Pentagon Collapse

[PhantomWolf]

You know, we hear so much about the collapses of the WTC towers and Buildings 7, but not one Truther says anything about the collapse of the Pentagon. Why is that? The upper floors of the Pentagon collapsed from the fire weakening the steel supports, just as the Towers and 7 did, yet they don't seem to have even noticed it and accept that the fire and damage caused that progressive collapse. We don't hear them claiming that the Pentagon was collapsed via a controlled demolition. So if the Pentagon, which also had a lot of Concrete structure, can collapse, why can't the Towers?

 

[Spindrift]

Because it didn't go "Clunkity Clunk"?

 

[Drs_Res]

Let's see:

<start truther logic>

The building is shorter than the towers and #7, so its top is closer to the ground.
Since the top is closer to the ground it is more likely to collapse than the towers or #7 since the center of gravity is closer to the ground.
Since the center of gravity is closer to the ground, the pull of gravity is stronger on the pentagon.

It's only common sense.

</truther logic>

 

[gumboot]

Actually, interestingly enough they approach The Pentagon very differently to the WTC. At the WTC, with the larger 767s, the damage is excessive.

At The Pentagon, with the smaller 757, there's nowhere near enough damage.

One of the earliest 9/11 claims I heard was that a 757 carried enough fuel to blow up the entire Pentagon. I [rule8] you not.

-Gumboot

 

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Let's see:

<start truther logic>

The building is shorter than the towers and #7, so its top is closer to the ground.
Since the top is closer to the ground it is more likely to collapse than the towers or #7 since the center of gravity is closer to the ground.
Since the center of gravity is closer to the ground, the pull of gravity is stronger on the pentagon.

It's only common sense. I'm just asking questions.

</truther logic>

fixed!

 

[Drs_Res]

Thanks. How could I forget that. :headslap:

 

[Drudgewire]

Because it didn't go "Clunkity Clunk"?

Probably not that far off. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the fact there's no video of the collapse to exploit on youtube.

 

[Sabrina]

Actually, interestingly enough they approach The Pentagon very differently to the WTC. At the WTC, with the larger 767s, the damage is excessive.

At The Pentagon, with the smaller 757, there's nowhere near enough damage.

One of the earliest 9/11 claims I heard was that a 757 carried enough fuel to blow up the entire Pentagon. I [rule8] you not.

-Gumboot

Are you SERIOUS?

You'd have to hit EACH SIDE of the Pentagon with a plane full of jet fuel for there to be any appreciable damage to the building. I'm not saying the damage on 9/11 wasn't extensive there (184 lives lost proves that) but the building is at least a square mile in size; the area that collapsed comprised probably a twentieth to a thirtieth of the entire size of the building. The rest of the wing was still usable after some cleanup in the area closest to the collapse, as I recall. Someone actually BELIEVED that?

I grow more and more convinced that the twoofers collectively have only a double-digit IQ level with each passing day, I swear to God.

 

[MG1962]

The whole damage pattern of the Pentagon is interesting. Built accidently almost like a fortress, the support columns are actually double re-inforced concrete

Many think this was because of the military application of the building. In reality it was slated as the national archive, and needed the extra strengthening to take the weight of loaded filing cabinets