See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 Pentagon Explosion:9:45 AM
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_g1buWhAA
Published: Apr 9, 2007
Author: youtube
Post Date: 2007-04-09 19:31:02 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 10436
Comments: 114
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ_g1buWhAA
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#58. To: Ferret Mike (#43)
thanks Ferret Mike for showing us that quote from General Partin. General Partin is not a TREASONOUS QUEER! unlike someone I know on this board. It makes me feel sad that Partin wrote that letter with his analysis to all 535 congressmen & senators as I know that virtually none of them do anything but support the official story. They're traitors. and no doubt some of them are TREASONOUS QUEERS! as well.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Thought as much. There is no damn way a semi-pilot defeated ground effect that would have bounced that plane like a flat stone skipping across water and put it into that building at it's most impact resistant point so far away from it's nerve center. There were too many important people in that building for the plotters to trust the el Qaeda plotters to be allowed to plow that plane into it. They used a missile, and shot the aircraft in question down long before it would have gotten there. A decoy plane was flow over the Pentagon shortly before impact which has fooled many folks who were there that day which would account for much off the eyewitness testimony a large planer was seen. But 9-11 was undeniably an inside job, and no large commercial A/C hit anything in D.C. that day.
lol
The worst decision you can make is if you feel you can do so little that you do nothing at all.~Frosty Wooldridge
Then you'd better take a look at post #42, Tommy. And there are plenty of more pictures where those came from. They show what is clearly a plane shaped hole in what was a reinforced outer wall. The hole is clearly on the order of 80 to 90 feet wide. And there is damage on both sides of the outer face beyond that ... out to where one would expect given the size of Flight 77. Now mind you, experts do not suggest that those portions of the wings and tail that contained no fuel penetrated the building. It is the mass of that fuel that allowed that to happen. Here's a few links you might want to visit if you really want to know the facts about the damage: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html You've only looked at a photo taken from the direction that the plane came. Why, with a basic understanding of physics, would you expect debris to bounce back along a roughly 45 degree trajectory relative to the face of the structure in the direction the plane came from at hundreds of miles an hour? Basic physics tells you that any debris should continue in the direction the plane was moving after bouncing off the wall (like a pool ball striking a pool table wall at an angle that's not 90 degrees). And if you look down range of the impact site, you find plenty of debris in the photos. Here are a couple: and A PLANE THAT SIZE, IN ORDER TO HIT THE PENTAGON AS LOW AS IT DID, WOULD HAVE DESTROYED A GOOD 300 yards of lawn on the way up. No, if you compare the dimensions of the plane (and remember, the landing gear were up) to the size of the hole, you will see that the plane easily fits in that hole without the engine touching the ground. Now the engine did apparently hit the construction generator that was some distance in front of the building. You don't know what you are talking about, Tommy. Here is a drawing of a 757 with dimensions. The diameter of the fuselage is about 13 feet. The engines appear to extend 4 to 5 feet below the bottom edge of the fuselage. So the distance from the center of the fuselage (which is actually above the nose of the aircraft) to the bottom of the engines would be at most 12 feet. Just as a check on the above, here's a site that looks at the dimensions of the Pentagon hole and 757 in detail. http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm It states that the distance from the "Top of the fuselage to bottom engines. (landing gear was up)" is 17.7 feet According to that site, the width of the fuselage is 12.5 feet. Take 6.25 feet from 17.7 feet and you get about 11.5 feet from the center of the fuselage to the bottom of the engines. Now let's look at the hole in the structure. Turns out it is 20-25 feet from the top of the central hole to the ground. Notice that the top of the holes on each side of the main hole are about midway down ... say 10-13 feet. What does that tell you? Here's another drawing of a 757 from what I would assume a good source. Now if those drawings are to scale, then the tail sticks up about as much above the top of the fuselage as the top fuselage is above the ground. This photo of a 757 would seem to confirm that: So if the top of the tail is 44 feet above the ground, then the top of the fuselage, with the wheels on the ground can only be about 22 feet. Now, look at the drawing again. The top of the wing is about 40% of the way down from the top of the fuselage (again confirmed by the photo). Thus, the top of the wing must be about 12 to 13 above the ground, with the wheels extended. In other words, even with the wheels extended below the engines, the top of the wing would still be at about the top of the damage that REAL experts say is caused by the wings. And the wheels weren't down that day according to eyewitnesses. And from a link I provide earlier (http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html ) is this, Tommy. ******** "The following graphic from the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report (2003: 20), shows schematically what the orientation of the plane to the building would have been like when the nose made impact (before the wings reached the facade)." ******** So you don't know what you are talking about. You really need to take a look at this: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html "In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence -- primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757."
