Why didn't the tail of the plane damage the Pentagon's facade?

[tanabear]

Last week I asked a question in this forum regarding what caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon. I was attempting to see if the debunkers could arrive at some kind of a consensus. This did not occur. Basically, the consensus was that as long as you believe the official story you can believe any explanation you want and it is reasonable. I presented a list of various explanations that have been offered over the years, very few people actually provided answers. This week's question is also regarding the Pentagon attack. The question is why didn't the tail of Flight 77 damage the facade of the Pentagon? This problem is clearly mentioned in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR). It states,

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

As in the situation with the C-ring hole, it mentions this phenomenon but fails to provide an explanation. So what is the best explanation for why the tail didn't create any visible damage to the Pentagon's facade?

[Unsecured Coins]

the jews

[Wildy]

Explosives in the tail.

Frankly, I have no idea.

[WildCat]

tanabear, do you think a missile hit the Pentagon?

[Hokulele]

Quantum mechanics.

[Walter Ego]

Ah, because the wall of the Pentagon was made of heavily reinforced concrete and the plane wasn’t?

[Tbone]

Last week I asked a question in this forum regarding what caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon. I was attempting to see if the debunkers could arrive at some kind of a consensus. This did not occur. Basically, the consensus was that as long as you believe the official story you can believe any explanation you want and it is reasonable. I presented a list of various explanations that have been offered over the years, very few people actually provided answers. This week's question is also regarding the Pentagon attack. The question is why didn't the tail of Flight 77 damage the facade of the Pentagon? This problem is clearly mentioned in the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR). It states,

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

As in the situation with the C-ring hole, it mentions this phenomenon but fails to provide an explanation. So what is the best explanation for why the tail didn't create any visible damage to the Pentagon's facade?

First you need to explain why you think the tail should have created highly visible damage.

[WildCat]

The wings were much bigger and heavier than the tail, and they barely managed to do any damage to the Pentagon walls.

tanabear, you are basically outing yourself as claiming a missile hit the Pentagon, is that correct? Otherwise you have to explain why the tail of whatever plane you think hit the Pentagon didn't leave much of a mark...

[A W Smith]

because unlike the wings no fuel is stored in the tail fin. because of this it had far less mass. It is essentially a relatively light weight structure. In fact they have been known to fall off the planes they are attached to

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/587crash/splash_image.jpg

[beachnut]

As in the situation with the C-ring hole, it mentions this phenomenon but fails to provide an explanation. So what is the best explanation for why the tail didn't create any visible damage to the Pentagon's facade? Please prove the tail did not damage the Pentagon. Proof please.

[beachnut]

because unlike the wings no fuel is stored in the tail fin. because of this it had far less mass. It is essentially a relatively light weight structure. In fact they have been known to fall off the planes they are attached to

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/587crash/splash_image.jpg
You are correct, the tail is very light so it does not mess up the balance of the plane; I would say it is the least massive part of the whole plane. And that mass goes down as it moves away from the fuselage silhouette; therefore the damage due to the tail is less than the engines and fuselage, and even the ..... .

Who makes up the false ideas of 9/11 truth; who comes up with these dumb questions??

[realitybites]

Goo-Gone (http://www.magicamerican.com/products_gg.aspx)

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Ah, because the wall of the Pentagon was made of heavily reinforced concrete and the plane wasn’t?
Then why didn't that wall move?

[CptColumbo]

Take two identical aluminium cans, one full of liquid and the other empty. Throw the empty one at a window as hard as you can (be sure to do this first), and note the result. Then take the full can and throw it at the same window as hard as you can, and note the result.

[leftysergeant]

Somewhere around here we have a picture of a cartoon-like cut-out of a Betty light bomber on the side of the USS Hinsdale. One wing and engine and the fuselage completely entered the Hinsdale. All we see of the vertical stabilzer is a few scrape marks. It is, as has been pointed out here, rather fragile. It is one of the most notoriously fragile parts of most Boeing aircraft. B 52 vertical stabilizers have been known to break off in flight or in an unusually strong cross wind on the ground. Sometimes, the planes even survive.

If you look at enough crash scene photos, you will notice that the entire empanage usually breaks off it a high-speed accident.

What do you, then, expect it to do when you run it into a brick wall? I would expect it to fall off harmlessly and follow the fuselage on inside the building.

Also, we have here another case of the effects of Pierre-Henri Bunel's polluting the meme concerning the Pentagon strike. The slimeball claims that the tail should have hit a window that is obviously undamaged, directly over the center of the impact hole, even though most witnesses describe the plane as being in a left bank, which would have put the vertical stabilizer in an area where the wall is totally bashed in.

Little punk Dylan then helped fix that BS in the meme by showing images of a cartoon 757 hitting the wall flat and level.

Garbage in, garbage out, I guess.

[T.A.M.]

now you've gone and done it. Now the truther will come back with....

"Well if the tail was too light to do any damage to the wall, why was it not found sitting on the lawn of the Pentagon??????"

TAM;)

[Unfit4Command]

Somewhere around here we have a picture of a cartoon-like cut-out of a Betty light bomber on the side of the USS Hinsdale. One wing and engine and the fuselage completely entered the Hinsdale. All we see of the vertical stabilzer is a few scrape marks.

The picture is located on the bottom of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze) page.

