I was watching this video and it starts to address the issue of the C ring at the 1:03:50 time mark. Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw She talked about this analysis by Michael Meyer. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/335425.shtml I'll copy and paste the article in case the link goes dead as they often do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, by Michael Meyer, a Mechanical Engineer author: Michael Meyer repost I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads). EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C: American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls--a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole. It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner,... A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon by Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer To the members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven: I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and why it is a physically provable fact that some of the damage done to the Pentagon could not have occurred from a Boeing 757 impact, and therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a cover-up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I will only speak from my professional opinion. But I will explain why I do not believe the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757. I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads). The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around managing the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to near-atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure region of cruising altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind. If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely. The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel. This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy, impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous wall with windows etc. is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact, and subsequent buckling of the aircraft. We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see below) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.) EXIT HOLE IN PENTAGON RING-C American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, is alleged to have punched through 6 blast-resistant concrete walls‹a total of nine feet of reinforced concrete‹before exiting through this hole. It is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion. How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with an explosive shaped charge. An explosive shaped charge, or cutting charge is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is referred to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind the initial shaped charge to enter whatever has been penetrated. I do not know what happened on 9/11, I do not know how politics works in this country, I can not explain why the mainstream media does not report on the problems with the 9/11 Commission. But I am an engineer, and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges are used to "cut" through materials. I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757 incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release. You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757. Sincerely, Michael Meyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here are some pictures of the hole. https://www.google.es/search?q=pent...ved=0ahUKEwjlgZDD9ODMAhUDPRoKHXxKAFsQ_AUIBigB This seems to be another of the many anomalies that prove the official story is a lie*. If Blues63 wants to respond to this, I'd like him to address this issue that he's been avoiding first. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=452072&page=15&p=1066163607#post1066163607 * http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060
AAL77 punched through 1 reinforced wall; the outer wall. The C-Ring exit hole is not reinforced, it is only plain brick and you can even see so in the pictures. There are no walls between the E-Ring and C-Ring on the floors that AAL77 impacted. /Thread http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz
What about all of the pillars between the outer wall and the C ring? The guy is an expert and he says the hole is consistent with its having been made with an explosive charge. Tell us how a big enough chunk of the plane made it though all of those walls and pillars and made a hole that was consistent with explosives. (2nd picture from the top on the left side) http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/inside.html
The guy is an "expert", yet calls the punch out hole of the Pentagon, shown below, a "reinforced concrete" wall. Does that wall look like "reinforced concrete" or does it look like it was made of bricks? Consistent with an explosive charge? Do the following two holes look like explosive charges were used? Do the two holes look like the Pentagon hole above? I guess, using the same logic, that we can be assured that a car crashed through the Pentagon wall above because it looks consistent with other car crashed through brick walls.
The main part of the argument is that nothing as solid as those cars could have made it through all of those pillars and walls intact enough to make that hole. Also, the fronts of those two cars don't look damaged enough to have made those holes. Is there a video of this?
No, the main point is that the argument is invalid because it is based on incorrect information. There wasn't 9' feet worth of reinforced concrete walls.Case in point, the photo I posted above of the exit hole. It's made of brick, not reinforced concrete. The hole is also consistent with cars crashing through them. Did you check into any of this expert's claims or did you take them at face value because he IS a proclaimed expert?
Don't you suppose that if the Pentagon could prove that AA77 struck the building it would? Don't you suppose that will all the surveillance cameras on the exterior of the building that airplane would have been captured on video? Why is it that all the Pentagon chose to show the public was 4 or 5 frames from a parking lot camera? And why is it that the object captured on that video is much too small to be a 757? In this day and age, Common Sense still works for analytical thinkers.
How many cameras do you think were in the exterior of the building? You must have an approximate number to state "all the surveillance cameras"? And of those cameras, how many were pointed in the direction of the plane when it happened? See above question as it pertains to this also. It was a plane/757. Below is information from David Chandler from earlier this year. http://911speakout.org/?page_id=821 http://911blogger.com/news/2016-03-13/blink-comparator-shows-plane-pentagon-0 Not all the time.
First of all there's a lot of other proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. As was pointed out in post #7, the photo released by the government shows that whatever hit the Pentagon was too small to be a 757. http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif More here... September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M (1:55:25 time mark) You're not considering the pillars. Tell us how a chunk of the plane that was big enough to make that hole could have gotten through all of those pillers. Start watching the above video at the 2:04:30 time mark; there's an expert that explains that the fuselage is too flimsy to make it through all of those walls and pillars and make that hole which is consistent with an explosion. Also, those pictures of the cars in post #4 look bogus to me; I would think the front ends would have some major dents in them. They look like pictures put together by sophists who didn't want to ruin the cars, or maybe that wasn't the original intention of the people who set that up and those pictures were found and used by government sophists. A college degree is nothing to sneeze at. Anyway, there is lots of other proof that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon so this issue isn't about whether the government did it; it's about how the government did it.