Your memory is wrong. See post # 61.
Just like any moron can tell the WTC towers collapsed due to bombs. Right, Ricky?
Yes he is. So why don't you believe him?
Well there are hundreds of thousands of pilots who are not commercial pilots. Is there reason for not joining the Pilots For *Truth* also fear of losing their jobs and license? And what about commercial pilots from foreign countries. Do you think the US government has a stranglehold on them too?
Do you know that he also thinks assertions that the WTC towers were demolitions is nonsense too?
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/who-is-colonel-donn-de-grand-pre.html "Who Is Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre?"
You're wasting your time, sport. There isn't anything you can post I haven't already reviewed and considered. I didn't arrive at my conclusions lightly or quickly. I have one major advantage over you. I've actually worked at NORAD headquarters inside Cheyenne Mountain, so all your piffle as a loyal Bushie means absolutely nothing. It was an inside job, and only the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense could have seen to it that no aerial interference by NORAD occurred. So wake up, Little Snoozie.
What you don't seem to understand, Paul, is that I'm not really posting to you. You also know nothing about me. Would a loyal Bushie have accused Bush and his administration of helping coverup a mass murder by someone(s) in the Clinton administration? Would a loyal Bushie be as critical as I have been about Bush's immigration policies? Would a loyal Bushie say that Bush is wrong about CFR, education spending and the senior drug plan? You don't know me, Paul. Maybe, maybe not, but you will NOT find the truth if you keep spouting what is provably nothing but disinformation about the damage at the Pentagon and the nature of the debris they found there. All you will do is discredit the rest of your allegations.
I actually DO know what I'm talking about, because I saw what the model did to the pristine surface of the scaled landscape the client made. For the plane to physically be able to do what it did without breaking into a bazillion pieces, the engines would have dug big ruts into the ground. ESPECIALLY if you take a look at where those lightpoles were apparently struck that you so fondly point out. For a guy who endorses the official story, I'd think you'd get some better handlers.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
What do you think the dimensions of a 757 are? With and without landing gear down, how high is the top of the fuselage? What's the diameter of the fuselage? How far below the top of the fuselage is the top of the wings? How far below the bottom of the fuselage do the engines drop? And what do you think the dimensions of the hole in the pentagon seen in that photo I posted are, Tommy? How high above the ground is it? How high is the winged shaped hole to the left of the central hole? Because I say the answers to these questions show you don't know what you are talking about. Tommy, the plane did break into a bazillion pieces. No Tommy, the location where those lightpoles were struck doesn't say that at all. Did you even bother to look at these? http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html Apparently not.
The pictures of the hole that I have seen, are a LOT lower than the CG picture you have posted. In fact, the pictures I have seen, show the hole being right at ground level. The engines extend roughly 5 feet lower than the fuselage. For it to have flown that low, knocking down the various light poles, and remained at ground level, it would have dug ruts into the lawn, which it did not. For the official story to work, the plane would have had to have come in at roughly a 30 degree angle, and struck nose first at a downward trajectory, as opposed to the near belly landing that is shown in all of the pictures that endorse the government story. The funny thing about how it would have had to have hit the building, is that there would have been MUCH MORE damage done to not only the exterior, but the upper portions of the building prior to the collapse of the structure. But hey, don't let me confuse you with any kind of reality check, you just go ahead and keep on telling your stories.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/25136/jumbo_jet_crash/ I suggest you take a look at this video. In fact, I suggest everyone take a look at this video. Notice what happens when it reaches the approximate height of where it supposedly hit the Pentagon according to BAC. IT FALLS STRAIGHT DOWN. Also, take a look at what it does all over the tarmac. Wonder why it didn't happen that way at the Pentagon?