[peteweaver]

Last week I asked a question in this forum regarding what caused the hole in the C-Ring of the Pentagon. I was attempting to see if the debunkers could arrive at some kind of a consensus. This did not occur. Basically, the consensus was that as long as you believe the official story you can believe any explanation you want and it is reasonable. I presented a list of various explanations that have been offered over the years, very few people actually provided answers. This week's question is also regarding the Pentagon attack. The question is why didn't the tail of Flight 77 damage the facade of the Pentagon?

Because the facade damaged the tail and tore it apart.

Its one of the weaker parts of a plane.

The heavy stuff like the undercarriage, the engines etc carries further.

The skin of a plane itself is very thin, comparable to a beercan, all its got to do is act like canvas did on early planes, its stretched over ribs which maintain rigidity.

Airliners are not designed to crash, they are designed to fly, the wings and the tail are quite fragile. The undercarriage on the otherhand is designed to be sturdy. As are the engines.

[Loss Leader]

the jews


Correction: The Zionists


By which one means: the Jews.

[16.5]

Tanabear says:

"Basically, the consensus was that as long as you believe the official story you can believe any explanation you want and it is reasonable."

That is ludicrous and a complete insult. People answered your JAQ thread in detail, and YOU ignored the answers. Basically, the consensus was that as long as you don't believe the evidence you can believe any explanation you want no matter how unreasonable.

"So what is the best explanation for why the tail didn't create any visible damage to the Pentagon's facade?"

What is your explanation?

[Mangoose]

First of all, this is what the tail is made of and notice how it breaks into pieces:

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8438/parts1yg3.jpg

Second of all, there WAS damage on the facade, just above and to the left of the center hole.

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/5623/tailvt0.jpg

So there was a spot of scraped limestone (marked in red) at the 4th floor slab, and extending below it to the 3rd floor slab was a long narrow scuff mark (in yellow), where the edges of the limestone blocks were quite pronounced. There is missing limestone at the right edge of the window there, and the window itself is destroyed. Finally, there is a crack in the limestone extending along the 4th floor.

Since this damage is located just to the left of where one would expect, this suggests that as the length of fuselage plowed into the building, it rotated counterclockwise to some extent. Possibly this movement was related to the leftward tipping of the wings just prior to impact, or the behavior of the plane as it passed inside the building.

[leftysergeant]

now you've gone and done it. Now the truther will come back with....

"Well if the tail was too light to do any damage to the wall, why was it not found sitting on the lawn of the Pentagon??????"

TAM;)

Well, DUH! The wall was plenty strong enough to do such damage to the tail as to render it unrecognizeable.

[gumboot]

The tail of the plane did damage the Pentagon's facade.

Next?

[tanabear]

tanabear, do you think a missile hit the Pentagon?

No. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I haven't heard a good explanation that can satisfy all the available evidence, so I'm undecided on the issue. All the explanations, whether it is the official story, the missile hypothesis or the fly-over theory, always leave some questions unanswered.

Ah, because the wall of the Pentagon was made of heavily reinforced concrete and the plane wasn’t?

Then why did some of the plane penetrate the E-ring and then blast a hole clear through the C-ring some 310 feet from the impact area? The tail and wings were able to go through the WTC towers and create visible impact damage. It sounds like on this issue you are arguing like a no-planer when they discuss the Twin Towers. The Sandia Labs test shows an F-4 Phantom hitting a concrete block. The wings and the tail disintegrate, but they still cut right through the concrete block pulverizing it. When discussing the internal damage to the Pentagon debunkers like to describe how forceful the impact was. Beachnut wrote, "Let me think about it… The impact had the energy of a 2000 pound bomb, but in the shape of a plane. A shape charge, of KE. A KE weapon. Kinetic Energy weapon. What do you think caused the hole?" When discussing damage to the external facade debunkers describe the plane as an aluminum can thrown against a window. It is another example of reasoning backwards to find excuses to justify their lack of evidence.

According the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR), the plane impacted at column line 14. Where is the damage created by the tail of the plane?

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/images/hole01.jpg

[WildCat]

Somewhere around here we have a picture of a cartoon-like cut-out of a Betty light bomber on the side of the USS Hinsdale.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/img/APA/APA-120_Hinsdale-kamikaze.gif

OMG. conspiracy! A cruise missile hit the Hinsdale!!1!!1!!!

[bynmdsue]

Almost exactly where the arrow for 13 is pointing in the picture you just posted

[gumboot]

I'm sorry, did he just say the F4 in the Sandia Labs test cut through the concrete block and pulverised it?

[WildCat]

No. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I haven't heard a good explanation that can satisfy all the available evidence, so I'm undecided on the issue. All the explanations, whether it is the official story, the missile hypothesis or the fly-over theory, always leave some questions unanswered.
Actually, Flight 77 hitting it leaves no questions unanswered except purely academic ones. Missiles and other planes don't even begin to fit the evidence.

Then why did some of the plane penetrate the E-ring and then blast a hole clear through the C-ring some 310 feet from the impact area?
Because at ~400 mph 310 feet gets covered very quickly, ~ half a second.

The tail and wings were able to go through the WTC towers and create visible impact damage.
The WTC exterior was mostly glass, the rest was relatively thin steel. The Pentagon was just reinforced to protect form a truck bomb, and even the windows were very thick and weighed nearly a ton each. But even this couldn't stop the fuselage and bits of the wings from punching through.

