 it says:

“The remains of most of the passengers on the aircraft were found near the end of the travel of the aircraft debris. The front landing gear (a relatively solid and heavy object) and the flight data recorder (which had been located near the rear of the aircraft) were also found nearly 300 ft into the structure. By contrast, the remains of a few individuals (the hijacking suspects), who most likely were near the front of the aircraft, were found relatively close to the aircraft’s point of impact with the building."