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
By all means ... post your pictures. I bet you don't. Because you are wrong. Wouldn't the light poles be knocked down if a wing or engine clipped one near the top? That's what eyewitnesses say happened. And how high are those lightpoles, Tommy. Certainly more than a few feet. Why? That's not what the damage to the lightpoles, generator, fence and structure say. That's not what the vast majority of the eyewitnesses say happened. You are just making up a number, Tommy. Why not say 90 degrees. It would be just as valid. So go on, Tommy ... post those pictures you have of the hole in the exterior of the structure. Prove to us the top of the hole was a LOT lower than what I posted. Dare you.
http://lawn.1accesshost.com/_webimages/tomhoran_pentagonfromriverhouse.big2.JPG http://911lies.org/images2/16_foot_hole_pentagon.jpg http://911lies.org/images2/calculating_757_size_pentagon.jpg http://www.freedom-force.org/pics/pentagon_composite.jpg You ask, and you shall receive. It has to suck to be you. I mean, you must think the entire planet is dumber than you. Do your friends think you're smart? If so, are they as dumb as fence posts? They'd have to be, in order to tolerate your incessant bullying, and your outright superiority complex you seem to have. Maybe if you weren't so strident, people would actually enjoy debating you. I learn a lot from your posts. It's unfortunate that you feel compelled to act like an asshole. Again, I await your input, as erroneous as it will inevitably be.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
NORAD stood down. There were no 9 feet across engines. The only airliner that hit the Pentagram is the one that exists in your mind and the minds of those who buy this fairy tale.
How do you reconcile the differences between the FDR data as released by the NTSB and the downed light poles which were not in the flight path according to FDR data?
#59. To: BTP Holdings (#55)
(Edited)
"The Colonel has never wavered one iota from his original position that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon."
#60. To: Red Jones (#58)
#61. To: TommyTheMadArtist, Paul Revere, ALL (#25)
Um... I don't remember seeing a plane shaped hole in the pentagon. I remember seeing a round hole, but not a plane shaped hole, because had there BEEN wings on the thing over 100 feet from tip to tip, There would have been much more lateral structural damage to the outer exterior of the building.
Not to mention an absence of plane parts on the lawn at the time of the explosion, or how pristine the ground was all the way up to the Pentagon.
How do I know? A private firm asked me to make a scale model of the plane in question for their research, and with everything to scale, the engines would have drug the ground in order for the fuselage to hit as low as it did.
#62. To: tom007, ALL (#27)
I am just going from memory here, but one analysis, measureing from the center of the pentagon's hole put the bottom of the engines nacellles (sp) eight feet into the ground.
#63. To: RickyJ, ALL (#31)
Doesn't really matter, flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, any idiot can see that.
#64. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#43)
Partin is a critic of the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing case.
#65. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#49)
One thing I know about commercial pilots having had a step-father who was a captain for Pan Am; they are chronically worried about their job and maintaining flight status
#66. To: BTP Holdings, ALL (#50)
Gen. Partin was the "go to guy" with anything concerning military style demolitions.
#67. To: BTP Holdings, Ferret Mike, ALL (#55)
The Colonel has never wavered one iota from his original position that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.
#68. To: BeAChooser (#42)
#69. To: Paul Revere, ALL (#68)
You're wasting your time, sport. There isn't anything you can post I haven't already reviewed and considered. I didn't arrive at my conclusions lightly or quickly.
so all your piffle as a loyal Bushie means absolutely nothing.
It was an inside job, and only the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense could have seen to it that no aerial interference by NORAD occurred.