It sounds like on this issue you are arguing like a no-planer when they discuss the Twin Towers. The Sandia Labs test shows an F-4 Phantom hitting a concrete block. The wings and the tail disintegrate, but they still cut right through the concrete block pulverizing it.
What the hell are you talking about? Nothing cut through that block in the Sandia test!

[DarkMagician]

I'm sorry, I just had to do this:

o/` Tail fought the wall and the wall won... o/`

[X]

No. I don't know what happened at the Pentagon. I haven't heard a good explanation that can satisfy all the available evidence, so I'm undecided on the issue. All the explanations, whether it is the official story, the missile hypothesis or the fly-over theory, always leave some questions unanswered.


Oh, so all you need is a clear explanation?
Well, that's easily cleared up.
Read this (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html) for a summary, and this (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary) for eyewitness statements.
Those links should clear up your confusion. :D
For the record, if you expect full detail of what happened at every instant and to every single piece of plane and building, you're going to be searching for a long time.
Go with the explanation that makes sense and is backed by all available evidence.



Then why did some of the plane penetrate the E-ring and then blast a hole clear through the C-ring some 310 feet from the impact area?


Because it was a really really big and heavey airliner going very very fast. Momentum, Kinetic Energy, take your pick. A plane like that going that speed dosen't just stop in an instant.



The tail and wings were able to go through the WTC towers and create visible impact damage. It sounds like on this issue you are arguing like a no-planer when they discuss the Twin Towers.


The constuction of the WTC Towers differed a little bit from that of the Pentagon. It's one of those tiny insignificant details that actually does affect the big picture, that one.



The Sandia Labs test shows an F-4 Phantom hitting a concrete block. The wings and the tail disintegrate, but they still cut right through the concrete block pulverizing it.


The wings and tail? Can you show me a picture of the aftermath showing these cuts? I can't find any, and i'm curious.
I did find the Sandia Labs website, here (sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index), where you can watch the test and many slow-motion replays.
It looks to me like the wingtip shears off and it's momentum carries it past the block. Seperation would explain why it falls as it goes forward.
I'm also curious to know what kind of concrete was used.



When discussing the internal damage to the Pentagon debunkers like to describe how forceful the impact was. Beachnut wrote, "Let me think about it… The impact had the energy of a 2000 pound bomb, but in the shape of a plane. A shape charge, of KE. A KE weapon. Kinetic Energy weapon. What do you think caused the hole?" When discussing damage to the external facade debunkers describe the plane as an aluminum can thrown against a window. It is another example of reasoning backwards to find excuses to justify their lack of evidence.


This differences in analyses that are confusing you are between the total energy involved, and it's affect on the relatively fragile construction of the planes. Just because the plane it destroyed, its mass is not.



According the Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR), the plane impacted at column line 14. Where is the damage created by the tail of the plane?

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/images/hole01.jpg


Mangoose did a very good job of explaining that. In fact, the damage he points out is visible in your photo.

[beachnut]

Because the facade damaged the tail and tore it apart.

Its one of the weaker parts of a plane.

The heavy stuff like the undercarriage, the engines etc carries further.

The skin of a plane itself is very thin, comparable to a beercan, all its got to do is act like canvas did on early planes, its stretched over ribs which maintain rigidity.

Airliners are not designed to crash, they are designed to fly, the wings and the tail are quite fragile. The undercarriage on the otherhand is designed to be sturdy. As are the engines.
Do not scare an old pilot, I prefer to think of them as indestructible until they come in contact with stuff like dirt, water, rocks, bricks, large hail stones, and the farm.

The strength of honeycomb Al, and composite carbon fiber, etc, are all super strong against the air! And at the right speed some of the wings and tails could cut some good size cable/wire.

The poor guy who started this tread did not even look at the photos or understand impact energy of an aircraft going over 700 feet a second. The better question for him is why did he fail to find some of the evidence he is getting in return for his quesion.

6 years and people are still unable to avoid the false information of 9/11 truth. Why does 9/11 truth have a NAZI like, and a "1984" like name? They can't figure out what a tail does at 470 plus KIAS, is that like their name of the movement; kind of off by a bunch?...

[leftysergeant]

I'm sorry, did he just say the F4 in the Sandia Labs test cut through the concrete block and pulverised it?

I think he was looking at that stub of the right elevator that grazed the edge of the block after shearing off. The fact that it continued on in its orginal direction of travel confused him a bit.

[Loss Leader]

All the explanations, whether it is the official story, the missile hypothesis or the fly-over theory, always leave some questions unanswered.


Which one answers the question: Where are the passengers from American Airlines flight 77?

[maxpower1227]

I don't understand the point of this thread. The picture that tanabear posted clearly shows damage from the wings, and he/she claims not to believe in the missile theory. So if tanabear accepts that a plane hit the Pentagon, what's the point of wondering why the damage due to the tail wasn't exactly as expected?

[rwguinn]

I don't understand the point of this thread. The picture that tanabear posted clearly shows damage from the wings, and he/she claims not to believe in the missile theory. So if tanabear accepts that a plane hit the Pentagon, what's the point of wondering why the damage due to the tail wasn't exactly as HE/SHE/IT expected?
Fixed that for you.
It is not an unexpected result for the people who have an attachment between their minds and bodies and the real world

[BeAChooser]

Almost exactly where the arrow for 13 is pointing in the picture you just posted

Exactly.