David Chandler disagrees with you. You know who he is right? http://911speakout.org/?page_id=821 http://911blogger.com/news/2016-03-13/blink-comparator-shows-plane-pentagon-0 I agree. Sounds like it matters to you as long as the person with the degree has the same beliefs as you. Chandler has a degree so why isn't what he says in the links above valid?
I'll google around and see what I can find. Start watching this video at the 2:13:36 time mark. September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M At the 2:17:50 time mark it explains that the footage from one of the camera was doctored. In the fourth picture from the top of this page... http://911speakout.org/?page_id=821 ...there is a blurry image of what they want us to think is the 757. It's still too short to be a 757. Here's the same photo. http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/dodvideos.html It can hardly be seen in that photo. If there were something there, it would be blocking the trees in the background even if it were blurry. It might be too far away for the low resolution to pick up the shadow of the plane but the fact that it's not blocking the trees shows that there's nothing there. They released some doctored videos to cause confusion. There's still the fact that the fuselage of a 757 is too flimsy to make it through all of those walls and pillars and make a hole in the C ring that's consistent with its having been made with explosives.
Definitely. I find his work was good when it came to the Twin Towers, but he wasn't nearly as careful when it came to the Pentagon attack. I strongly believe CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth are the true experts here. CIT issued a response article to his "Joint Statement" with Jonathan Cole here: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam...chandler-and-jonathan-cole-pentagon-statement
At the 1:26 time mark of this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8 ...the blurry object they want us to think is the 757 can be seen. The hole in the C ring and the inconsistancy of the facade with a 757's having hit it pretty much show that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon. We can deduce that the blurry image was put there after the picture was taken to cause confusion.
You mean TWO walls right? The exit wall being made of bricks? You handwaved away the fact that your "expert" based his "opinion" on a few incorrect "facts". Why is that? There were two walls and the exit wall was not reinforced concrete. How did your "expert" miss that?
But the folks that are telling you that there is a 757/plane in those photos are: 1. David Chandler; physics teacher 2. Jonathan Cole; civil engineer Aren't credentials the reason you believed Michael Meyer regarding what he wrote and you posted at the beginning of this thread?
I hate to pop the conspiracy bubble here but a famous female journalist was killed when that airplane hit the Pentagon. Just as you can take a common hammer and flatten a lead bullet, still that bullet at speed can punch a hole through steel. Eye witnesses saw the airplane cross the freeway and head into the Pentagon. Then the building design. Bear in mind the Pentagon was built with a lot of flimsy walls inside. The fact is this. The airplane was lost. The airplane crashed. No person to date has shown the airplane crashing someplace other than the Pentagon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson Ted lost his wife at the Pentagon so people thinking she was not there need to send him a note to disclose to him where his wife is.
Scott, How about you just admit that the claim by the "expert" engineer in your opening post is based on incorrect information as shown by myself and others in this thread. You have been shown, at the very least, that there were no interior reinforced concrete walls, yet you still continue to ask about the plane passing through "all those walls".
According to this video... Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw (1:01:00 time mark) ...only the outer wall was upgraded in case of a terrorist attack. What the other walls were made of is kind of vague. https://www.google.es/search?q=pent...ved=0ahUKEwjlgZDD9ODMAhUDPRoKHXxKAFsQ_AUIBigB I see some bricks but I see some rebar behind the bricks and if there's rebar, there's probably concrete. According to the above video the outer wall wasn't just a reinforced concrete wall. Look at the video at the 1:02:14 time mark. When Michael Meyer said reinforced concrete wall, I don't think he was referring to the kind of wall that the outer wall was. Can you post something that specifically shows what the inner walls were made of? I googled around and couldn't find anything clear. This issue should be easy to clear up once we get the right info. Anyway, if the inner walls weren't upgraded like the outer one was, there are still several of them. The main argument here is the pillars; I asked you about that in post #9. Here's my quote. You never addressed this. Also, the fact that the craft behind the gate-lifting mechanism in this picture is too small to be a 757 renders this issue moot. http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif They're analyzing the blurry object in this frame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8 (1:26 time mark) That's something that was released by the government so it's suspect as the US government is famous for lying. It's plausible that the blurry object was inserted by the government. There are lots of pictures of flybys at similar distances and I've never seen anything as blurry as that object. https://www.google.es/search?q=jet+...ved=0ahUKEwi0_Z6e8-XMAhVEPxoKHTbIA2kQ_AUIBygC
Here's a picture. https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-34bfe93e9cbf5b6637d4d76922721a0c?convert_to_webp=true
You're right about this. There are still the pillars though. Please explain how something big enough to make that hole could get past those pillars.
I'm watching this a little at a time. Behind the Smoke Curtain - 2nd Edition (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw At the 1:34:25 time mark it says that the head of joint chiefs of staff could smell cordite at the Pentagon. What do the pro-official version posters say to this?
hahahaha!!!! that's only the top floors. the first floor didn't have 6 walls to break through, only 2 walls. the exterior wall and the interior courtyard wall.