#70. To: BeAChooser (#61)
#71. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#70)
I actually DO know what I'm talking about, because I saw what the model did to the pristine surface of the scaled landscape the client made.
For the plane to physically be able to do what it did without breaking into a bazillion pieces
the engines would have dug big ruts into the ground. ESPECIALLY if you take a look at where those lightpoles were apparently struck that you so fondly point out.
#72. To: BeAChooser (#61)
#73. To: BeAChooser (#71)
#74. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#72)
The pictures of the hole that I have seen, are a LOT lower than the CG picture you have posted. In fact, the pictures I have seen, show the hole being right at ground level.
The engines extend roughly 5 feet lower than the fuselage. For it to have flown that low, knocking down the various light poles, and remained at ground level, it would have dug ruts into the lawn, which it did not.
For the official story to work, the plane would have had to have come in at roughly a 30 degree angle
#75. To: BeAChooser (#74)
http://www.thetruth.mysite.com/pentagon%20hole.jpg
#76. To: BeAChooser (#69)
(Edited)
#77. To: BeAChooser (#42)
(Edited)
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#78. To: honway (#40)
What was released by the NTSB in the FOIA request ends one second before impact, so in that regard, it has to be considered incomplete. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is fake. I don't know if it is real or fake, but it does not jive with the official fairy tale. I think that either way it hurts the official fairy tale. If it is real, and the part where the plane flies past the Pentagon on to another end was left out, then the fairly tale is damned. If it is fake, then the only reason to fake it is to hide another end. Either way, the fairy tale loses.
If the data is not fake,the aircraft that produced the data crashed into the Pentagon because the data stopped at the reported time of impact and aircraft do not disappear into thin air.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#79. To: Paul Revere, robin, christine, AGAviator, bluedogtxn, Burkeman1 (#68)
It was an inside job, and only the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense could have seen to it that no aerial interference by NORAD occurred. FYI...
Paul Revere's response to BAC: I have one major advantage over you. I've actually worked at NORAD headquarters inside Cheyenne Mountain, so all your piffle as a loyal Bushie means absolutely nothing.
#80. To: beachooser, TommyTheMadArtist, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#71)
Oh, my God! More queerspeak from BAC. There's no suggestion of forward-moving airliner damage to the 9-11 Pentagon, BAC. I don't care how you try to present your lies. The biggest hole in the 9-11 Pentagon is approximately 17 feet. Deal with it, BAC, you limp-wristed liar, you.
#81. To: scrapper2 (#79)
Why did you quote that portion of my post?
#82. To: Paul Revere (#81)
For a person like me who is not a 9/11 truth teller signee but yet I'm one who can't accept the gubment's official story, your assertion is one more bit of information that confirms my suspicions. BushBots can argue about physics and combustibility but they can't argue the fact that NORAD was ordered to stand down on 9/11. That has been confirmed even by the gubment. That you say as a former NORAD employee ( assuming you are the real deal) that this curious order represented an important departure from procedure and demonstrated criminal knowledge on high is persuasive to me. And I thought posters who have expressed varying degrees of cynicism about the 9/11 official story should be flagged to your assertion as well. Welcome to 4um, PR.
Why did you quote that portion of my post?
#83. To: scrapper2 (#82) (Edited)
It's been many years since I was stationed at NORAD. I was there with the military, the Air Force. I held a Top Secret clearance and worked in a vault inside the mountain. I know that 9-11 could never have happened in earlier years of NORAD's existence, when our ability to track errant aircraft was not what it is today. NORAD has always prided itself on finding and scrambling on any threat in the air. In certain venues, the orders to get airplanes in the air occur as soon as certain listed events occur. If any of those events occur, such as near Washington, DC, it is mandatory that the fighters get into the air. I cannot imagine that protocol has changed. It was not until I read the materials that have gained currency the past two years that I learned of NORAD being under Cheney's control that day. The generals would never have let a second plane hit a target. There was a massive attempt on 9-11 to obscure the truth with layers of drills and war games, and that becomes more clear every month. I did not start questioning the events of 9-11 in earnest until I started investigating online and discovered the wealth of info that helps piece together this murky puzzle. The bogus calls from high flying aircraft, the bogus calls from low flying but fast flying aircraft, the lack of proper debris at the Pentagram, the unexplained collapse of WTC 7, the dearth of debris in Pennsylvania and the odd purported conversations from flt 93 passengers - the whole thing simply does not pass the smell test. I want to see this investigated thoroughly, by someone who isn't a CFR tool.