[tanabear]

Tanabear says:

"Basically, the consensus was that as long as you believe the official story you can believe any explanation you want and it is reasonable."

That is ludicrous and a complete insult. People answered your JAQ thread in detail, and YOU ignored the answers. Basically, the consensus was that as long as you don't believe the evidence you can believe any explanation you want no matter how unreasonable.

"So what is the best explanation for why the tail didn't create any visible damage to the Pentagon's facade?"

What is your explanation?

If there is more than one answer as to how the hole was created then that is speculation, not an answer. Remind me again what was the answer? I don't necessarily have an explanation for why the tail did not damage the facade, that is why I asked the question.

I don't understand the point of this thread. The picture that tanabear posted clearly shows damage from the wings, and he/she claims not to believe in the missile theory. So if tanabear accepts that a plane hit the Pentagon, what's the point of wondering why the damage due to the tail wasn't exactly as expected?

Another less widely known explanation for the Pentagon attack comes from Eric Bart. It is known as the 'plane-bomb' theory. It can be summarized as follows, "According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by shaped charges on the aircraft a split second before impact. It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building.

The plane bomb theory can also account for the lack of imprint of the jetliner's profile on the Pentagon's facade. The ends of the wings and the vertical stabilizer -- the parts of the plane that did not leave impact impressions -- could have been shredded by the explosive charges, perhaps ahead of the fuselage. These relatively light components would have produced only a few tons of confetti, which is not captured in the limited number of photographs taken soon after the crash."

Of course, I don't necessarily agree with this theory. I merely put it forward as possibility.

Despite claims to the contrary, there is no structural damage to the facade caused by the impact of the tail. This is stated clearly in the Pentagon Building Performance report. If you showed someone the picture of the facade after the impact and asked them to pinpoint where the tail damaged the facade you could get lots of different answers. Someone can draw arrows around column line 15 and say, "look that is where the tail impacted." Someone else could draw arrows around columns line 11 and 9 and say, "that is where the tail impacted." The question remains, why didn't the tail create any structural damage to the Pentagon's facade? If it fell off before the plane impacted the building, then where was it found?

[Pardalis]

They blew up the plane before it hit the Pentagon?

WTFF?

[defaultdotxbe]

Despite claims to the contrary, there is no structural damage to the facade caused by the impact of the tail. This is stated clearly in the Pentagon Building Performance report. If you showed someone the picture of the facade after the impact and asked them to pinpoint where the tail damaged the facade you could get lots of different answers. Someone can draw arrows around column line 15 and say, "look that is where the tail impacted." Someone else could draw arrows around columns line 11 and 9 and say, "that is where the tail impacted." The question remains, why didn't the tail create any structural damage to the Pentagon's facade? If it fell off before the plane impacted the building, then where was it found?
i love how truthers ask for an explanation of something, reject the offered explanation(s) because they dont jive with government reports, then dismiss the government reports as lies

[X]

Another less widely known explanation for the Pentagon attack comes from Eric Bart. It is known as the 'plane-bomb' theory.


Oh, this promises to be good...
:popcorn1



It can be summarized as follows, "According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by shaped charges on the aircraft a split second before impact. It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building. .


Yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you for sources of all the witnesses who claim this. I'll expect more than one, since you refer to witnesses, not witness. I'll also ask you to take into account that nobody is perfectly accurate on all the details of an event. People are human, and when confronted with something shocking and tragic that they've never seen before, tend to not notice some things and often get small details mixed up.

By the way, planes, which are often filled with a volatile substance known as "jet fuel", sometimes explode when they hit something.




The plane bomb theory can also account for the lack of imprint of the jetliner's profile on the Pentagon's facade. The ends of the wings and the vertical stabilizer -- the parts of the plane that did not leave impact impressions -- could have been shredded by the explosive charges, perhaps ahead of the fuselage. These relatively light components would have produced only a few tons of confetti, which is not captured in the limited number of photographs taken soon after the crash."


See above. I'm also curious to know what the point of this would be. You're crashing an airliner into a building, and you blow up the wings and tail ahead of time, for what purpose? To reduce damage? :boggled:. Ask the person who conjured the hypothesis up, would you please?




Of course, I don't necessarily agree with this theory. I merely put it forward as possibility.


It's been put forward, given it's due consideration, and discarded as pointless rubbish. Truth to tell, I'm a little intrigued that you say "don't necessarily agree", rather than "don't agree". It is an interesting statement on your discretionary criteria.




Despite claims to the contrary, there is no structural damage to the facade caused by the impact of the tail. This is stated clearly in the Pentagon Building Performance report. If you showed someone the picture of the facade after the impact and asked them to pinpoint where the tail damaged the facade you could get lots of different answers. Someone can draw arrows around column line 15 and say, "look that is where the tail impacted." Someone else could draw arrows around columns line 11 and 9 and say, "that is where the tail impacted." The question remains, why didn't the tail create any structural damage to the Pentagon's facade? If it fell off before the plane impacted the building, then where was it found?


Have you actually read this thread?
It doesn't look like it.
Go back, and read the responses provided to you.
If you are really interested in having your questions answered, you can't go around ignoring the answers given.
Read them. If you require clarification, ask.
If you are actually honest and willing to read and try to understand, you'll get along much better. Ignoring the answers as insufficient without providing any justification for doing so if rather rude to the people who took the time to answer you, and will rapidly make you unpopular.