#84. To: Paul Revere (#83)
Well, you should talk to BeAChooser, because, that guy seems to have all of the answers. It's funny about the phone calls from the airplanes, because some people apparently were able to use their cell phones. In May of 2001, I bought a state of the art cell phone. This thing got phenomenal reception, and to this day kicks ass all across the board when it comes to connectivity, and reception. Problem is, when I flew to San Diego, and back, I couldn't get a signal to save my life. Because when you fly in the air, you don't connect to cell towers. Funny how that fraud has never actually been duly explained. I wonder if BAC has an answer for that one. Oh I'm sure he'll come up with the excuse that the phones in the seats of the plane are how they made the calls. Well, with that said, that would be a likely scenario, UNFORTUNATELY, the people who received those calls, had them on their caller ID I would wager. I would also wager that they could easily have the calls checked to see who called whom from where, as the federal government has the innate ability to know when and who you're talking to, going back as far as you own your phone.
Dying for old bastards, and their old money, isn't my idea of freedom.
#85. To: BeAChooser (#65)
I think the organization's focus of interest is one primarily of interest to airline pilots, and if they are too timid to join out of job fears, you are not going to get other types of commercial pilots to join.
"Well there are hundreds of thousands of pilots who are not commercial pilots. Is there reason for not joining the Pilots For *Truth* also fear of losing their jobs and license? And what about commercial pilots from foreign countries. Do you think the US government has a stranglehold on them too?"
#86. To: TommyTheMadArtist, BeAChooser (#84)
If BAC was anything more then a propagandist, he would agree with some things in the purview of what the truth movement covers and disagree on other things. The polarized and very black and white nature of his spectrum of views on this range of topics says he is either one of the informal or formal Internet spin doctors on the issue, or just a contrary fussbudget who derives a prurient and twisted pleasure at conducting pissing in everyone's lunch operations. One should never feed him by using anger or flaming as if this is a source of pleasure and sport for him to invoke such a response, one should never ever feed it.
"Well, you should talk to BeAChooser, because, that guy seems to have all of the answers."
#87. To: TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#75)
Ok, let's take a look at the photos you linked: Number 1: ROTFLOL! Tommy, you just proved you don't know what you are talking about. That's the EXIT hole on the INTERIOR of the building, not the ENTRANCE hole on the EXTERIOR. Number 2: This one gave a hotlinking error. Number 3: ROTFLOL! Tommy, that circle is NOT where the fuselage of the plane hit. It's highlighting something to the RIGHT of where the fuselage hit. In the area hit by the wing. Look at these two images and you will see what I mean: Number 4: ROTFLOL! Tommy, if anything that image proves that the top of the fuselage was AT LEAST the height I claimed. In that image it is depicted as being about 3.5/10ths the height of the building ... i.e., .35*77 = 27 feet. Number 5: ROTFLOL! Tommy, that composite isn't nearly as good as the one I posted and it only proves you wrong. Here's my composite: Now if the top of the building is 77 feet, how high do you think the top of the central hole in that image is? Perhaps even more than 25 feet. Number 6: ROTFLOL! Tommy, you posted another picture of the EXIT hole in the inner ring, not the EXTERIOR hole. ROTFLOL! Tommy, you again only prove my point. You claim you built a model to scale? Let's see if you understand scale. The top of the building is about 77 feet high. The drawings I posted indicate that the height of the tail of the plane WITH THE LANDING GEAR DOWN is 44 feet. Now does that image really look to scale given that the landing gear aren't even down in it? I'm not so sure. But assume the perspective is just fooling me and that the rendition is to scale.What does your ruler tell you the height of the top of the fuselage is in that photo? A third the height of the building? Let's see ... that would be 26 feet. Right, Tommy. What ever you say.
You ask, and you shall receive.
http://www.thetruth.mysite.com/pentagon%20hole.jpg
http://lawn.1accesshost.com/_webimages/tomhoran_pentagonfromriverhouse.big2.JPG
http://911lies.org/images2/16_foot_hole_pentagon.jpg
central hole and right side damage 
Right side damage. 
http://911lies.org/images2/calculating_757_size_pentagon.jpg 
http://www.freedom-force.org/pics/pentagon_composite.jpg
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/hole.jpg
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg
It has to suck to be you.
#88. To: BeAChooser (#87) (Edited)
Not convincing. Those engines so large and heavy should have a strong impact signature against the building, and/or have made considerable damage to the lawn and exterior impact effected area by their own right. But all we see is an undersized hole allegedly created by the aluminum bubble of a fuselage. We hear unreasonable crap about how much of the jet was disintegrated in the fire that had the odor of burning explosives early on as per comments of many of the survivors, not jet fuel. This small impact signature was from a missile or small jet rigged with explosives, not from a large jetliner which would have had tonnes of engine metal battering the building and left a huge volume of torn apart fuselage all over the lawn from the lighter structural material of the fuselage the was torn apart and spread as the elements of high material mass pierced the building. It is just unreasonable to pretend this lighter material would be spread so differently in this alleged jet impact when it has never happened in other aviation disasters.
#89. To: Ferret Mike, honway, ALL (#86)
How do you know I don't? I've only been saying that you will not find the truth on a foundation of misinformation and lies. And have pointed out the sort of misinformation and lies that are being promoted by the *Truth* movement. You might be interested in knowing that honway once posted a long list of questions about 9/11 at LP. My response to it was to say they were "good questions that deserved answers" and then point out a couple of items in the list that were outright false and thus detracted from the list. My message to you is that if you want answers to the good questions, you need to eliminate the misinformation in what post. If you won't do that, you will never get answers to the good questions because you will be easily discredited in most eyes.
If BAC was anything more then a propagandist, he would agree with some things in the purview of what the truth movement covers and disagree on other things.
#90. To: BeAChooser (#87)
Throw a Christmas tree ornament against a solid wall BAC. It would more closely resemble the realities of a reinforced concrete wall being hit by the mostly air reality of the aluminum bubble of an aircraft. There should have been a huge field of debris from the preponderance of material unable to pierce and enter that reinforced and very strong structure. But all we see are easily hand seeded 'alibi' pieces of debris, all we have is a relatively clean scene of a crime where Bush and company tried vainly to simulate an impact to have their cake and eat it too: A situation where the messy and unreliable el Qaeda plotters were not allowed to hit the wrong area of the building or miss it entirely -- or go for a more attractive and easier to find target like the White House or Capitol. A situation where they got the public galvanizing effect a false flag operation attempts to invoke, without all the messy range of possible bad outcomes becoming a reality. The Washington part of the staged demolition is particularly troubling for people like you who shill for criminals because it is one where it is painfully obvious in a far more black and white manner that things are not as this Administration would claim them to be.
#91. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#88)
They did. There are HOLES in a blast hardened exterior wall where those engines hit. And recognizable portions of the engines were found well inside the structure. You obviously didn't spend more than a microsecond looking at the photos I've posted. You will only end up discrediting yourself by doing that. First of all, I believe I recall ONE survivor who claimed to smell the odor of explosives. Turned out she was a lawyer and probably didn't know what explosives actually smell like. Many witnesses said they smelled aviation fuel. Well I leave it up to the readers to decide if the images I posted (with plane shaped holes over 90 feet wide) and links to descriptions of the extensive damage to the Pentagon fit in with your theory of a missile or small jet with explosives. My bet is that you will only end up discrediting yourself by insisting it does. But you were warned.