[Pardalis]

I thought we had the most ridiculous theory about the Pentagon with the fly-over idiocy, but now with the "they blew up the plane before it hit" nonsense I'm not sure anymore.

:eusa_think:

And to think these twoofers try to think of the most outrageous explanations instead of the most comprehensible, rational and reasonable explanation there is: the f'n plane hit the f'n building.

Give it up twoofers, this is beyond pathetic.

[T.A.M.]

If it were not beyond pathetic, they would not participate in the first place.

TAM;)

[Sabrina]

Wait, let me get this straight...

Someone is actually positing the theory that there were bombs on 77 that blew up the plane a split second before impact with the Pentagon?

:wide-eyed:seerrrr:

There are just no words.

[Pardalis]

Sometimes I think twoofers want every piece of the plane to be accounted for, and for us to know exactly where they went, and how they made contact with the Pentagon.

They ask for the impossible because they know it is impossible, so they can keep doubting the whole story.

It doesn't matter what exactly happened to the tail, there is enough evidence to suggest a plane hit the building.

[Darkhole]

I'm sorry, did he just say the F4 in the Sandia Labs test cut through the concrete block and pulverised it?

I think he won't discuss this 'fact' any further. ;)

[IchabodPlain]

Sometimes I think twoofers want every piece of the plane to be accounted for, and for us to know exactly where they went, and how they made contact with the Pentagon.

They ask for the impossible because they know it is impossible, so they can keep doubting the whole story.

It doesn't matter what exactly happened to the tail, there is enough evidence to suggest a plane hit the building.

I have encountered this. I friend of mine once stated that he would not be satisfied until they recontructed flight 77. :covereyes

[Totovader]

Not only did they apparently have bombs on Flight 77, but they also apparently needed to blow a hole in the C-Ring.

What was the purpose for all these extra explosives? How does it fit into some grand conspiracy theory? What is the evidence for such ridiculous claims?

tanabear is completely silent on this. It boils down to just plain stupidity: reject the evidence for no reason and just invent anything to try and conflict with the widely accepted scientific version.

It's kind of fun to watch- if for no other reason that I'm positive tanabear doesn't even believe this crap.

[Sabrina]

Oh, so he/she/it is JAQing off? ;)

[Totovader]

Oh, so he/she/it is JAQing off? ;)

Not even- usually when conspiracists resort to JAQing off, they still have a "theory" in mind (I use the term loosely), they're just terrified of the fools they will make of themselves in trying to support that theory.

tanabear can't even get that far. For tanabear it's just pure willful ignorance.

[njslim]

While reading on HENRY62 site about the Fuji Bank UPS (uninterruptible Power System)
on 81st floor of South Tower cause of molten metal seen flowing out of building - he
mentioned that next project was explaining what happened to tail of Flight 77.

Suggest give him all support can - please send him all information ....

[MIKILLINI]

If there is more than one answer as to how the hole was created then that is speculation, not an answer. Remind me again what was the answer? I don't necessarily have an explanation for why the tail did not damage the facade, that is why I asked the question.



Another less widely known explanation for the Pentagon attack comes from Eric Bart. It is known as the 'plane-bomb' theory. It can be summarized as follows, "According to this theory, the jetliner was shredded by shaped charges on the aircraft a split second before impact. It accounts for several features in the eyewitnesses' reports of the moment of impact that are difficult to reconcile with the official crash account, such as of the jet exploding or disintegrating before reaching the building.

The plane bomb theory can also account for the lack of imprint of the jetliner's profile on the Pentagon's facade. The ends of the wings and the vertical stabilizer -- the parts of the plane that did not leave impact impressions -- could have been shredded by the explosive charges, perhaps ahead of the fuselage. These relatively light components would have produced only a few tons of confetti, which is not captured in the limited number of photographs taken soon after the crash."

Of course, I don't necessarily agree with this theory. I merely put it forward as possibility.

Despite claims to the contrary, there is no structural damage to the facade caused by the impact of the tail. This is stated clearly in the Pentagon Building Performance report. If you showed someone the picture of the facade after the impact and asked them to pinpoint where the tail damaged the facade you could get lots of different answers. Someone can draw arrows around column line 15 and say, "look that is where the tail impacted." Someone else could draw arrows around columns line 11 and 9 and say, "that is where the tail impacted." The question remains, why didn't the tail create any structural damage to the Pentagon's facade? If it fell off before the plane impacted the building, then where was it found?

Ho Boy! Use common sense here Tana. Shaped charges in the plane???!!!
Sure, you say you don't necessarily believe it, but you believe it enough to put it out there as a possibility and you believe the tail should have been found as a recognizable piece.

There were shaped charges in the plane...shaped in the form of wing tanks and the type of explosives used for these charges had the consistency of a hydrocarbon liquid.

The vertical stabilizer was the weakest link of the plane as it is on virtually all planes.

If it's your prerogative to keep searching for answers through twoofwacked reality, then your search will never come to grips with actual reality.

[leftysergeant]

Any shaped charge used to blow the hole in the C ring would have to have been there well before the impact of the aircraft. No military personnel who survived the crash saw anyone setting a big doughnut of explosives on the wall. Okaaaaaay.... And they kept quiet even after they realized that their dumb-as-a-sack-of-balsawood-sledgehammers boss nearly killed them. Interesting that so many good soldiers kept quiet to protect the rputation of a Sec Def that even a lot of right-wing military types would like to punt to the moon without an oxygen cylinder.

[CurtC]

Despite claims to the contrary, there is no structural damage to the facade caused by the impact of the tail... The question remains, why didn't the tail create any structural damage to the Pentagon's facade?Aren't you being a little dishonest by qualifying the damage you'll accept as "structural"? We've showed you the damage - it was apparently cosmetic only, on the incredibly tough Pentagon's wall.

[Sabrina]

It seriously blows my mind to think that some of these people seem to believe that US soldiers will just blindly follow along without questioning anything that comes up, up to and including potentially treasonous acts. Yes, we put great store in respect to higherups and following orders, but that doesn't include turning ourselves into what essentially amounts to a hive mind blindly following orders from the "queen", so to speak. If a soldier had actually witnessed something suspicious (such as placing explosives against the wall of the C-ring) they would likely have said something. It states very plainly in numerous DoD regulations that a soldier has the right to question any order or action they feel might be unlawful. My impression is the twoofers view us as the worker bees blindly following orders, and it couldn't be further from the truth.

[tanabear]

The vertical stabilizer was the weakest link of the plane as it is on virtually all planes.

If it's your prerogative to keep searching for answers through twoofwacked reality, then your search will never come to grips with actual reality.

So are you saying that tail of a Boeing 757 wouldn't create any structural damage to the facade of the Pentagon? The weakest link of the plane made it through the towers. Shouldn't it have at least knocked off portions of the concrete facade?

Aren't you being a little dishonest by qualifying the damage you'll accept as "structural"? We've showed you the damage - it was apparently cosmetic only, on the incredibly tough Pentagon's wall.

It wasn't my opinion. I was quoting the Pentagon Building Performance Report when they wrote,

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

How do you know that the "damage" that was pointed out was caused by the tail? It is certainly not as long as the tail. It is at the incorrect angle according to the PBPR. As well, one can find cosmetic damage in many places on the Pentagon's facade.

[WildCat]

The weakest link of the plane made it through the towers.
It did? Evidence?

[Mangoose]

So are you saying that tail of a Boeing 757 wouldn't create any structural damage to the facade of the Pentagon? The weakest link of the plane made it through the towers. Shouldn't it have at least knocked off portions of the concrete facade?


I don't see why shattering a bomb-proof window, and scraping and cracking the limestone facade should not be enough. Did you mathematically model how much force should have been delivered by the stabilizer? If not, be sure to factor in the deceleration of the plane by the time the vertical stabilizer reached the facade.

And you are wrong with respect to the WTC impacts.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7044/wtctailsm5.jpg

It wasn't my opinion. I was quoting the Pentagon Building Performance Report


"Obvious visible damage". No one here is saying that the damage caused by the stabilizer was "obvious". It probably left its mark on the building, but did not damage it in a very noticable way.

How do you know that the "damage" that was pointed out was caused by the tail? It is certainly not as long as the tail. It is at the incorrect angle according to the PBPR.


What angle did the PBPR say the tail would have as the plane passed through the building? Did they state the column number where the tail specifically made contact with the building?

[X]

It wasn't my opinion. I was quoting the Pentagon Building Performance Report when they wrote,

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

How do you know that the "damage" that was pointed out was caused by the tail? It is certainly not as long as the tail. It is at the incorrect angle according to the PBPR. As well, one can find cosmetic damage in many places on the Pentagon's facade.


I'm going to address the issue of the height of the markings vs. the height of the tail.

It has been explained already how flimsy the vertical stabilizer is. The part is designed to provide yaw stability (Mackey, please correct me if I'm wrong). It does not have to deal with large forced, especially from the front.

In addition, look at any aircraft and find a vertical stabilizer that is not swept. They exist, but they are very rare, due to high-velocity airflow.

So, you have a structure that is relatively week, and which sloped back.
When it hits the wall, it is going to break off. Mostly due to shear.
Some of the tail will be slammed into the building. This will cause damage for the height of the tail that hits the building. Remember that the leading edge slopes away. Being a weak structure, it is easily conceivable that the tail will break off some time before the upper parts of it impact the building.

So there is nothing suspicious about the quote you have selected.

By the way: "structural damage to the facade"?
Would that be the cosmetic damage that has been pointed out to you repeatedly, or is there some other way to damage a facade?

[PhantomWolf]

Sometimes I think twoofers want every piece of the plane to be accounted for, and for us to know exactly where they went, and how they made contact with the Pentagon.

They ask for the impossible because they know it is impossible, so they can keep doubting the whole story.

It doesn't matter what exactly happened to the tail, there is enough evidence to suggest a plane hit the building.

It's a form of shifting the goal posts. By asking more and more trivia and irrelevant questions they know that sooner or later they'll hit one that can't be answered, especially if they ask for near impossible things. At that point thery can write off their opponent's entire argument and declare victory. LastChild is the master of it. It's really like declaring that Apollo was a hoax because no one can tell you who manufactored the diodes in the AGC, by avoiding the large picture and consentrating on the minisal they can claim to have undermined the premises that most people work on (e.g. that since no-one can name the diodes then the AGC was a fake and without they couldn't have guided the craft, thus Apollo was faked.)

[TjW]

Shucks, there was an Airbus that had the vertical stabilizer depart the aircraft as a result of applying full rudder deflection. Granted, he'd just applied full deflection in the opposite direction first.
For some reason, I have difficulty believing that "penetrating reinforced concrete walls" was high on the design goals for that particular part of the airplane. Call it an argument from personal incredulity, if you like.

[Minadin]

It was the last thing to hit and the facade was already damaged when it did so.

[Jonnyclueless]

Does the Pentagon really have a facade? Looks like concrete and windows to me.

[deep]

It's a form of shifting the goal posts. By asking more and more trivia and irrelevant questions they know that sooner or later they'll hit one that can't be answered, especially if they ask for near impossible things. At that point thery (sic) can write off their opponent's entire argument and declare victory. LastChild is the master of it. It's really like declaring that Apollo was a hoax because no one can tell you who manufactored (sic) the diodes in the AGC, by avoiding the large picture and consentrating (sic) on the minisal (sic) they can claim to have undermined the premises that most people work on (e.g. that since no-one can name the diodes then the AGC was a fake and without they couldn't have guided the craft, thus Apollo was faked.)


There are no goalposts being moved, and this is not some insignificant detail that's being asked about. Are you seriously claiming that the whereabouts of the wings/tail of a crashed aircraft is insignificant?

Also, you keep referring to all of this "other" physical evidence to support a plane crashing into the Pentagon -- which physical evidence are you referring to?

You can't account for the wings or tail of the plane - nor did they appear to leave any distinguishable marks on the outside of the building. There's no video evidence showing a commercial airliner crashing into the building. The FDR data conflicts with the official story, according to an organization made up of pilots with nearly 150,000 hours flight time between them. You've explained away each of those individual problems by pointing to the overwhelming amount of other physical evidence.

So, please, tell me - where is this evidence? Please enlighten me with the physical evidence that we can verify ourselves. Don't play little games - don't ask me if I think the airlines were in on it, blah blah blah. Just provide the physical evidence that a commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

[A W Smith]

There are no goalposts being moved, and this is not some insignificant detail that's being asked about. Are you seriously claiming that the whereabouts of the wings/tail of a crashed aircraft is insignificant?

Also, you keep referring to all of this "other" physical evidence to support a plane crashing into the Pentagon -- which physical evidence are you referring to?

You can't account for the wings or tail of the plane - nor did they appear to leave any distinguishable marks on the outside of the building. There's no video evidence showing a commercial airliner crashing into the building. The FDR data conflicts with the official story, according to an organization made up of pilots with nearly 150,000 hours flight time between them. You've explained away each of those individual problems by pointing to the overwhelming amount of other physical evidence.

So, please, tell me - where is this evidence? Please enlighten me with the physical evidence that we can verify ourselves. Don't play little games - don't ask me if I think the airlines were in on it, blah blah blah. Just provide the physical evidence that a commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon.


The evidence you wish to ignore is here
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

also here
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

[DavidJames]

There are no goalposts being moved, and this is not some insignificant detail that's being asked about. Are you seriously claiming that the whereabouts of the wings/tail of a crashed aircraft is insignificant?

Also, you keep referring to all of this "other" physical evidence to support a plane crashing into the Pentagon -- which physical evidence are you referring to?

You can't account for the wings or tail of the plane - nor did they appear to leave any distinguishable marks on the outside of the building. There's no video evidence showing a commercial airliner crashing into the building. The FDR data conflicts with the official story, according to an organization made up of pilots with nearly 150,000 hours flight time between them. You've explained away each of those individual problems by pointing to the overwhelming amount of other physical evidence.

So, please, tell me - where is this evidence? Please enlighten me with the physical evidence that we can verify ourselves. Don't play little games - don't ask me if I think the airlines were in on it, blah blah blah. Just provide the physical evidence that a commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon.Let's stop playing games. Stop asking questions and behave like an adult.

What happened to the plane, be specific and support your claim with evidence.
What happened to the passengers on the plane, be specific and support your claim with evidence.
Where did the passenger DNA found at the Pentagon come from, be specific and support your claim with evidence.
Where did the parts of the plane found at the Pentagon come from, be specific and support your claim with evidence.
Why did the dozens of witnesses who claim they saw the plane lie, be specific and support your claim with evidence.
What made the damage at the Pentagon, be specific and support your claim with evidence.

Note: Nowhere in your response should there be any questions. You should make declarative statements. You should provide verifiable evidence to support your claims.

Now please go and do your research and return when complete. Good luck.

[PhantomWolf]

The evidence you wish to ignore is here
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

also here
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

And I'd add that the port wing tip was found buried into the ground near the Helipad.

[Darkhole]

The evidence you wish to ignore is here
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

also here
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary


And here:

Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

[leftysergeant]

How do you know that the "damage" that was pointed out was caused by the tail? It is certainly not as long as the tail. It is at the incorrect angle according to the PBPR. As well, one can find cosmetic damage in many places on the Pentagon's facade.

How do you get it being at the incorrect angle? The plane was in a left bank. The tail print slants away to the left. Where are you saying it should have been?

[gc051360]

Not sure if anyone posted this. But, I got this PM from Gravy about this thread.

Hi, gc.

I had sent this PM to tanabear, but he is apparently unwilling to post it here. Feel free to do so yourself. I strongly encourage you not to engage with such deliberately ignorant no-planers.

–Mark

Hi, tanabear.

What an odd thing to start a thread about. If you had a question for me, why didn't you ask me?

The graphic you reprinted shows the hole made by flight 77's right wing. It is not intended to show or describe the entirety of damage caused by that wing. It's simply a visual aid to help people understand in general what they're looking at.

I hope this was helpful to you. If you're confused abut other things on my site, please ask me. Feel free to print my response in that thread.

–Mark

[leftysergeant]

How do you know that the "damage" that was pointed out was caused by the tail? It is certainly not as long as the tail. It is at the incorrect angle according to the PBPR. As well, one can find cosmetic damage in many places on the Pentagon's facade.

How do you get it being at the incorrect angle? The plane was in a left bank. The tail print slants away to the left. Where are you saying it should have been?

[tanabear]

Not sure if anyone posted this. But, I got this PM from Gravy about this thread.

I checked my messages late last night and I noticed that Mark Roberts had sent me a private message. I didn't see anyone reason to post it in this forum because it did not seem relevant in any way. I did send a private message back to Mark. I never said that I was a no planer. I'm not. I was asking questions regarding issues brought up by Pentagon Building Performance Report(PBPR) but were never answered by the report. The hole in the C-ring and the lack of tail damage to the facade were the most glaring. It is incumbent on the government to prove their claims and state what happened, not people posting in internet forums. The PBPR should have stated why the tail did not damage the facade of the building. Did it fell off beforehand, broke off upon impact, where did it impact, where was it found etc? None of this was done. It just brings up the issue and then drops it as if it is not important to explain.

How do you get it being at the incorrect angle? The plane was in a left bank. The tail print slants away to the left. Where are you saying it should have been?

It was slanted slightly to left, but not as much as shown by the supposed "cosmetic" damage. Look at figure 6.1 on page 35 of the report (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) (Page 23 if PDF viewing I believe). It shows the angle at which the plane hit the Pentagon. The tail would have to be much more tilted to the left than it was in that diagram. This would also change the where the right wing and horizontal stabilizer hit the building. Also you can see the tail extend up all the way up to the fourth floor of the Pentagon. The "cosmetic" damage doesn't show that. As well, what about the "cosmetic" damage on the other columns. If the tail did hit at that angle, then what about the damage caused by the horizontal stabilizer and right wing?

[gc051360]

The PBPR should have stated why the tail did not damage the facade of the building.
why is that significant? I fail to see the significance.

Do you think a plane hit the Pentagon?

None of this was done. It just brings up the issue and then drops it as if it is not important to explain.
I would agree that it is not important to explain. I don't care what angle the wing broke apart, what imprint it left etc. etc.

I have evidence a plane crashed there. I have evidence which plane it was. That is enough for me. I will assume that the rest of the damage was due to the plane, unless you have some evidence of some second source of damage.

I guess some may consider that a bit obtuse, but I like to keep things simple.

[cloudshipsrule]

So are you saying that tail of a Boeing 757 wouldn't create any structural damage to the facade of the Pentagon? The weakest link of the plane made it through the towers. Shouldn't it have at least knocked off portions of the concrete facade?

You are assuming the tail remained at the same height during the duration of the impact. Do you actually think the plane impacted and entered the building like a cartoon? No one knows if the tail even remained attached to the plane by the time the 'tail-end' of the plane reached the wall.

It is an unimportant, trivial piece of information to be seeking, and does nothing to discredit any plausible, official explanation of the damage.

[Myriad]

There's another possibility to consider regarding the behavior of the tail in the collision. If the impact of the fuselage and wings resulted in fragments ricocheting outward off the strong wall surface (think crater ejecta), which seems a reasonable possibility, then those fragments might have shredded and crumpled the relatively fragile tail before it reached the wall.

I don't imagine the tail was designed to fly at 500 miles per hour through a cloud of gravel moving at 100 or 200 mph in the opposite direction.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[CurtC]

It is incumbent on the government to prove their claims and state what happened

Uh, no. It's not their job to prove to crazy people that a plane actually hit the Pentagon.

[ElMondoHummus]

The PBPR should have stated why the tail did not damage the facade of the building. Did it fell off beforehand, broke off upon impact, where did it impact, where was it found etc? None of this was done. It just brings up the issue and then drops it as if it is not important to explain.


No disrespect intended, and I don't mean to pile on either, but I don't see why the PBR needed to address that. It was a "Building Performance Report", and the thrust was towards describing the substantive damage that compromised the structure in the imapct zone. It wasn't written to account for every piece of the airplane, nor was it intended to document anything less than the damage that threatened or contributed to the local structural failures; you'll note that there's not much discussion of the smoke damage or discoloration from the fires, for example. That is mere cosmetic damage, irrelevent to the integrity or the failure of structural integrity. So if the tail didn't cause substantive damage to the structure, then there was no reason for the authors to account for its location or effect on the building.

Remember, the PBR and the NIST WTC reports are oriented towards identifying how the structure failed with an eye towards the goal of reviewing and possibly changing buildings codes. They don't exist to be encyclopedias of the events. That's something we all have to keep in mind when we discuss these reports.