Those engines so large and heavy should have a strong impact signature against the building,
But all we see is an undersized hole allegedly created by the aluminum bubble of a fuselage.
We hear unreasonable crap about how much of the jet was disintegrated in the fire that had the odor of burning explosives early on as per comments of many of the survivors, not jet fuel.
This small impact signature was from a missile or small jet rigged with explosives,
#92. To: BeAChooser (#89)
Because it is obvious you don't. You are dishing up Bull droppings as if they are food for thought, ignoring the troubling contradictions and lack of foundation to such evidential claims quite willfully. And you are enjoying the hunt to do a good baiting far too much to give credence to your claim as an impartial truth seeker. How's that thought for you?
"How do you know I don't?"
#93. To: Ferret Mike, TommyTheMadArtist, ALL (#90)
All you demonstrate is that you don't know the first thing about impact. Ever seen a photo of a piece of STRAW driven into a telephone pole? What you forget is that mass is important and the mass of the entire fuselage sections was considerable. Likewise the mass of the wings, engines, and the fuel in the wings was considerable. Combine that mass with a high velocity and you do indeed get something that can penetrate reinforced concrete. And experts in impact problems around the world have looked at the Pentagon case and NOT ONE has voiced a view in line with yours. NOT ONE. Which leads me to suspect that you don't know what you are talking about. Just like Tommy.
Throw a Christmas tree ornament against a solid wall BAC. It would more closely resemble the realities of a reinforced concrete wall being hit by the mostly air reality of the aluminum bubble of an aircraft.
#94. To: BeAChooser (#93)
The straw in a tree invoked high interest in the 1950s when one was photographed because it demonstrably showed that a tornado has incredibly high velocities in a very focused manner to them. Whatever hit that building was not propelled there by a tornado. I am from an aviation family and my father -- who was a commercial pilot -- also worked for a time as an inspector at Pratt and Whitney aircraft. I have also seen first hand the aftermath of two light plane crashes. One was a Beech Baron that impacted the water tower at Hammonasset State park in Madison, Connecticut that had taken off from Griswold Field. The other was a Cessna that failed to make a go around to make an emergency landing at the airport in Florence, Oregon and hit guy wires slamming it into the ground. I have spent much time in my life talking about and learning about what happens to aircraft in crashes informally, and I don't care if you are not impressed by my reasoning abilities concerning them.
#95. To: BeAChooser (#93)
The bubble of a fuselage had a specific gravity considerably less then one -- which is the density of water -- and more resembles an aluminum bubble then an anvil of iron. The alleged aircraft hit obliquely and the resulting splash of flesh, aluminum and other material should have ricocheted against the wall and been all over that lawn. Cause and effect, another part of the physics of the crash as reported in the official story that does not add up.
"What you forget is that mass is important and the mass of the entire fuselage sections was considerable."
#96. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#94)
Actually, the velocity of tornados are LESS than the speed of Flight 77 at impact. An F5 (and that's a BIG tornado) has wind speeds up to 319 mph. Flight 77 was going over 500 mph. Again, you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about.
The straw in a tree invoked high interest in the 1950s when one was photographed because it demonstrably showed that a tornado has incredibly high velocities in a very focused manner to them. Whatever hit that building was not propelled there by a tornado.
#97. To: BeAChooser (#87)
These helicopters there before and shortly after the impact were very likely the source of control and guidance for what hit the Pentagon. Some extrapolate that a 737 stand-in did the damage in Washington and at the WTC in NYC. Myself, I am more disposed to finding a missile a far more likely source of the damage in Washington. And as for what people inside the Pentagon smelled, immediately after the event quite a number of them spoke of smelling Cordite. That part of damage control would be to contact these folks and get them to shut up or change their story comes as no surprise to me.
.
.
.
Comments (98 - 114) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest